The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education [1st Edition] 9780081005590, 9780081005538

Table of contents :
Content:
Front-matter,Copyright,List of Contributors,Biographies,The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in AsiaEntitled to full textChapter 1 - Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education, Pages 1-14, Moniroith Vann, Christopher Ziguras
Chapter 2 - Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education, Pages 15-33, Shuiyun Liu, Jian Liu
Chapter 3 - Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception, Pages 35-50, Jianrong Sun
Chapter 4 - Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience, Pages 51-66, Sudhanshu Bhushan, Ankita Verma
Chapter 5 - The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education, Pages 67-86, Kamanto Sunarto
Chapter 6 - Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues, Pages 87-108, Sulushash Kerimkulova, Aliya Kuzhabekova
Chapter 7 - Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges, Pages 109-125, Jang Wan Ko
Chapter 8 - Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education, Pages 127-141, Glenda Crosling
Chapter 9 - Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education, Pages 143-159, Baasanjav Tserendagva, Tungalag Jamts
Chapter 10 - The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand, Pages 161-171, Somwung Pitiyanuwat, Siridej Sujiva, Tan Pitiyanuwat
Chapter 11 - Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan: From Quality Control to Quality Assurance Culture, Pages 173-189, Alex Krouglov
Chapter 12 - Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education: A Top-Down Approach and Compliance-Driven QA, Pages 191-207, Quyen T.N. Do, Huong T. Pham, Kim D. Nguyen
Index, Pages 209-220

Citation preview

THE RISE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ASIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

THE RISE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ASIAN HIGHER EDUCATION

Edited by

MAHSOOD SHAH CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia

QUYEN T. N. DO Hanoi University of Business and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

Chandos Publishing is an imprint of Elsevier 50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, OX5 1GB, United Kingdom Copyright © 2017 Mahsood Shah and Quyen T.N. Do. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Notices Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress ISBN: 978-0-08-100553-8 (print) ISBN: 978-0-08-100559-0 (online) For information on all Chandos Publishing publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Glyn Jones Acquisition Editor: George Knott Editorial Project Manager: Katie Chan Production Project Manager: Omer Mukthar Designer: Christian Bilbow Typeset by MPS Limited, Chennai, India

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Sudhanshu Bhushan National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi, India Hamish Coates The University of Melbourne, Melbourne,VIC, Australia Glenda Crosling Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia; Monash University, Clayton,VIC, Australia Quyen T.N. Do Hanoi University of Business and Technology, Hanoi,Vietnam Tungalag Jamts Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Sulushash Kerimkulova Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan Jang Wan Ko Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea Alex Krouglov London Metropolitan University, London, United Kingdom Aliya Kuzhabekova Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan Jian Liu Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China Shuiyun Liu Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Kim D. Nguyen Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh,Vietnam Huong T. Pham University of Finance and Marketing, Ho Chi Minh,Vietnam Somwung Pitiyanuwat The Royal Council, Bangkok, Thailand Tan Pitiyanuwat Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand Mahsood Shah CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia Siridej Sujiva Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand xi

xii

List of Contributors

Jianrong Sun Macau University of Science and Technology, Taipa, Macau (SAR), China Kamanto Sunarto University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia Baasanjav Tserendagva University of the Humanities, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Moniroith Vann Ministry of Education,Youth and Sport, Phnom Penh, Cambodia Ankita Verma National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi, India Christopher Ziguras RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

BIOGRAPHIES Mahsood Shah is an Associate Professor and Deputy Dean (Learning and Teaching) with School of Business and Law at CQUniversity, Australia. Mahsood is responsible for enhancing the academic quality and standard of courses delivered by the Business School. Mahsood is also responsible for strategy, governance, effective implementation of policies, and enhancement of courses across all campuses. In providing leadership for learning and teaching, Mahsood works with key academic leaders across all campuses to improve learning and teaching outcomes of courses delivered in various modes including face-to-face, distance and online, and partnership. At CQUniversity, he provides leadership in national and international accreditation of courses. Mahsood is also an active researcher. His area of research strength includes: quality in higher education, measurement and enhancement of student experience, student retention and attrition, student engagement in quality assurance, international higher education, widening participation, and private higher education. Prior to joining CQUniversity, Mahsood led research at the school level at the University of Newcastle, Australia. Mahsood has also led strategic planning and quality assurance in three other Australian universities. Apart from working in universities, Mahsood have worked closely with more than 15 private for-profit higher education providers on projects related to quality assurance, compliance, accreditation and enhancement of learning and teaching. Mahsood has significant experience in external quality assurance. Mahsood is the founding editor of the journal International Studies in Widening Participation. Quyen T. N. Do completed her Ph.D. at Melbourne Center for the Study of Higher Education, the University of Melbourne, Australia. Her research interests include educational effectiveness, university governance, quality assurance and improvement, particularly accreditation and benchmarking. Quyen was previously Manager of Quality Assurance Research, Institute for Education Quality Assurance, Vietnam National University-Hanoi,Vietnam. Alex Krouglov holds degrees in translation and interpreting and a Ph.D. in sociolinguistics. He has taught at universities in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Ukraine. Before he joined xiii

xiv

Biographies

London Metropolitan University in 2007 he worked in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office in London. Alex has led and coordinated many EU (Tempus and Erasmus+) and British Council projects in Uzbekistan aimed at systemic reforms in the field of quality assurance in higher education, professional development of academic leaders, development of new programs on quality assurance for university managers and the use of ICT in quality enhancement. He has developed a new Erasmus+ project Internationalization and Modernisation of Education and Processes in the Higher Education of Uzbekistan (IMEP), which was approved for funding and started in October 2015. Alex has more than 100 publications on various aspects of teaching, applied linguistics, and quality assurance in higher education. Aliya Kuzhabekova is an assistant professor at the Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education, Kazakhstan. Aliya holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education Policy from the University of Minnesota. Prior to her current appointment Aliya worked as a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota, where she conducted research on governance of emerging technologies. Aliya’s research interests are in international and comparative higher education. Her current work focuses on the analysis of the experiences of international faculty in Kazakhstan, as well as on the barriers and factors contributing to university research capacity building in Kazakhstan. Ankita Verma works as a consultant for a project titled “Autonomy in Higher Education Institutions in India” with the Department of Higher and Professional Education at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration. Baasanjav Tserendagva, received her bachelor`s degree in linguistics majoring in English–Russian Translation from University of the Humanities, Mongolia, and her master’s degree in International Relations from the Graduate School of Asia–Pacific Studies, Waseda University, Japan in 2011. Baasanjav was a research student at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo, Japan, between 2007 and 2009. Baasanjav has worked as a lecturer at the University of the Humanities of Mongolia since 2004. Her research interests are higher education issues, such as quality assurance of higher education, assessment, curriculum, comparative and international education and cooperation. Baasanjav has participated in academic exchange programs between Waseda and Fudan University, Young Leaders’ Program organized by NEAEF, and has made a number of presentations and research papers in international and local

Biographies

xv

conferences including the Comparative and International Education Society Conference held in Washington D.C., in March 2015. Christopher Ziguras is a professor with research expertise in examining varied aspects of the globalization of education, particularly the ways in which governments and institutions manage and regulate cross-border provisions. His latest book is Governing Cross-Border Higher Education (Routledge, 2015). He is Deputy Dean, International in the social sciences at RMIT University, where he oversees a variety of international projects, ranging from intensive courses in Myanmar to an International Summer School in Melbourne. Chris received the RMIT University Vice-Chancellor's Distinguished Teaching Award in 2011, was Tony Adams Visiting Senior Scholar at the Center for Higher Education Internationalization at Università Cattolica Del Sacro Cuore in Milan in 2013, and he is currently President of the International Education Association of Australia. Glenda Crosling is a professor and academic expert based in Malaysia. She is currently Dean of Academic Enhancement at Sunway University in Malaysia, and Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University, Australia. At Sunway, she is responsible for initiating and implementing programs to enhance the academic portfolio and the student experience. Glenda has wide international experience in quality assurance in higher education: she was Inaugural Director of Education Quality and Innovation at Monash University in Malaysia from 2009 to 2012, and led the campus in the institutional audit, gaining self accrediting status from the Malaysian government. She was previously an AUQA Honorary Auditor, is now on the Register of Experts for TEQSA, and is a member of the Oman Quality Assurance Association. She has been an expert panel member for the institutional audit of Malaysian universities. Glenda has also completed the UK Quality Assurance Agency international program. She has researched and published widely on issues to do with educational development in higher education, in journal articles, books, and book chapters. Hamish Coates is a Professor of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne’s Center for the Study of Higher Education (CSHE). Through research and development, Hamish focuses on improving the quality and productivity of higher education. Core interests include large-scale evaluation, tertiary education policy, institutional strategy, assessment methodology, learner engagement, and academic work and leadership. He has initiated and led many projects, including numerous national and

xvi

Biographies

international surveys. Hamish was the Founding Director of Higher Education Research at the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER) from 2006 to 2013, and between 2010 and 2013 he was Program Director at the LH Martin Institute for Tertiary Leadership and Management. Jang Wan Ko is an associate professor and department chair in the Department of Education, and director of the Center for Teaching and Learning at Sungkyunkwan University in Korea. He holds a BA and an MA from Sungkyunkwan University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Missouri–Columbia in the United States. He served as a member of the Advisory Committee for the Ministry of Education in Korea and a senior research associate in the Office of Institutional Research and Reporting at George Mason University in the United States. He currently serves as president of the Korean Society for Adult & Continuing Education and is the executive director for the Korean Association for Higher Education. His research interests focus on higher education policy, financing higher education, comparative and international education, institutional effectiveness, and students learning outcomes. Jian Liu is an associate professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China. Jian received her Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, Canada, and conducted post-doctoral research at the University of Pennsylvania. Her research and teaching interests include equity, student development, policy studies, assessment in higher education, and comparative and international education. Prior to studying at the University of Toronto, Jian worked as an editor for China Education Daily. Jianrong Sun is an associate vice president for international affairs, and dean of the University International College of the Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau. Research interest includes assessment of student learning outcomes, e-learning assessment design, faculty development. Jianrong also holds a master’s in applied linguistics and a doctorate in higher education administration. Kamanto Sunarto is a professor emeritus of sociology, teaches parttime at the doctoral program of the Sociology Department of the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, the University of Indonesia, and was a member of the National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (2003–2012) and Chair (2006–2012). He obtained a bachelor’s degree in law from the University of Indonesia in1966 and a Ph.D. degree from the Department of Education, the University of Chicago, in 1980. He is member of Research Committee 04 (Sociology of Education) and 08 (History of Sociology) of the International Sociological Association.

Biographies

xvii

Kim D. Nguyen is the Vice Director General in charge of international relations and research in higher education, educational assessment, evaluation and accreditation of Institute for Educational Research (IER), Ho Chi Minh City University of Education (HCMC UoE). She has worked for IER for more than 10 years. Kim’s expertise includes educational management, leadership in education, quality assurance and accreditation, educational assessment, evaluation, student evaluation, and teaching methods. She has served various clients including the Ministry of Education and Training, departments of education and training, universities, colleges and schools in both public and private sectors. She has built and participated in extensive quality networks in Vietnam, both at central government and local levels in Ho Chi Minh City and Hanoi. Dr Moniroith Vann completed a B.Ed. at the Royal University of Phnom Penh and subsequently completed a Master of Education and Doctor of Philosophy at Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT University). His Ph.D. examined the development of quality assurance systems in Cambodian higher education. Moniroith is currently based in the Directorate General for Higher Education within the Cambodian Ministry of Education,Youth, and Sport. Pham Thi Huong holds a Ph.D. in quality assurance and accreditation from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. She is a vice director of Testing and Quality Assurance Office at University of Finance and Marketing, Ho Chi Minh City,Vietnam. Her areas of interest include internal and external quality assurance at tertiary level, quality culture in higher education, program development and evaluation, teaching English to major and nonmajor students, particularly translation, interpreting, and writing. Shuiyun Liu is an assistant professor in Faculty of Education, Beijing Normal University (China). Her main research interests include higher education, quality assessment, and educational policy. Dr. Liu got her Ph.D. from the Institute of Education (IOE), University of London in September 2011. Her doctoral research was funded by the Centenary Scholarship at the IOE. She has published several journal papers in Higher Education, Higher Education Policy, and Higher Education Management and Policy, etc. She has also contributed chapters to four books. Her book, Quality Assurance and Institutional Transformation: The Chinese Experience, will be published by Springer. Siridej Sujiva is an associate professor of Chulalongkorn University and Deputy Dean for Research Affairs of Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand. He received a B.Ed. (first class

xviii

Biographies

Hons.) and a Ph.D. in Educational Measurement and Evaluation from Chulalongkorn University. Previously, he was Head of the Educational Research and Psychology Department and Deputy Dean for Administrative Affairs of Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University. Somwung Pitiyanuwat is emeritus professor of Chulalongkorn University, Royal Fellow in Education Science of the Royal Council of Thailand, Distinguished Member of the Higher Education Commission, and Distinguished Member of Promotion of Science and Technology Teaching Commission, Ministry of Education, Thailand. He received B.Ed. (Hons.), M.Ed. in Educational Research from Chulalongkorn University, and a Ph.D. in Educational Psychology from the University of Minnesota, United States. Dr. Somwung has worked in the field of Education since 1976. Previously, he was Dean of the Faculty of Education, Chulalongkorn University, Vice President for Research Affairs of Chulalongkorn University, and Director of the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (Public Organization). Sudhanshu Bhushan is currently the professor and head of the Department of Higher and Professional Education at the National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi, India. His area of specialization is policy analysis and planning of higher education. Sulushash Kerimkulova is an associate professor at the Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education, Kazakhstan. She obtained her diploma of a Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences from the USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, Moscow in 1987. She also holds a diploma of a Docent (equivalent to Associate Professor in Kazakhstan), and Ph.D. in Education and Associate Professor obtained from Global Evaluation Services, New York. She is a winner of 11 grants (including a Fulbright grant) and has 37 years of teaching experience combined with 22 years of administrative experience in higher educational institutions, including Nazarbayev University. Sulushash’s research interests lie within higher education reforms, quality assurance, and language education. Her current focus is on internationalization of higher education curriculum and research. Tan Pitiyanuwat is lecturer and chairperson of the Product Design Department, School of Fine and Applied Arts, Bangkok University, Thailand. He received B.ARCH. (Industrial Design) from King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang and Master of Arts in Industrial Design from the University of Arts London Central Saint Martins of

Biographies

xix

Art and Design, England. Previously, he was Lecturer and Assistant Dean for Quality Assurance of the Faculty of Architecture, Kasem Bundit University, Thailand, and a product designer of Volkamoebel Co. Ltd., a furniture exported company. Tungalag Jamts is an associate professor and has a background in higher education quality management, internal and external quality assurance, and program development. She is currently an officer for the National Council Education Accreditation in Mongolia. A graduate in physics from the National University of Mongolia, her career has included lecturer, senior academic administration, vice director in several Mongolian universities as well as in a quality assurance agency. Tungalag has developed accreditation criteria for higher education institutions and related procedures and regulations across a range of national contexts and has made numerous presentations on quality assurance in higher education, carried out consultancy on quality management, self-study, accreditation process, and developments in education quality assurance. Tungalag’s current research interests are higher education program development and faculty development. Tungalag has written more than twenty articles and book chapters, including the handbooks, “Higher Education Accreditation,” “Program Accreditation,” and “Higher Education Accreditation in the United States of America.”

THE GROWING PROMINENCE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN ASIA Hamish Coates1 and Mahsood Shah2 1

The University of Melbourne, Melbourne,VIC, Australia CQUniversity, Rockhampton, QLD, Australia

2

INTRODUCTION Higher education is growing in terms of student participation and different kinds of providers. This growth coincides with other developments such as increased use of technology in learning, innovative partnerships between universities and commercial entities, and widening the access of students. Asian higher education is playing an increasingly important role in economic and social development, in the region and globally. Economically, Asia has contributed billions of dollars of revenue through the internationalization of higher education in the Western world. Historically, universities from Asia have established partnerships and alliances with Western universities. Examples include the delivery of offshore courses in third-party arrangements, establishment of offshore campuses, and collaborative research. Similarly, the internationalization of higher education has significantly contributed to the diversity and multiculturalism that many countries are proud of. Asia contributes to more than 65% of world trade and is a significant player in the world economy. Growth in Asia creates significant opportunities and challenges. Developing countries in Asia such as India, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam, Bangladesh, South Korea, Indonesia, and others are experiencing youth population growth. Shah, Bennett, and Southgate (2015) and Shah and Whiteford (2016), outline the challenges facing some of the above-mentioned countries in terms of access and opportunity. Shah and Nair (2016) also highlight the growth of private higher education and its implications in some of the countries in Asia. Liu (2016) outlines how quality assurance agenda is transforming higher education in China. Other scholars including Marginson, Kaur, and Sawir (2011) and Cheng, Cheung, and Ng (2015) outlined the developments in higher education in Asia and future challenges.

xxi

xxii

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

While higher education quality systems are reasonably well established in developed countries, progress in developing countries in Asia is less known. Quality systems are developing rapidly, influenced by a number of imperatives. Prevailing pressures include developments in neighboring countries or regions, changing government policies related to higher education, growth of student participation, increased mobility of graduates, reliance on new private/commercial providers, and the formation of regional networks such as Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN): Quality Network, Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), and the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Another key driver is the aspiration to create education hubs in countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. The progress in Asia cannot be ignored. Increased numbers of international students are now considering studying in China, Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong. There is also the growing phenomenon of academics and other practitioners relocating to Asia for employment and business purposes. Increased number of multinational firms are now moving into Asia. Given the developments in higher education in Asia, governments have implemented policies related to quality assurance. Unsurprisingly, the Western quality assurance arrangement has heavily influenced the developments in Asia. While the countries may share many cultural characteristics, there exist considerable gaps in the development levels of their higher education systems and wide differences in other subsystems such as economic and political settings. Therefore, the extent to which the borrowing of such frameworks and models from Western countries is effective varies greatly amongst Asian higher education systems. In some cases, it has proved unsuccessful. Uncovering the diverse stories, this book provides systematic insights into national quality assurance arrangements. Therefore, the book, with an explicit focus on the rise of quality assurance in Asian higher education, is critical from both practical and theoretical perspectives.

A MUCH NEEDED CONTRIBUTION This book makes a timely and much-needed contribution, as the above paragraphs convey. It provides insights on Asia, on quality arrangements more broadly, and helps to build the field not least through the formation of a budding professional community. As such, it conveys contemporary

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

xxiii

insight into the quality, productivity, and ultimately value (Coates, 2016) of higher education. The book contributes insights on higher education developments in Asia. It moves beyond the somewhat dominating focus on cross-national trade in education services. The chapters advance system-level perspectives from leading thinkers in each country. These convey a snapshot of the higher education system and chart the agencies in charge of specific regulatory and quality activities. These broader analyses probe the way in which international quality initiatives have translated in Asian contexts as well as novel Asian developments of relevance to other regions. The book also contributes insights on quality systems. Contemporary quality arrangements in Asia vary greatly by country and often within country but could broadly be described as young and fast developing. At times this means that arrangements are not fully sorted out or established. In other cases it means that countries have adopted and adapted quality systems from other parts of the world, sometimes flowing from aidinvestment activities that have yielded more or less successful outcomes. Building research and policy discourse across Asian countries is important—too little has been written so far about substantial developments in higher education. Higher education quality assurance is a young field of practice and younger field of research, even in more developed countries. Chapters in this book make a much broader contribution to this fast growing area of work. Asia is the world’s biggest higher education timezone and is growing fast; therefore, understanding developments in this region is critical. It is curious that more is not known about these matters given the significance of Asian higher education and the rapid formation of quality systems. One reason for this is undoubtedly that scholarship often lags policy, which in turn often lags practice, particularly when change has flourished through private enterprise. Another reason is capability—simply having the workforce and expertise to go beyond carrying forward applied initiatives and instead stepping back and looking around and beyond the prevailing practices to discern broader patterns and futures. Even where research capability exists, however, there must be rationales and resources to spur inquiry. As the chapters in this book show there are an increasing range of platforms and networks for supporting inquiry-driven development of this field. There is a generational aspect to this also, for while Asian higher education may have been ignorable a generation ago, this is certainly no longer the case. Established but particularly emerging

xxiv

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

researchers see fruitful dividends from studying and developing a tertiary education infrastructure. Hence, one of the most salient contributions of this volume is the bringing together of researchers from across diverse countries, institutions, and roles. In recent decades a vast array of national and international agencies have been established, as the acronyms in this book make clear. But Asia remains underserved in terms of research communities to advance the inventions, discoveries, and advice that will propel its higher education systems. Invariably this means advice stems from legacy public service arrangements, generalist consultants or commercially interested reconnaissance. The formation of expert research communities and their interconnection through publications like this one is essential to productive and sustained growth. The particularly broad definition of “Asia” in this book is especially helpful in this regard, moving the focus beyond common eastern or southern perspectives to as well embrace central and northern pieces. As with Asia itself, there are so many diverse and novel insights on offer.

OVERVIEW OF THE CHAPTERS This book contains 12 chapters. The chapters are presented in alphabetical order by country name: Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mongolia, South Korea, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. Figure 1 maps the geographic territory covered. As the map conveys, the book does not include countries with very large and established higher education systems like Australia, Iran, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Russia or Taiwan. As well, insights from countries with smaller higher education systems like Bhutan, Laos, Myanmar, and Nepal await the next volume of this book. The book continues with a chapter by Moniroith and Chris about the growth of Cambodian higher education. Cambodia’s case is unique. During the reign of terror between 1975 and 1979, higher education institutions were completely destroyed. The entire formally educated citizens were either murdered or forced into exile. With increased student growth and number and type of institutions, critics have warned about the quality of education offered by institutions. International organizations such as the World Bank have funded the establishment of Accreditation Committee of Cambodia; however, the political landscape has resulted in the withdrawal of the World Bank project. The chapter highlights the

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

xxv

Figure 1  Countries represented in this book.

challenges facing Cambodia as a result of implementing quality assurance models from developed countries. The study found that quality assurance initiatives that challenges powerful, politically vested interests in higher education tended to be obstructed, and where new legislations are implemented the enforcement has been weak. The second chapter is by Shuiyun and Jian from China. The chapter discusses the growth of higher education in China with 2442 accredited institutions and 24.7 million students. The chapter outlines the impact of Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE). Some of the notable impact includes: improved teaching facilities and expenditure, higher academic qualification of staff, adequate resourcing, and clarity about institutional missions and their purpose. The use of standardized teaching procedures were also achieved. However, the progress has had a limited impact on elite universities. The authors concluded with a number of suggested changes in the future. They include: the independence of the national quality assessment agencies role and loosening the link between evaluation results and resource allocation; independent evaluation with a focus on teaching and learning at the subject level, diversifying evaluation

xxvi

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

criteria to recognize institutional missions, values, and their capacity to implement change, and an increased focus on building capacity for institutional quality assurance. The third chapter by Jianrong highlights the development of quality assurance in Hong Kong to align with international innovation in global QA. The chapter outlines the implementation of revised curriculum on an Outcomes Based Approach (OBA) to student learning. Quality assurance is monitored at various levels. They include internal and external quality assurance. Externally, QA is monitored by various agencies depending on the type of institution. Some of the impacts include: commonly used QA criteria to assess quality, increased focus on assessing students’ achievement, implementation of improvements with resource allocation, opportunity for self-reflection, and how the QA approach that is used is deeply embedded in the culture and the education system it serves. Hong Kong is an active member of various regional QA networks. The membership has provided opportunity for sharing good practices, raising awareness, and through the network, seeking peer recognition of program quality and ongoing improvements. Chapter  4, Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience, is based on India. With more than 35,000 higher education institutions, India has one of the largest higher education systems in the world. Despite the size and scale of its higher education system, India has more than 30% unmet demand. Citizens are forced to join labor market, and others have to wait due to a shortage of places. Sudhanshu and Ankita in this chapter outline the role of governments at various levels and regulatory bodies in regulating higher education institutions. The authors outlined some of the challenges in maintaining standards. They include: lack of power by the University Grants Commission to de-register institutions or programs, funding cuts and its impact on resourcing, competence of teaching staff, and the influence of individuals or groups within a certain caste or class in policy decisions. The chapter highlights some of the limitations of the National Assurance and Accreditation Council in discharging its responsibilities. The authors have also highlighted the tensions between regulations and accreditation. Chapter  5, The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education, is based on quality assurance in Indonesian higher education. In this chapter Kamanto outlines the historical developments of quality assurance in Indonesia. He discusses the role of National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (NAAHE) in quality assurance. Indonesian

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

xxvii

higher education through NAAHE is a member of various regional quality networks. Through this membership, it has established networks, taken part in external review panels, participated in workshops and conferences, and has signed memorandums of understanding with other agencies in Asia. The internationalization of QA in Indonesia has also resulted in external quality assurance with international accreditation bodies such as the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB). The sixth chapter is written by Sulushash and Aliya from Kazakhstan. The chapter outlines the historical development of quality assurance and progress made after 2010 when Kazakhstan officially joined the Bologna Process. Significant progress has been made in Kazakhstan to enhance internal and external quality assurance. The authors highlighted some of the earlier challenges and various strategies that were recently implemented. Similar to some other higher education system, Kazakhstan faces challenges around public funding, rise of private higher education, quality of graduates to encourage graduate and faculty mobility, corruption, and socio-economic inequity. Various external instruments are used to assure quality including licensing, attestation, and accreditation. Other instruments are also developed including ranking, and the Unified National Test to assess student learning. The recent QA developments in Kazakhstan is positive. New systems of accreditation are developed to align with international developments, shift from compliance mentality to improvement, a national register for all higher education providers, use of international ranking to improve outcomes, and external evaluation of learning achievement. The membership, with international and regional QA networks, has proven to have a significant benefit. Some of these benefits include: uniting of accrediting agencies, joint regional platform for discussion and constructive dialogue, annual conference to share good practices, development of compatible methodologies of national QA, and the dissemination of good practice through research journals. The seventh chapter by Jan Wan Ko from Korea highlights the growth of higher education in Korea with 433 institutions and 3.6 million students. The chapter discusses various quality assurance arrangements including institutional accreditation and the accreditation of programs by various organizations. Most recently, graduate requirements are introduced including personal character, technology competency, and global competency. The chapter also highlights some of the impacts as a direct result of national and institutional quality assurance. They include: changing courses and curriculum in response to performance measures,

xxviii The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

increased accountability for performance improvement, and the linking of the results of accreditation with financial support. The Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) and Korean Council for College Education (KCCE) are part of various regional quality networks such as APQN, INQAAHE, and Cross-Border Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education (CBQAN). While KCUE and KCCE are members of various regional networks, the impact is yet to be seen. Chapter 8, Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education, by Glenda relates to quality assurance in Malaysian higher education. With more than 50% of student enrollment in private institutions and increased partnership with foreign institutions through twinning programs, the chapter outlines the complexity in achieving consistent standards while the country aspires to establish a center for excellence in higher education. Various systems and instruments are used to assure and monitor quality. They include Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF), the Code of Practice for Program Accreditation (COPPA), the Code of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA), the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), and the National Accreditation Board. Through the membership of various regional networks, Malaysian higher education has been actively engaged in interactions, sharing of practices, and increased influences from established systems. Through its membership in the ASEAN regional higher education system, Malaysia is able to harmonize its quality assurance systems with member countries thus allowing mobility of students and human resources. The membership with regional networks has also enabled benchmarking of qualifications. Chapter  9, Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education, is written by Baasanjav and Tungalag from Mongolia. Like other countries in Asia, Mongolia has also experienced the growth of private higher education. The size of higher education is smaller than other countries in Asia. A number of mechanisms are used at national level to monitor QA. They include licensing, inspection, and monitoring by the government and its agencies. Quality audits are undertaken by the independent agency at institutional and program level. Mongolia has adopted the quality assurance model used in the United States by the regional accrediting agencies. The authors have highlighted the impact of QA including: strengthening resources and institutional governance, development of teaching staff, improved internal evaluations, and professional accreditation of programs by national and international bodies. Mongolia is an active member of various regional quality networks. Through these

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

xxix

networks, it has established a network to share good practices, information exchange, accreditation of programs, and an alignment of a local quality assurance framework with regional and international agencies. Somwung, Siridej, and Tan discuss quality assurance arrangements in Thailand. Various institutions are established at the national level to develop policies and frameworks around quality assurance. Qualification in Thai higher education is also guided by the Thai Qualifications Framework. Apart from internal QA in institutions, all higher education institutions are audited on a cycle of 5 years by an independent agency. This chapter reports on the various impacts of QA at national and institutional levels. Some of the notable impacts include: innovative methods of teaching through action research and student-centered learning concepts, involvement of stakeholders in the feedback process, the increased role of students in improving QA, and improved information management systems in institutions to monitor performance. On the downside, monitoring of QA by various organizations have resulted in an increased burden of paperwork on institutions. Thailand is a member of various regional QA networks. The membership has resulted in memorandums of understanding between local and international agencies. Through international alliances, the national agency has developed automated quality assurance systems for external quality assessment and it has also provided platform to promote higher education in the region. Chapter  11, Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan: From Quality Control to Quality Assurance Culture, by Alex Krouglov is based on Uzbekistan. Like other countries in Asia, Uzbekistan is unable to meet the growing demand of higher education. For example, 600,000 applications are received each year for higher education study with only 60,000 places available. Various internal and external quality assurance initiatives are introduced, and the government plays an important role in ensuring the quality in higher education. Internationalization of QA has resulted in a number of benefits including enhancement in systems and structures, professional development, and the adoption of international practices. Chapter 12, Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education: A Top-Down Approach and Compliance-Driven QA, is written by Quyen, Huong, and Kim from Vietnam. The chapter outlines the growth of higher education in Vietnam. Higher education in Vietnam is unique compared to other countries in Asia. With 421 higher education institutions and more than 2.1 million students, Vietnam is unable to meet the growing demand of higher education despite the presence of public, private and

xxx

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

overseas universities. Various external and internal systems are in place to monitor and improve quality. Externally, the General Department of Educational Testing and Accreditation (GDETA) accredits institutions only. Vietnam currently does not have an external or independent quality assurance agency. Internally, quality units are established in various universities with a focus on ensuring compliance. Through GDETA, Vietnam is part of various regional quality networks. Through this network, progress has been made in building capacity in quality assurance. The membership, along with regional QA networks, has enabled information sharing on recent international developments. Progress has also been made in regional and international accreditation of programs in some institutions to encourage student mobility.

SUMMARY: NEXT STEPS A seminal book like this one seeks to stimulate and structure rather than colonize or conclude the topic to hand. In decades to come, books like this one will be seen as exploratory rather than confirmatory. In important respects, it offers a way forward more than it seeks to deliver. It does more to frame questions than deliver answers. A range of provocative questions might flow from reading the following chapters. For instance, what new quality arrangements are arising? What new relationships are forming as essential to assuring future productivity and quality of higher education in Asia? At a basic level, how are terms, roles, and agencies defined across countries? What are the key stresses and strains, not least with respect to positioning higher education in terms of other industries? Politically, what are the changing roles of government, accreditation, and academic work? What might national higher education architectures look like in 5 years? It is very unlikely that there are single timeless answers to such questions. It is hoped that the following chapters will form the kinds of imaginative responses that will frame future thinking.

REFERENCES Cheng, Y. C., Cheung, A. C. K., & Ng, S. W. (2015). Internationalization of higher education: The case of Hong Kong (education in the Asia-Pacific region: Issues, concerns and prospects). Singapore: Springer. Coates, H. (2016). The market for learning: Leading transparent higher education. Dordrecht: Springer.

The Growing Prominence of Quality Assurance in Asia

xxxi

Liu, S. (2016). Quality assurance and institutional transformation: The Chinese experience (higher education in Asia: Quality, excellence and governance). Singapore: Springer. Marginson, S., Kaur, S., & Sawir, E. (2011). Higher education in the Asia-Pacific: Strategic responses to globalization. Netherlands: Springer. Shah, M., Bennett, A., & Southgate, E. (2015). Widening higher education participation: A global perspective. Cambridge, UK: Elsevier Publishing. Shah, M., & Nair, S. (2016). A global perspective on private higher education. Cambridge, UK: Elsevier Publishing. Shah, M., & Whiteford, G. (2016). Bridges, pathways and transitions: International innovations in widening participation. Cambridge, UK: Elsevier Publishing.

CHAPTER 1

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education Moniroith Vann1 and Christopher Ziguras2 1

Ministry of Education,Youth and Sport, Phnom Penh, Cambodia RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

2

1.1 INTRODUCTION When the government of Cambodia introduced the idea of privatization of higher education in the late 1990s, the country’s higher education institutions were still struggling to rebuild following the calamitous destruction during the Khmer Rouge regime (Sloper, 1999). Since that time, both the number of higher education institutions (HEIs) and the enrollment rate have risen dramatically. As in many other countries in Southeast Asia, a period of rapid growth was followed by a focus on the quality of the system (Ford, 2003). Since 2000, the Cambodian government and international organizations have regularly expressed concerns over the quality of educational services offered by higher education providers. The Cambodian government has taken various steps intended to improve the quality of higher education, including the establishment of the Education Law in 2007, the Accreditation Committee of Cambodia (ACC) in 2003, the National Supreme Council for Education in 2009, and the National Framework for PhD Assessment in 2010. All of these measures were part of a comprehensive quality assurance framework that aimed to improve the quality of Cambodian higher education after a period of rapid and virtually unregulated growth in the number of higher education institutions. This chapter examines the development of the current quality assurance system and the perceived effectiveness of the government’s strategies in the eyes of key stakeholder groups.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00009-4 Copyright © 2017 Moniroith Vann and Christopher Ziguras. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1

2

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

1.2  THE DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN CAMBODIA During their reign of terror between 1975 and 1979 the Khmer Rouge completely destroyed the few HEIs that had existed in Cambodia and murdered or forced into exile virtually the entire formally educated population of the country. The task of reconstruction was massive and the legacy of this era still haunts Cambodia. Eight public universities were established between 1979 and 1997 but with quite small enrollments due to constrained public finances, the lack of qualified teaching staff, and scant physical resources. In 1997 the government began to allow the establishment of private higher education institutions, and since that time enrollments have continued to grow very rapidly, with the gross enrollment ratio in tertiary education increasing from just 2.4 in 2001 to 15.9 in 2011 (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2016). There are now 105 higher education institutions, with a combined enrollment of 253,764 students, 39 of which are public institutions and 66 private. Governance arrangements are complex, with these institutions overseen by 14 different ministries. The Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sport (MoEYS) directly manages nine public and 56 private institutions while the other 40 institutions are primarily managed by 13 other ministries, with the MoEYS Directorate General for Higher Education playing a coordinating role (Kingdom of Cambodia, 2015). The Cambodian government has established rules, regulations, and laws for the purpose of improving the quality of its higher education. The 2007 Education Law had the main aim of developing and strengthening human resources for Cambodia through life-long learning and education for all. The Education Law was also intended for the quality improvement in educational services offered by educational institutions in Cambodia. Article 22 of the Education Law requires that both public and private education providers develop an internal mechanism in order to monitor and assess the quality of education. MoEYS in implementing this law has issued a directive requiring all HEIs to set up their own Internal Quality Assurance Unit (IQAU). The Supreme National Council for Education was established in 2009 with the main objective of developing educational policies and long-term strategies for assessing all education-related activities in response to social and economic development of Cambodia. The Supreme National Council for Education is made up of top government officials including the

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

3

Prime Minister and senior dignitaries. The National Framework for Ph.D. Assessment was set up by a Sub-Decree in 2010, defining the requirements for Ph.D. programs as well as developing a mechanism for effective control of the PhD-training related activities in Cambodia. The principal quality assurance agency in higher education is the ACC, which was founded in 2003. The World Bank had provided considerable support to establish the ACC, which it intended to be independent from the Cambodian government and consisting of various representatives from ASEAN, the government, commerce and industry, together with the rectors, teachers, and students (Innes-Browns, 2006). The World Bank has been the most active international donor agency helping Cambodia to develop and reform its higher education sector since the 1990s. However, the Cambodian government placed the ACC under the management of the Council of the Ministers, which created a lot of controversy over the ACC’s independence and led to the World Bank withdrawing from the project. For much of the next decade, the ACC was headed by influential political figures, before oversight of the ACC was transferred to the MoEYS in 2013. Since that time the ACC’s management structure has not yet been reframed, and its functions appear to have slowed down due to the fact that the MoEYS has not yet fully accommodated the ACC. Based on the policies and regulatory agencies the Cambodian government has put in place in order to ensure the quality of its higher education, it is obvious that the Cambodian government really has a keen interest in the quality improvement of higher education. The ACC was intended to be an independent body whose duties are to determine the accreditation policy and measures to assure academic quality, and to determine the accreditation status for all HEIs in Cambodia. Furthermore, the ACC is supposed to maintain records of institutional and program evaluation and quality assurance activities in each HEI and ensure proper participation of stakeholders concerned with the outcomes of each academic institution that applies for accreditations (Sen, Ros, & Hieng, 2013).

1.3  IMPORTING QUALITY ASSURANCE The development of higher education quality assurance systems in developing nations over the past decade has often been considered in terms of the relationship between the national government and international actors, usually donor agencies. As with many other forms of contemporary policy transfer, the dominant view is neo-institutionalist belief that as the world’s

4

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

educational systems converge, policies that have proven effective in one place will be replicated in others, and the diffusion of effective policies is aided by international organizations whose experts provide advice to national governments regarding appropriate models. However, in the case of Cambodia the imported policies that have been introduced based on foreign advice appear to have had little impact. Before we go on to consider the views of stakeholder groups in Cambodia concerning the adequacy of the quality assurance system, we need to consider this policy transfer in light of the well-established critiques of top-down policy advice by donor agencies in developing countries. Initiatives to form quality assurance mechanisms for higher education in low-income developing countries such as Cambodia are normally heavily influenced by the aid donor agencies through a dominant-dependent donor relationship. Many developing nations depend mainly on the various external aid agencies for assistance ranging from overall education policy and planning to major reform efforts at various level and various components of the system (see for example, Asanova, 2006; Samoff, 1999; Spaulding, 1981). Aid donor agencies have in the past advocated the wholesale transfer of governance and quality assurance systems and practices from the West to such countries (Rodwell, 1998). Subcontractors and foreign experts who diagnose the issues or problems of higher education in the recipient country often perceive aid from donor agencies to a developing nation as a lucrative business opportunity. In many cases, foreign experts spend a short period of time consulting some relevant local senior officials, reviewing available data, making visits to a few selected HEIs and basing complex transformations of governance arrangements on their first impressions of the higher education system in the recipient nation. Dore (1994), for example, has argued that the recommendations from the foreign experts are often constrained by insufficient empirical support. As a result, their reports usually come in the form of a series of superficial observations followed by a set of recommendations or policy statements that are not always relevant to the underlying economic, social, and political context of the recipient nation (McGinn, 1997; Samoff, 1999; Tilak, 2002). While these deficiencies in the design of donor-funded policy proposals are well-documented, and clearly are a factor in the case of Cambodia, we set out here to understand the ways in which various stakeholder

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

5

groups in Cambodia interpret the adequacy of the quality assurance framework. As Steiner-Khamsi (2012, 2014) has argued, in order to understand whether policies are ‘successfully’ transferred from one system to another we must understand the ways in which various aspects of a policy framework are actively used, resisted, modified and ignored by key actors in the ‘receiving’ or ‘borrowing’ country.

1.4  STAKEHOLDERS’ VIEWS This study recruited representatives of key stakeholder groups in Cambodian higher education through a process of snowball sampling, using the initial and subsequent participants to suggest others who would fall within the sample frame suggested by (Ryan, 1995). Eventually, 61 informal face-to-face interviews with open-ended questions were conducted. The stakeholder groups in this study included students, lecturers, university rectors, university consultants, senior officials in MoEYS, representatives of donor agencies such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank, and two academic professional associations. Most interviews were tape-recorded and later transcribed verbatim, and where recording was not possible extensive notes were taken. NVIVO software was used to aid coding and thematic analysis of transcripts and notes. The students that participated in the study were unfamiliar with government strategies for higher education and quality assurance systems; therefore their responses are not included in the discussion below. The views expressed by participants were quite polarized, with the stakeholders falling into pro- and anti-government camps. The pro-government groups tended to support the existing higher education quality assurance initiatives, and they described the current situation from a historical frame of reference. That is, despite the existing flaws, the system, they believed, was improving and the government could not be blamed for any deficiencies, given the devastation caused by the Khmer Rouge period. The other groups tended to be critical of the government’s quality assurance initiatives, viewing them from an international-comparative frame of reference. They perceived that Cambodia was falling behind other countries in the region which were reforming more effectively. Though different stakeholder groups were more or less sympathetic to the government, they shared a set of widely held views that are discussed below.

6

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

1.5  LACK OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DONOR-FUNDED PROJECTS All those participants who were familiar with the origins of the various proposals to reform higher education pointed to the tendency for policy prescriptions of aid donors to be adopted only at the most superficial levels. There was widespread agreement that the government’s policies regarding higher education quality assurance sounded excellent on paper but that the implementation was not effective. There is a long history in Cambodia of government leaders agreeing with donors to adopt a particular policy approach and then to claim the policy statements developed by foreigners to be their policies without realizing the ramifications (McNamara, 1999). One key consideration in understanding the reception of new policies by the government agencies is the shortage of well-qualified people to implement the policy on higher education successfully. Due to the fact that the MoEYS lacks well-qualified and experienced administrative staff to draft policy statements on higher education, many policies have been developed by foreign experts, in most cases employed by donor agencies such as the World Bank and Asian Development Bank, which borrow concepts and models from other countries with little customization to suit the Cambodian context. Sen et al. (2013) neatly capture the lingering effects of the Khmer Rouge period in the 1970s: Cambodia is different in having to face these challenges without the assistance of a previous generation of university graduates, who should by now have become competent and experienced planners and managers, but who were dispersed and in many cases annihilated by a generation-long internal conflict spurred by ideological competition between external powers (Sen et al. 2013, p. v).

As a result, MoEYS has depended primarily on technical and financial assistance from donor agencies. In most circumstances, a policy execution ceases when it stops receiving funding or technical assistance from foreign donors, principally the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Several participants expressed the view that the technical assistance is ineffective in training local Cambodian staff in the MoEYS to take ownership of the program in the long term. Consequently, any efforts to implement the newly introduced policies tend to cease when the Cambodian agency stops receiving technical and financial assistance from donors. A range of participants with close knowledge of government agencies observed that in most cases, when a donor-funded project is put

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

7

into practice, only top management people or senior staff members are involved in the policy implementation process. They often see a donorfunded project on policy implementation as a plum job because they normally receive a supplementary income from the project. Those who take on these roles, the critics argue, are selected because of their political faithfulness rather than on the basis of merit. Because they receive a relatively small salary from the government, key people involved in the policy implementation are usually less motivated to carry on the project after the funding ceases. Therefore, projects to implement higher education policies are often left unattended, forgotten, or even abandoned. There is a long history of critique of nepotistic appointment practices in the Cambodian public-sector, including in education (e.g. Ayres, 1999). Ironically, key roles in projects sponsored by foreign donors, where supplementary payments are made as incentives to public officials, are more likely to go to the politically well-connected within government, while those who are not well-connected politically but who may be more qualified and able are left to languish in marginal and less lucrative roles. Other stakeholders that were more supportive of government felt that the problems of implementation were caused by the lack of resources available to the government agencies and the low salaries paid to officials. The government was doing the best that could be expected given these circumstances, they would argue. With more resources and higher salaries the policies would be more likely to be implemented well.

1.6  POLITICAL INTERFERENCE Most participants claimed that the main factor that hinders implementation of quality assurance measures is political interference, consistent with the findings of many observers as far back as O’Mahony (1999) who state that higher education in Cambodia is highly politicized. Some private universities are run by influential politicians who do not wish to see close scrutiny of their business by the ACC or MoEYS. Similarly, public universities that are owned by ministries other than MoEYS have tended to resist the involvement of MoEYS and other government agencies such as the ACC in their universities’ operations. Echoing the observations of Ford (2003), participants in this study felt that initiatives that challenged powerful, politically vested interests in higher education tended to be obstructed or if new legislation is passed then the actual enforcement is weak. In order to make a successful attempt to implement the policies on

8

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

higher education, the Cambodian government, especially the MoEYS, must make a full commitment to implementing the policy through a tough stance on law enforcement. Those in power, the critics argued, were not so much interested in the quality of education provided in Cambodia, but were more interested in their ability to benefit from its provision. As well as the more material benefits that might be extracted, the government has been able to point to the expansion of higher education as a major achievement in itself. This is consistent with Ayres (2000b) view that Cambodian leaders have long used education to establish their legitimacy in building the Cambodian nation-state. The effects of the politicization of policy and policy implementation are common in Cambodia because of the endurance of the country’s hierarchical political culture. Because of that culture, administrators who are supposed to implement educational policy are unwilling to challenge those with political power (Ayres, 1999). Therefore, in order for any policy or law on higher education to take effect, the government must be serious about the law reinforcement by not allowing political influence on the policy implementation on higher education when it is put into practice.

1.7  FRAGMENTED GOVERNANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION? Higher education institutions in Cambodia are managed and supervised by 14 different ministries, based on the Soviet model introduced to Cambodia from Vietnam more than 30 years ago. In a centrally planned economy, the ministries that ran each public HEI would be directing enterprises in that sector of the economy and hence were best placed to be overseeing training and subsequent employment, either within the bureaucracy or in government-linked firms. This scenario remains the case in Cambodia, but graduates now are no longer guaranteed employment. The participants in this study overwhelmingly felt that the management of public HEIs by different ministries has resulted in a system that is highly fragmented. As just one of many competing ministries, the MoEYS faces a lot of difficulties implementing its policies on higher education in relation to public universities controlled by other ministries. This competition between ministries explains why the ACC was placed under the control of the council of ministers rather than MoEYS when it was first established. Most participants argued that as rectors in the public HEIs were appointed by and answerable to their parent ministries, and they, in most circumstances, paid more attention to the ministry they belong to rather

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

9

than the MoEYS. The fragmentation of ministerial oversight of public higher education in Cambodia thus limits the influence of the MoEYS. There have been attempts to put all HEIs in the umbrella of the MoEYS or under a new ministry which deals exclusively with higher education. However, that effort failed, as Clayton and Ngoy (1997) observed, because of intense opposition from the ministries that ran the public HEIs. The transferal of the ACC from the control of the Council of Ministers to being incorporated into MoEYS in 2013 could represent a consolidation of the power of MoYES over the entire systems. However, the operations of the agency appear to be in limbo since the reorganization.

1.8 CORRUPTION Many of the participants in this study felt that the main reason the ministries would not yield control of universities to the MoEYS is financial. In many facets of the operation of public services in Cambodia, the income received by the agency (whether from donors, taxes, or users of services) not only funds the operations of government but also is siphoned off by officials, with larger personal gains able to be extracted as one moves up through the bureaucracy (Brinkley, 2011). There is a widely held perception, expressed by many in this study, that senior officials in the ministries that run HEIs benefit personally from their ministry’s control over universities, which collect a substantial amount of tuition fees from students. Corruption has a negative effect on the quality of higher education in many Asian nations and Cambodia is no exception (Asian Development Bank, 2012; Hayneman, 2004; Welsh, 2011). Due to low public-sector wages, a large number of civil servants are forced into acts of corruption to survive and are trapped in their allegiance to patrons within the bureaucracy and in political parties to survive and keep their jobs (Kimseng, 2011; World Bank, 2000). Furthermore, as Nissen (2012) observes, Cambodian people are “culturally intimate” with corruption, and this intimacy enables them to deal with corruption in everyday life (p. 273). The government set up an anticorruption unit in 2010, but it remains to be seen whether this institution will have a significant impact on higher education quality. One promising development was the involvement of this unit in monitoring the conduct of the national university entrance examinations in 2014, after a study of the previous year’s exam found that most students had paid proctors or teachers for cheat sheets, favorable marks, or to turn a blind eye to copying during the exam (Blomberg, 2014).

10

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

1.9  ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE OF CAMBODIA MANAGEMENT AND STAFF The ACC is widely seen by stakeholders as a key agency required for quality assurance and improvement in Cambodian higher education, and has been viewed as a policing that could require all members and stakeholders to show their accountability in higher education services. However, there are divergent views about whether in practice the ACC contributes to quality improvement. Some stakeholder groups, for example, Cambodian Higher Education Association (CHEA), MoEYS, DoHE, DSR, and the ACC itself claimed that the ACC was an independent and qualified body, and that the ACC has done a lot of accreditation work to improve the quality of educational programs within HEIs in Cambodia. However, other stakeholder groups such as rectors, teachers, university consultants, employers in the multinationals, and the Cambodia Independent Teacher Association (CITA) argued that the ACC was not an independent body and that the ACC has not done much to safeguard the quality of education in Cambodia, as the ACC top management people were not mainly appointed on merit but on political alignments. These groups also claimed that the ACC members of staff were not qualified to perform their assessment work on the academic programs or courses in HEIs as they lack experience in accreditation. Even though the original purpose of the ACC, as the donor agencies saw it, was to depoliticize oversight of the system by establishing a new independent agency at arm’s length from established political and commercial interests, the ownership and management of higher education in Cambodia has always been closely connected with the country’s powerful elite. At the time of its inception, Ford (2003) claimed that the ACC was under political influence from the outset because its leadership was appointed by the government on political grounds, not on merit, and without a clear nomination criteria as outlined in the ACC legislation. In this regard, Cambodia is not unique. Lim (2001) argued that the establishment of higher education quality assurance bodies in developing countries is often influenced by politics, and in particular the appointments of senior management staff in the quality assurance body are often based on political connection more than on academic merits. Most assessment teams are recruited mainly from HEIs, and all the stakeholders familiar with the AAC agreed that a major shortcoming was that assessors have limited knowledge about accreditation requirements or

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

11

quality assurance processes. As result, after 12 years the ACC has made limited progress in doing its quality assessment work. So far the ACC has not made much progress in its accreditation work. It has just given provisional accreditation to bachelor programs and has done some pilot institutional assessment work in a few HEIs while many universities that are offering unaccredited master’s or PhD programs enjoy free rein. Stakeholders felt that those ACC staff members who have received overseas training on quality assessment seem to have improved their quality assessment experiences and skills. As with many other public-sector agencies in Cambodia, introducing merit-based appointment, transparency, and accountability are enormous and challenging tasks. Now that the ACC has been placed within the MoEYS, these tasks will fall to the Ministry’s leadership. However, until the government develops the political will to make the ACC an independent and competent quality assurance body, there is little prospect of change. Incremental improvements can be made by providing assessment teams in the ACC with overseas training, particularly in the ASEAN membership countries so that their capacity in the quality assessment of higher education can reach parity with that of the quality assurance bodies in the ASEAN countries. It is a good sign that some ACC staff members have been sent to participate in training workshops and internship programs run by regional and international quality assurance agencies, since this exposure to the work of other agencies may be another route to reform. Normative isomorphism has been an important factor in the spread of quality assurance globally, with professionals in agencies worldwide looking to the standards and processes used elsewhere as models for the development of new national systems.

1.10  INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE UNITS The IQAUs within HEIs have been initiated by the MoEYS with the purpose that all HEIs set up their own internal quality assurance processes in preparation for the external quality assessment from the ACC. However, the IQAU has a question mark over its capacity as most HEIs lack expertise. Almost all stakeholder groups did not have optimism that HEIs would be able to establish the IQAU. The MoEYS itself has not set an IQAU framework for HEIs to follow, and has provided little guidance to institutions.

12

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Direction is also unlikely to come from university leadership since the university’s top management in both public and private universities, namely rectors and vice rectors, very often do not have much of an academic background but are often appointed on the basis of their political or economic connections with government or the owners or private universities. The IQAU office in most HEIs is staffed with teachers who have limited knowledge of quality assurance approaches. For these reasons, the stakeholders assumed that it would take many years for HEIs to develop effective IQAUs that could improve standards. In order to assist HEIs in developing the IQAU, the MoYES should seek technical assistance from foreign experts from a developed nation through a joint-cooperation program. International collaboration would be very beneficial in supporting HEIs to develop the IQAU, pairing up those involved in the early stages of development of such units in Cambodia with practitioner from institutions with well-established systems. More funding has been available to support EQA. To date the World Bank has supported much of the ACC’s international collaboration, and hiring of external assessors, but the Bank’s supported was due to end in 2016 and it remains to be seen whether the sufficient government funding will be available to continue such engagement (Niedermeier & Pohlenz, 2016). The ACC and several private universities are members of the Asia Pacific Quality Network, and Cambodia hosted the organization’s conference in 2012. Cambodia is also a member of the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network, and hosted the Network’s meeting in 2016. The idea of a more regionally-integrated approach to quality assurance, such as the ASEAN Quality Assurance Framework, is viewed positively by all stakeholder groups in Cambodia, both because it will assist in aligning standards and will facilitate greater mobility, but there are widespread concerns about the ability of institutions to develop internal capacity rapidly enough to engage given the more rapid development in some neighbouring countries (Niedermeier & Pohlenz, 2016).

1.11 CONCLUSION The results of this study provide a useful insight into the way in which the effectiveness of the Cambodian government quality assurance initiatives was perceived by the stakeholders in Cambodian higher education. The Cambodian government has shown its concern over the quality in higher education by establishing a considerable number of strategies to ensure the quality of its higher education. However, those strategies are not seen by stakeholders as having been effective in improving quality. There are a

Stakeholder Views of Quality Assurance in Cambodian Higher Education

13

number of factors that are perceived to have affected the effectiveness of the government policy on higher education. The factors identified as the bottlenecks to the Cambodian government policy on higher education include a policy implementation that is crippled by various issues, the management of HEIs, which falls in the hands of many ministries, creating inconsistency and causing a lack of coordinating body for the policy implementation on higher education, the weak management of the ACC and the ACC staff, and the uncertain IQAU offices within HEIs. Although many areas of Cambodian higher education need further attention, one of the priorities is to develop the ACC into a professional and independent quality assurance agency, which can be supported through greater cooperation with more established quality assurance agencies throughout the region.

REFERENCES Asanova, J. (2006). The impact of the Asian Development Bank on educational policy formation in Kazakhstan. Central Eurasian Studies Review, 5(1), 7–10. Asian Development Bank, (2012). Access without equity? Finding a better balance in higher education in Asia. Manilla: Asian Development Bank. Ayres, D. M. (1999). Policy making and policies of education in Cambodia. In D. Sloper (Ed.), Higher education in Cambodia: The social and educational context for reconstruction. Bangkok: UNESCO. Ayres, D. M. (2000b). Tradition, modernity and the development of education in Cambodia. Comparative Education Review, 44(4), 440–463. Blomberg, M. (2014). Anti-corruption unit to police university exam. University World News, 329 [online] Available at: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article. php?story=20140717140144667 [Accessed 30 March 2016]. Brinkley, J. (2011). Cambodia’s Curse: The Modern History of a Troubled Land. New York and Collingwood, Victoria: PublicAffairs Books and Black Inc. Clayton, T., & Ngoy,Y. (1997). Cambodia. In G. A. Postiglione & G. C. L. Mak (Eds.), Asian higher education: an international handbook of reference guide. Westport: Greenwood Press. Dore, R. (1994). Why visiting sociologists fail. World Development, 22(9), 1425–1436. Ford, D. (2003). Cambodian accreditation: an uncertain beginning. International Higher Education, 33 [online] Available at: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/issue/ view/761 [Accessed 30 March 2016]. Hayneman, S. P. (2004). Education and corruption. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(6), 637–648. Kimseng, M. (2011). Kickback to the ruling party spurs corruption: Analyst. Voice of America [online] Available at: http://www.voacambodia.com/content/kickbacks-to-rulingparty-spurs-corruption-analyst-125231899/1357114.html [Accessed 30 March 2016]. Kingdom of Cambodia, (2015). Achievements in School Year 2013–2014. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport. Available at: http://www.nepcambodia. org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=140&Itemid=183&lang=en [Accessed 31 March 2016]. Lim, D. (2001). Quality assurance in higher education: A study of developing countries. Aldershot: Ashgate. McGinn, N. F. (1997).Toward an alternative strategy for international assistance to education. Prospects, 17(2), 231–246.

14

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

McNamara, V. (1999). The education system of Cambodia. In D. Sloper (Ed.), Higher education in Cambodia: The social and educational context for reconstruction. Bangkok: UNESCO. Niedermeier, F, & Pohlenz, P. (2016). State of play and development needs: Higher education quality assurance in the ASEAN region. Jakarta: DAAD. Nissen, C. J. (2012). Buddhism and corruption. In A. Kent & D. P. Chandler (Eds.), People of virtue: reconfiguring religion, power and moral order in Cambodia (pp. 272–292). Copenhagen: Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. O’Mahony, M. (1999). Beyond transition: higher education reform in Cambodia. MA thesis. Phnom Penh: Royal University of Phnom Penh. Ryan, C. (1995). Researching tourist satisfactions: issues, concepts and problems. London: Routledge. Samoff, J. (1999). Educational sector analysis in Africa: limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development, 19(4-5), 249–272. Sen, V., Ros, S., & Hieng, T. (2013). Anatomy of Higher Education Governance in Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Cambodia Development Resource Institute. Sloper, D. (1999). Higher education in Cambodia: The social and educational context for reconstruction. Bangkok: UNESCO. Spaulding, S. (1981). Needed research on the impact of international assistance on the development of education. Comparative Education, 17(2), 207–213. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2012). Understanding Policy Borrowing and Lending: Building Comparative Policy Studies. In G. Steiner-Khamsi & F. Waldow (Eds.), World Yearbook of Education 2012: Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education (pp. 3–17). London and New York: Routledge. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2014). Cross-national policy borrowing: understanding reception and translation. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 34(2), 153–167. Tilak, J. B. G. (2002). Knowledge, society, education and aid. Compare, 32(3), 297–310. UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2016) Data Center: Gross enrolment ratio by level of education. [online] Available at: http://data.uis.unesco.org/?queryid=142 [Accessed 30 March 2016]. Welch, A. R. (2011). Finance, state capacity, privatization and transparency in South-East Asian nations. In S. Armstrong & B. Chapman (Eds.), Financing higher education and economic development in East Asia (pp. 49–79). Canberra: ANU Express. World Bank, (2000). Cambodia Governance and Corruption Diagnostic: Evidence from Citizen, Enterprize and Public Official Surveys. Washington: The World Bank.

FURTHER READING Ayres, D. M. (2000a). Anatomy of a crisis: educational development and the state in Cambodia, 1953–1998. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press. McGrath, S., & King, K. (2004). Knowledge-based aid: a four agency comparative study. International Journal of Educational Development, 24(2), 167–181. Psacharopoulos, G. (1989). Why educational reforms fail: a comparative analysis. International Review of Education, 35(2), 179–195. Rodwell, S. (1988). International assistance to third world educational management- a critical examination of alternative strategy. International Journal of Educational Development, 8(2), 117–128. Wallace, J. (2011). In Cambodia, Comedians double as government propagandists. The Atlantic. [online] Available at: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/ in-cambodia-comedians-double-as-government-propagandists/240441/ [Accessed 30 March 2016].

CHAPTER 2

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education Shuiyun Liu1 and Jian Liu2 1

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China

2

2.1 INTRODUCTION In the midst of a world-wide expansion of higher education, diversification of student populations, and a diminishing of unit expenditure, quality assurance has become a central concern of higher education in many countries, while globalization of the education market and university ranking all add fuel to a move toward formulating quality frameworks within and beyond national boundaries. Chinese higher education has experienced a dramatic expansion of enrollment since the end of the 1990s, and became the largest higher education system in the world. In 2013, it had 2442 accredited universities and colleges, with a total enrollment of 24.7 million (Ministry of Education, 2013), an increase from 7.2 million in 1999. Accompanying the rapid growth of the higher education system, quality assurance has become a central focus in China over the last decade. Within this context, many efforts have been made to establish effective higher education quality-assurance schemes. Nevertheless, the debate and criticism seem increasingly fierce. Thus, it is necessary to examine these quality-assurance schemes from a global perspective. With the help of international comparison, one might be able to understand more clearly whether these are common problems originating from the nature of quality assurance schemes, or only confined to China because of the ill-designed programs or the specific political and cultural background. This chapter seeks to depict quality assurance schemes and the consequences of one dominant scheme in Chinese higher education. It begins with illustrating the context in which the quality-assurance scheme emerges. Then, it gives a brief review of the evolution and status quo of quality-assurance mechanisms in Chinese higher education, both The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00001-X Copyright © 2017 Shuiyun Liu and Jian Liu. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

15

16

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

governmental and nongovernmental, external and internal. It proceeds with a focus on one of the state-run quality review programs, the Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE), which has been dominant in the current assessment “market” in China since its establishment. The specific approaches to the quality assessment and its impact on the performances of the evaluated institutions are presented. Based on these, the chapter reflects on the effectiveness of the QAUE program and proposes some suggestions for improvement of the Chinese higher education quality-assurance system.

2.2  THE EMERGENCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT IN CHINA In common with many other countries, there are five main contextual factors underlying the emergence of higher education quality assessment in China: (1) the “quality gap” caused by the conflict between higher education systems’ expansion and diminishing unit costs (Barnett, 1992); (2) international communication and cooperation; (3) the changing relationship between the state and HEIs; (4) the requirement of information disclosure and accountability toward society; and (5) the pressure of university rankings. First of all, the expansion of enrollments, the decline of unit educational resources, and the reform of the faculty evaluation system all had contributed to the emergence of what Barnett (1992) describes as a quality gap. With the policy of expanding tertiary enrollments initiated in 1999, the total number of undergraduate admissions in China multiplied threefold from 1998 to 2004. As a result, although funds for higher education have increased significantly, they grew at a slower pace than the participation rate. Thus, both the unit cost per student and the teacher– student ratios had fallen steadily (MOE, 1998–2005). Moreover, the adoption of international convention of “publish or perish” and using the number of papers published annually as the main indicator in evaluating academic work also distracted faculty members’ attention from undergraduate teaching to research productivity (Zhang, 2002). All these factors contributed to a widening quality gap. Quality assessment emerged then as a way to bridge the gap or at least to diminish its size. The internationalization of China’s higher education system also called for quality assessment. In the new century, the international flows of students and scholars were unprecedented in history and the cooperative

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

17

programs with foreign institutions and other forms of communication had also flourished. It is necessary to enhance the transparency and comparability of educational quality for international communication and cooperation. Quality-assessment systems are regarded as ways to promote transparency and comparability (Turnbull, Burton, & Mullins, 2008). At the same time, the emergence of quality-assessment systems in China was also facilitated by a policy of borrowing in the context of globalization, as indicated by Fengtai Liu, the Director of the Higher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC, 2007). The changing relationship between government and higher education institutions was also a factor that led to the formation of quality-assessment schemes. The Chinese government has transferred the decisionmaking power of higher education to local governments and individual institutions since the 1980s. Higher education institutions have enjoyed more autonomy than before (Mok, 2002; Yang, 2000). The state had shifted its role from education controller to that of the architect of the educational system and its quality assurer. Quality assessment thus emerged in exchange for autonomy, to monitor higher education institutions from a distance (Neave & Van Vught, 1994). The requirement of diversified stakeholders of higher education for transparency of information and increased accountability was another factor contributing to the emergence of quality assessment in China. Since the mid-1990s, the cost-sharing policy of charging tuition fees and changing the graduates’ employment model (from a tightly government controlled job-assignment system to students finding employment in the labor market by themselves) had been implemented in China. In this context, both prospective students and employers need more information about the educational quality of HEIs. Quality assessment is seen as a way to provide that information. In addition, with the boosting of tertiary enrollment, the percentage of higher education expenditure in relation to total educational expenditure has increased from about 18 percent to 28 percent (Pan, 2006), which evoked many complaints from primary and secondary schools (Liu, 2004). In this context, quality assessment is viewed as an instrument by which higher education can be made accountable to society for the public funds, parts of which are seen as being “grabbed” from basic education. Furthermore, negative reports by the mass media about the downgrade of quality and diluted credential of HEIs could be heard frequently in past years in China (Liu, 2006). Inevitably, these negative reports contributed to the erosion of trust in higher education quality.

18

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

A quality assessment system can thus be viewed as an effective way to reestablish public trust, assuring society that its higher education system is of high quality (Trow, 1996). An additional impetus to the establishment of the quality assessment scheme with an official nature seems to come from the popularity of university rankings, which are disseminated extensively by the mass media. The “unscientific” evaluation criteria and the methods used by university rankings are criticized by HEIs and researchers (Wang, 2003). Ministerial officials seem to realize that “we had rather do something (better) ourselves,” as a response to the complaints from HEIs. Therefore, China’s Ministry of Education has published annually the results of the quality assessment of undergraduate education in the mass media since 2003.

2.3  THE EVOLUTION AND STATUS QUO OF HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCHEMES IN CHINA Beginning with the enactment of the Decision on the Educational System Reform in 1985, external quality assessment systems emerged as a distinct arena in Chinese higher education. This policy document requires the educational administrative agencies to evaluate quality of higher education institutions periodically (CCCPC, 1985). As a result, the former State Education Commission (now the Ministry of Education) initiated a pilot quality assessment of higher engineering education in 1985, which had been implemented in 87 universities by the end of 1990. On the basis of this five-year experiment, the first official regulation for higher education quality assessment was enacted in 1990, entitled Tentative Regulation of Assessment in Higher Education Institutions. It prescribes the objectives and functions of quality assessment, evaluation agencies, procedures and approaches (State Education Commission, 1990). Since then, quality assessment in Chinese higher education has been institutionalized. Another milestone policy document, the Guidelines for the Reform and Development of Education in China, reaffirmed “performance indicators of all kinds of education quality assessment should be established; and quality assessment should become the routine work of educational administrative and supervisory organizations” in 1993 (CCCPC & State Council, 1993). In particular, the Higher Education Law of the People’s Republic of China specifies that “education quality of higher education institutions should be subject to the supervision and evaluation by the departments of educational administration” in its Article 44 (CCCPC, 1998). This

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

19

legitimized higher education quality assessment in China. The National Education Planning Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Longterm Education Reform and Development released in 2010 further emphasized that “professional institutions and intermediary agencies shall be encouraged to evaluate the quality of college disciplines, programs, and courses. To meet that end, a scientific and standard evaluation system shall be installed.” (Article 40, CCCPC & State Council, 2010). Encouraged by the government policies, quasi-governmental assessment agencies and nongovernmental agencies, as well as social media providing informal assessment (ranking), have been established in the past decade. Along the process of the institutionalization of quality assessment, staterun higher education assessment schemes were formulated in China at three levels in the following sequence: undergraduate education, postgraduate education, and short-circle diploma education and private higher education. Undergraduate level assessment was first conducted in China. At the beginning, three forms of quality assessment, quality accreditation, excellence assessment and random assessment, were put into practice in China. They focused on different statuses of higher education institutions: quality accreditation was delivered for newly built institutions; excellence assessment was designed for the universities with high-level teaching quality and a relatively long tradition of undergraduate education; and random assessment was used for institutions located between the two categories. From 1994 to 2001, 221 higher education institutions were evaluated under these three programs: 179 quality accreditations, 26 excellence assessments, and 16 random assessments. The MOE combined the three quality assessment schemes together and launched a new project in 2002, the QAUE. According to this project, all higher education institutions providing undergraduate education should be compulsorily evaluated within a five-year period on a rolling basis. The evaluation is on the institutional level. The MOE established the Higher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC) to conduct quality evaluation (HEEC, 2015). The first round of reviews was finished in mid-2008; 589 higher education institutions were evaluated (HEEC, 2015). The second round of reviews started from the end of 2010, and mainly focuses on those higher education institutions with newly established undergraduate programs that have not been evaluated before. One hundred and twenty-one institutions have been evaluated by the end of 2013 (HEEC, 2015). Besides the HEEC, which undertakes the evaluation of undergraduate programs, another governmental quality assessment agency that focuses

20

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

on postgraduate education was also founded, namely, the China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC). It is engaged in the accreditation of postgraduate degree-granting units, the approval of national key disciplines of priority, as well as the review and selection of excellent master’s and doctoral dissertations. Furthermore, the CDGDC initiated a discipline evaluation program in 2002. With universities’ voluntary participations, the program reviews the quality of disciplines at postgraduate education programs and publishes the evaluation results in the form of league tables (CDGDC, 2015). Four rounds of review had been conducted with increasing numbers of disciplines being evaluated, from 1366 disciplines from 229 universities in the first round (2002–2004) to 4235 disciplines from 391 higher education institutions in the latest round (2011–2012). The audit of vocational education and private institutions is conducted by the provincial accreditation committees. In 2008, the MOE launched the Project of Teaching Evaluation in Higher Vocational Education Institutions, which specified the evaluation procedures and indicators. The provinces are supposed to follow the Project, design the detailed evaluation schemes, and operate the on-site evaluation. The MOE reserves the right to inspect the review processes of local governments. For example, following the requirements of the MOE, the Hubei Province issued The Detailed Schemes of Teaching Evaluation in Higher Vocational Education Institutions in Hubei Provinces in 2009, and started to conduct the evaluation. From 2011 to 2013, 50 higher vocational education institutions were assessed in the province (Hubei Provincial Department of Education, 2015). Nongovernmental agencies have also engaged in higher education quality assessment in China since the 1990s, such as the Shanghai Agency for Education Evaluation and the Jiangsu Agency for Education Evaluation. They are qualified to undertake higher education quality assessment and accreditation with the delegation and assessment experts from the governments and/or the institutions. For example, Jiangsu Agency for Education Evaluation was entrusted by Jiangsu Provincial Department of Education to conduct the quality assessment of higher vocational education institutions and the random inspection of postgraduate students’ dissertations and thesis in Jiangsu Provinces. Shanghai Agency for Education Evaluation was entrusted by the Shanghai Education Commission to nominate the teaching achievement awards in Shanghai. Since governmental assessment agencies have engaged in almost all types of higher education evaluation, few opportunities have been left for these

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

21

nongovernmental accreditation agencies to work alone or participate in any official evaluation schemes (Li, 2004). Paralleling the formal quality assessment schemes, university rankings have also exercised considerable influence on the assessment of HEIs in China. They have been published since the end of the 1980s, mainly by for-profit educational companies, such as Netbig and China University Alumni Association, while some research institutes also embraced the market. The rankings are very popular with the public, especially with the potential students and their parents. Despite the vehement criticisms that have been raised by universities and academics about the methodologies that these rankings used, the evidence is overwhelming that rankings influence university behaviors as they seek to maximize their prestige and to attract excellent students. For example, the indicators of rankings often become the areas that HEIs prefer to invest in (Wang & Liu, 2009). Under the pressure of external quality assessment schemes, the Chinese higher education institutions have also made great efforts to develop their own internal quality assurance schemes. The main internal quality assurance systems in Chinese universities (Ding, 2008) are listed as follows: The establishment of institutional teaching evaluation centers. These centers are affiliated to or in cooperation with the teaching management office of the institution. Those universities without independent teaching evaluation centers have their own subsection, which play a similar role under the supervision of the teaching management offices. The main responsibilities of these centers are developing and operating the quality-assurance mechanism inside their institutions. The formation of teaching supervision groups. This is also a common practice among Chinese higher education institutions. The group members are the senior teaching staff or retired senior staff with expertise in teaching. They are often under the supervision of the vice-president responsible for teaching affairs. They are expected to carry out their work directly with teachers and students, by observing classes and talking with teachers and students after class. Their responsibilities are to find problems in teaching and to provide suggestions for improvement. Peer review. Class teaching observation is also a common practice in most Chinese higher education institutions. Teachers are required to observe each other’s classroom teaching, which is considered to be a useful way for teachers to learn from each other and to monitor each other’s teaching. Besides peer teaching observation, leaders at university or faculty/department levels are required to observe teachers’ teaching. ●

●

●

22

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Table 2.1  Higher education quality assurance schemes in China. Ownership Actor Evaluators Evaluation Programs

External

The central government

The local government

Higher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC) China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC) Provincial accreditation committees

Quality assessment of undergraduate education

●

Accreditation of degreegranting units Approval of national key subjects Excellence evaluation of dissertations Subject evaluation Quality assessment of vocational/professional education Quality assessment of private higher education institutions Entrusted quality evaluation

●

●

●

● ●

●

Nongovernment organizations

Internal

Independent evaluation organizations Market Educational companies and research institutes Higher education institutions

●

University rankings

●

Institutional teaching evaluation centers Teaching supervision groups Peer review Student feedback

●

●

● ●

Student feedback. This is considered to be one of the most important quality-assurance components. It is gained through surveys, individual and group interviews, student representative reporting, etc. Student surveys are the most commonly used form of student feedback collection, and cover course evaluation, teaching evaluation, and other fields of interest (Li, 2010). To sum up, the development of higher education in China over a quarter of a century has resulted in an array of accountability schemes for higher education operated by governments, third-party evaluation agencies, and the market (Table 2.1). Among them, the state is the leading actor ●

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

23

and quality assessment is the dominant form. Both HEEC and CDGDC have joined the INQAAHE and APQN. Through these networks, they share the experiences of quality assessment with the QA bodies in other countries. At the same time, various internal quality-assurance mechanisms have also been established inside higher education institutions. The next section of this chapter focuses on one of the most influential governmental quality assessment schemes: the QAUE.

2.4  THE APPROACHES OF THE QAUE TO QUALITY ASSESSMENT This section presents the specific approaches to carrying out the QAUE in China, including its actors and ownership, evaluation procedures and methods, evaluation criteria, funding sources, and the consequences of evaluation.

2.5  ACTORS AND OWNERSHIP The QAUE program is designed by the MOE and implemented by an arm-length agency, the HEEC. The evaluators are experts in various disciplines with high academic reputations or with administrative experience in higher education institutions. These experts are nominated by universities; the MOE made the ultimate decisions on the appointment of evaluators; the HEEC trains them and organizes a panel for each review (HEEC, 2015).

2.6  EVALUATION PROCEDURES AND METHODS The evaluation procedures are standardized, including self-assessments, site visits, and follow-up reforms. The MOE identifies the date the institution is going to be evaluated and arranges the panel, which is composed of 7–13 evaluators. Then, the university starts its self-assessment, which lasts about one to three years. The self-assessment report is prepared by following a standardized format that will be sent to the external evaluators. The report covers the basic information of the university, such as a brief introduction to university schools and departments, and curriculum descriptions. In addition, the students’ learning outcomes, such as dissertations and examination papers should also be provided for evaluators so that they can randomly select and inspect. The site visit of the expert

24

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

committee lasts approximately one week (four to five working days), involving a tour of the campus, access to university documents, in-class inspection, and interviews with university leaders, faculty members, and students. Programs of each department are reviewed. The content of the self-assessment report, together with the information assembled during the on-site visit, allow the panel to produce a review report. This report usually consists of a judgment on the overall teaching quality of the institution, based on a grade scale: excellent, good, qualified, or unqualified, and recommendations for improvement. HEIs must carry out reforms by following these recommendations. They are required to present reform projects to the MOE and report the improvement after the one-year reforms. The MOE reserves the right to randomly examine whether the reforms have been successfully carried out or not. Moreover, the MOE releases the evaluation results through mass media (HEEC, 2015).

2.7  EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation criteria set out by the MOE comprise eight major indicators, which are divided into 19 subindicators (Table 2.2). It covers the guiding principles of university operation, teaching staff, teaching conditions and the utilization of facilities, subjects and teaching, teaching management, academic atmosphere, students’ learning outcomes, and feature programs. As a supplement to these indicators, there is a set of quantitative qualification standards in the QAUE scheme, focusing on the tangible input into teaching, such as student/teacher ratios, numbers of books per student, etc.

2.8  CONSEQUENCES OF EVALUATION A total of 589 HEIs have been involved in the first round of assessment (Table 2.3). The numbers of excellent, good, qualified, and unqualified institutions are respectively 424, 144, 21, and 0 (HEEC, 2015). This means that 96.4 percent of the HEIs assessed are excellent or good, while none were considered unqualified. Whereas funding decisions are not public knowledge in China, the then Minister of Education, Zhou Ji, said that the link between assessment results and funding decisions should be established (Zhou, 2004). It is recognized that the evaluation results have implications for universities’ quota for student recruitment (which is centrally

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

25

Table 2.2  Evaluation criteria of the QAUE (translated from MOE, 2004). Number Indicators Subindicators

1 2 3

Guiding principles on university operation Teaching staff

4

Teaching conditions and the utilization of teaching facilities Subjects and teaching

5

Teaching management

6

Academic atmosphere

7

Learning outcomes

8

Special features

Mission of universities Rationale of university running Numbers and qualifications of teaching staff Principal lecturers Teaching facilities Teaching expenditure Subject structure Curriculum design Practical training Management team Internal quality assurance schemes Professional ethics of teachers and their commitment to teaching Students’ commitment to learning Knowledge and skills of students Quality of graduation projects and dissertations Morality of students Physical education University’s reputation Student employment

Note: The 11 subindicators marked as bold are key indicators.

Table 2.3  Evaluation results of the QAUE from 2003 to 2008 (HEEC, 2015). Year Results Evaluated Institutions Excellent Good Qualified Unqualified

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Sum total

20 (47.6%) 30 (55.6%) 43 (57.3%) 100 (75.2%) 160 (80.8%) 71 (81.6%) 424 (72.0%)

19 (45.2%) 19 (35.2%) 28 (37.3%) 24 (45.2%) 38 (19.2%) 16 (18.4%) 144 (24.4%)

3 (7.1%) 5 (9.3%) 4 (5.3%) 9 (6.8%) 0 0 21 (3.6%)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

42 54 75 133 198 87 589

26

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

planned by the government) and for the approval of master’s and doctoral programs, which are quite significant for institutions’ reputations and development (Wang & Liu, 2009).

2.9  FUNDING SOURCES FOR ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES In principle, the QAUE is completely funded by the government budget (HEEC, 2015). However, the institutions that engage in the quality assessment process have to cover the expenses of assembling data in the selfassessment stage as well as the indirect costs in the form of staff time.

2.10  THE IMPACT OF THE QAUE ON THE EVALUATED INSTITUTIONS 2.10.1  Intended Impact of the QAUE The intended impact of the QAUE can be summarized based on the purposes defined in the policy discourse, the context in which the QAUE scheme emerged, and the design of its evaluation criteria. Firstly, in the context of expanding student enrollments and diminishing unit costs, the QAUE examined universities’ infrastructure, teaching facilities, teaching expenditure, and teacher–student ratios. In this way, it intended to push universities and their sponsors to increase their commitment of resource to undergraduate education. Secondly, the QAUE examined the statement of universities’ mission and development purposes and required them to summarize their special features (i.e., distinctive characteristics). In this way, it tried to push universities to rethink their mission and develop direction, and encouraged them to develop special features rather than imitating other institutions. Thirdly, by examining the management and administration of universities, the QAUE intended to push them to adapt their administrative ways to the growth and diversification of both student and teacher bodies, and establish their own internal quality monitoring and assurance mechanisms. Fourthly, the QAUE examined the curriculum design, teaching methods, teaching effectiveness of the teachers, and the learning outcomes of students. This was intended to motivate universities to improve their teaching and learning in terms of both teaching content and teaching methods. Furthermore, the QAUE was particularly concerned with the practical training and graduation projects of students, aiming to push universities to develop students’ practical and creative capabilities. Fifthly, the QAUE examined whether or not universities were

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

27

giving priority to teaching, from the resource allocation of institutions to the commitment of individual teachers. As a teaching quality assessment scheme, it was intended to push universities to achieve a better balance between teaching and research. In summary, the intended impact of the QAUE mainly involved the following five dimensions: resource commitment, university identification, quality management, teaching and learning, and the balance between teaching and research.

2.10.2  Actual Impact of the QAUE After working for one full cycle, some impact studies on the QAUE scheme have been conducted based on field investigations (for example, Gao, Zhang, Chen, Lan, & Zhang, 2006; Liu, 2013; Zhang & Zhang, 2008). This chapter reviews three representative survey studies conducted by the policy implementer (HEEC) and independent researchers. These studies either focused on the perceptions of university leaders (Li, Li, & Qu, 2006), on teachers (Liu, 2013; Zhang & Zhang, 2008), or on students (Liu & Yu, 2014), respectively. They explored the impact of the QAUE on the evaluated institutions and the problems it caused. Similar conclusions were drawn from these four empirical studies. These four studies find that teaching facilities and teaching expenditure have been significantly improved and increased in the evaluated institutions, and the numbers of teaching staff have increased notably. The criteria of staff recruitment and appointment have been adjusted with more emphasis on high academic qualifications and diverse education backgrounds. The evaluated institutions believe that adequate resource commitment is beneficial to quality improvement. However, some of QAUE requirements were beyond the capabilities of the evaluated institutions. In this case, in order to get better evaluation results, some universities chose to deceive the QAUE evaluators. For example, many institutions recruited part-time staff, who hardly ever worked at the universities, to meet the student–teacher ratio required by the QAUE. These studies also find that the evaluated institutions have clarified their mission and development purposes, and their motivation to develop special features has been strengthened. However, it turned out that the adjusted mission had limited impact on university operations. For example, some universities professed to become teaching-intensive institutions. But in reality their steps to pursuit of research outcomes have never slowed down. Moreover, the evaluated institutions admitted that their capabilities to develop special features are not as much as expected.Thus, the actual change in this respect is limited.

28

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

These studies reveal that the evaluated institutions have imposed strict disciplines on teachers and students and set up standardized teaching procedures. Enhanced quality management has been appropriately sustained in the less elite institutions and a paradigm of teaching processes has also been established there. In contrast, the strict disciplines and standardized teaching procedures seemed to be less compatible with the inherent management culture of the elite institutions and thus have not been sustained there. Furthermore, the QAUE has stimulated the improvement of internal quality-monitoring systems in the evaluated institution, where the awareness of internal quality assurance has been enhanced. Except for the increasing use of teaching technology, there has not been much essential change in teaching contents and teaching methods as a result of the QAUE’s assessment, although the evaluated institutions agreed with the requirements of adapting teaching contents and student-centered learning approaches. More importance has been attached to applied knowledge and training, thus practical skills training has been improved significantly. A strict quality management of students’ graduation projects was initiated but not sustained well. The evaluated universities have given the priority of both financial and human resource allocation to teaching. The stricter requirement has been imposed on instructors to assure their commitment to teaching. The evaluated institutions also have increased the financial support for conducting research on teaching. But the effects of these strategies are negligible in that academics still engage most of their time in research rather than teaching. In summary, the impacts of the QAUE on the various dimensions of quality provisions have not been the same. Overall the QAUE has caused significant changes in terms of resource commitment and quality management (in the less elite institutions), and the improvement of teaching technology and practical training; but its effects on university identification, quality management in elite institutions, teaching and learning activities, and the balance between teaching and research were insignificant. The extent of changes among institutions varied. The change was more significant in nonelite institutions than in elite ones, the possible explanation of this result may be these nonelite institutions didn’t do as well as elite institutions in the pre-QAUE review, therefore they have more room for improvement. In relation to the huge amount of investment made by both the government and the evaluated institutions on the QAUE scheme, it is not

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

29

considered to be cost effective. People criticize that the right of universities participating in assessment process was disregarded. Consequently, the external compulsory evaluation became a huge burden to evaluated institutions. Using the same set of performance indicators to evaluate all universities and colleges is also criticized as unfair and would lead to homogenization of HEIs. In addition, it is admitted that the self-evaluation reports prepared by the universities for inspection were partially false; and visible rehearsals occurred in institutions during the visits of external evaluators. Thus, the evaluation results were somewhat distorted. Thus, the QAUE assessment is perceived to be unconvincing and less helpful than university rankings for students’ educational choices (Li et  al., 2006; Liu, 2013; Liu & Yu, 2014; Zhang & Zhang, 2008).

2.11  CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Quality assurance has become a world-wide phenomenon, and different higher education systems have developed various approaches to assess quality of their tertiary education. Four major approaches can be identified based on the ownership, procedure, and criteria of quality assessment: accreditation, audit, self-regulated assessment, and government-directed assessment. A particular higher education system may adopt multiple approaches in quality assurance. For example, the American higher education system mainly adopts a combination of accreditation and self-regulated assessment, of which nongovernmental accreditation agencies set the baseline of quality and help individual institutions to improve and achieve their goals through review and recommendations. The UK higher education system mainly employs an institutional audit model, in which a quality-assurance agency conducts an audit on the effectiveness and reliability of quality-assurance mechanisms and techniques that individual HEI used rather than on examining their quality directly. The history, mode of governance of a higher education system, and contextual factors all influence the choice of quality assessment approaches. In the Chinese case, a government-directed quality assurance model is dominant, as this chapter has depicted. Every mode has its own advantages and disadvantages. There is a space for the Chinese higher education quality-assurance system to improve as well. Firstly, the state is the leading actor of the external quality assurance schemes in China. It is necessary to enhance the independence of the national quality assessment agencies and slightly loosen the link

30

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

between the evaluation results and resource allocation. Taking the QAUE as an example, the strong governing force of the state and the close link between the evaluation results and resource allocation give the QAUE great external impetus for university change. The evaluated institutions have made all-out efforts to meet the requirements of the QAUE. In order to obtain better evaluation results, some of them chose to manipulate the QAUE by means of transitory compliance and even deception. These manipulative strategies led to a huge waste of resources, both financial and human, and have become the main focus of external criticism on the QAUE. In this case, it is suggested that the independence of the external quality assessment agencies from the state should be enhanced. The evaluation agency of the QAUE, HEEC, is currently a department of the MOE, but it should be allowed more independence. It could become a quasi-governmental organization, related to the MOE but not completely supervised by it. The evaluation agency of the subject evaluation, CDGDC, which is a legal entity and has some distance from the MOE, might be a better example. Furthermore, as suggested by van Vught and Westerheijden (1994), there should be no direct link between the outcome of quality assessment and the funding of institutions. Thus, it is suggested that the link between the evaluation results and resource allocation should be slightly loosened in China. In this case, the influence of the external evaluation will still exist, but it will not be as excessive as it is now, and so the compliance phenomena would be expected to be lessened. Secondly, it is necessary to conduct independent evaluation of teaching and learning on the subject level in China. The Chinese governments tended to conduct comprehensive quality assessment schemes. The QAUE was operated at the institutional level and covered various dimensions of quality provisions within universities. The comprehensive quality assessment had quite a strong influence on the evaluated institutions. However, it transpires that the external impetus from the QAUE for change in various dimensions was not equal. The impetus for change in terms of resource commitment and quality management was quite strong, while its effects on the teaching and learning activities, the core of educational quality, were not notable. It is essentially difficult to measure the performances of teaching and learning and make an unambiguous judgment. At the same time, the evaluators of the QAUE are not academic peers from the same subject group. Without professional knowledge, it is almost impossible for them to make reliable judgments or effective

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

31

recommendations. Thus, it is suggested that the evaluation of teaching and learning should be separated from the current QAUE scheme and be conducted at the subject level. In this case, peers from the subject group will be selected as evaluators. They could produce more reliable evaluation results and their recommendations would be more helpful for transforming teaching contents and methods. Thirdly, in the context of the isomorphism of higher education institutions in China (Mohrman, 2003), the evaluation criteria of external quality assessment schemes should be diversified. The case studies of the QAUE showed that it used uniform evaluation criteria to review all the evaluated institutions. This did not consider the internal norms and values of the evaluated institutions, or their capacity to implement change and the internal forces for change were not encouraged. At the same time, it has contributed to the homogenization of Chinese higher education institutions. It is suggested that higher education institutions should be divided into several groups, based on their mission and status. The results of the previous evaluations could provide some information for the grouping. Then, uniform evaluation criteria can be designed for each group, considering their existing resources, educational levels and internal norms of “good” higher education. It is proposed that the evaluation criteria leave some gap for the evaluated institutions to improve, but not beyond their capacity. Essentially, standards-based evaluation is used within each group, while the evaluation is basically mission-based among various groups. This is expected to combine the advantages of mission-based evaluation and standards-based evaluation: it respects the internal norms and capacity and encourages the internal forces for change while also providing relatively comparable evaluation results to guarantee the external impetus of the evaluation. Thus, the internal and external forces for change can be integrated to some extent. Fourthly, the internal quality assurance mechanisms should get more concern in China. The empirical study of the QAUE showed that effective university change cannot depend only on external forces; the capacity and initiatives of universities to implement change are very important influencing factors. The European University Association also suggested that external quality-assurance processes were not sufficient to improve quality and must be combined with institutional process (Sursock, 2011). Harvey and Newton (2004) argued that in mature quality assessment systems, internal reviews and assessments are more valid and fruitful for quality improvement than those carried out by outside evaluators. Thus,

32

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

the method of using an external quality assessment system to push for an improvement of internal quality assurance schemes, as adopted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the United Kingdom, might be learned by China (Brown, 2011). It would certainly contribute to the establishment of adequate internal quality-assurance schemes in Chinese higher education institutions.

REFERENCES Barnett, R. (1992). Improving higher education: Total quality care. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press. Brown, R. (2011). The new English quality assurance régime. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 213–229. CCCPC, (1998). Higher education law of the People’s Republic of China. Beijing: Ministry of Education. in Chinese. CCCPC (Central Committee of the Communist Party of China), (1985). Decision on the educational system reform. Beijing: People’s Press. in Chinese. CCCPC & State Council, (1993). Guidelines for the reform and development of education in China. Beijing: People’s Press. in Chinese. China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Centre (CDGDC). (2015). The introduction to the China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center in China. Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.cdgdc.edu.cn/ (in Chinese). Ding, X. (2008). Study of higher education quality assurance systems. Nanjing: Jiangsu Education Press. in Chinese. Gao,Y., Zhang, P., Chen, H., Lan, L., & Zhang, G. (2006).The impact of the evaluation of the standards of undergraduate teaching work on teaching at higher education institutions: An investigative study. Journal of Higher Education, 27(11), 85–90. in Chinese. Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2004).Transforming quality evaluation. Quality in Higher Education, 10(2), 149–165. HEEC. (Higher Education Evaluation Centre), (2007). The handbook of quality assessment of undergraduate education: Questions and answers. Beijing: Higher Education Evaluation Centre. in Chinese. HEEC. (2015). Information collected on the organisation’s website. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://www.pgzx.edu.cn/index.jsp (in Chinese). Hubei Provincial Department of Education. 2015. Information collected on the organisation’s website. Retrieved April 10, 2015, from http://www.hbe.gov.cn/ (in Chinese). Li, Y. (2004). Revision and introspection of the construction of higher education assess system in China. Journal of Jiangsu Institute of Education (Social Science), 20(2), 24–46. in Chinese. Li, Y. (2010). Quality assurance in Chinese higher education. Research in Comparative and International Education, 5(1), 58–76. Li,Y., Li, X., & Qu, Q. (2006). The review of the investigation in 177 higher education institutions evaluated from 2003 to 2005. Chinese University Teaching, 6, 46–47. in Chinese. Liu, L. (2004). The disparity of educational expenditure per student. Information and Research January 15, 2004. (in Chinese). Liu, S. (2006). Please stop pelting bad eggs at university students. Nanjing Morning Post December 19, 2006. (in Chinese). Liu, S. (2013). Quality assessment of undergraduate education in China: Impact on different universities. Higher Education, 66(4), 391–407.

Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education

33

Liu, S., & Yu, H. (2014). Study of the impacts of the quality assessment of undergraduate education policy in China: Students’ perceptions. Higher Education Studies, 4(2), 52–60. MOE (Ministry of Education), (1998–2005). Chinese education yearbook. Beijing: People’s Education Press. in Chinese. MOE, (2004). Project of quality assessment of undergraduate education. Beijing: Ministry of Education. in Chinese. MOE, (2013). Chinese education yearbook. Beijing: People’s Education Press. in Chinese. Mohrman, K. (2003). Higher Education Reform in Mainland Chinese Universities: An American’s Perspective. Retrieved December 6, 2006, from www.sais-jhu.edu/Nanjing/downloads/ Higher_Ed_in_China.pdf. Mok, K. H. (2002). Policy of decentralisation and changing governance of higher education in post-Maoist China. Public Administration and Development, 22(3), 261–273. Neave, G., & Van Vught, F. A. (1994). Government and higher education relationships across three continents. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Pan, M. (2006). Quality strategy of Chinese higher education in new era. Journal of National Academy of Education Administration, 2, 3–7. in Chinese. State Education Commission, (1990). Draft regulation of higher education institutions assessment. Beijing: State Education Commission. in Chinese. Sursock, A. (2011). Accountability in Western Europe: Shifting quality assurance paradigms. In B. Stensaker & L. Harvey (Eds.), Accountability in higher education: Global perspectives on trust and power. New York: Routledge. Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309–324. Turnbull, W., Burton, D., & Mullins, P. (2008). Strategic repositioning of institutional frameworks: Balancing competing demands within the modular UK higher education environment. Quality in Higher Education, 14(1), 15–28. Van Vught, F.A., & Westerheijden, D.F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 28(3), 355–371. Wang, C. (2003). The scientificity and preciousness of university rankings. Journal of Ningbo University, 5, 4–9. in Chinese. Wang,Y., & Liu, B. (2009). The thirty-year Chinese educational reforms: Higher education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. in Chinese. Yang, R. (2000). Tensions between the global and the local: A comparative illustration of the reorganisation of China's higher education in the 1950s and 1990s. Higher Education, 39(3), 319–337. Zhang, J. (2002). The balance between research and teaching in college teacher assessment. Journal of Architectural Education in Institutions of Higher Learning, 4, 83–84. in Chinese. Zhang, J., & Zhang, S. (2008). The impacts of the quality assessment of undergraduate education from the perspective of teachers: A questionnaire survey. Journal of National Academy of Education Administration, 6, 30–34. in Chinese. Zhou, J. (2004). Promoting quality assessment and improving teaching quality in Chinese HEIs. Address to the foundation of the Higher Education Evaluation Centre, October 26, 2004, Beijing. (in Chinese).

FURTHER READING Hayhoe, R. (1996). China's Universities 1895–1995: A century of cultural conflict. New York: Garland.

CHAPTER 3

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception Jianrong Sun Macau University of Science and Technology, Taipa, Macau (SAR), China

3.1 INTRODUCTION Responses to increasing public accountability and the expectations of continuous improvement have served as two1 of the major impetuses for evaluating quality in higher education in recent years, focusing more on the assessment of student learning outcomes (Gaston, 2014). Such a shift in evaluation emphasis for student learning centrality is found in the Criteria for Accreditation for U.S. institutional accreditation (Ewell, 2006a; Gaston, 2014; HLC/NCA, 2010), in the Standards of Evaluation for undergraduate teaching endorsed by the Ministry of Education, China, and in the quality audit conducted by the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) of the University Grants Council (UGC) of all UGC-funded institutions (QAC Audit, 2008) in Hong Kong. In each quality assurance approach, the student learning–centered emphasis is articulated to different extent in their respective evaluation standards, providing guidance for how institutions are evaluated in this aspect. Such differing descriptions of how learning centrality is understood and defined for evaluating quality in teaching reflect the cultural influences, among other variables, where education is rooted. The impact from those criteria and standards on higher education is two-fold: the quality of education is reexamined in terms of student learning outcomes demonstrated in their performance (i.e., what students can do with what they have learned), and institutional improvement is expected in terms of institutional effectiveness, as is reflected in curriculum reemphasis on student learning (Ewell, 2006a).

1

3+3+4 refers to the change of the normative length for junior school (3 years), high school (3 years), and undergraduate programs (4 years) from the previous practice of 3 years for junior school, 4 years for high school, and 3 years for college.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00003-3 Copyright © 2017 Jianrong Sun. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

35

36

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

A case analysis of the recent transformation (“3+3+4”) in the higher education sector in Hong Kong is provided to support suggestions to be made on how to meet challenges that occur with QA practices within the college curriculum design and implementation.

3.2  QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION (SAR) OF HONG KONG As a Special Administrative Region of the mainland China, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy in terms of governmental responsibilities2 for many areas. There are eight UGC3-funded institutions of higher education with an enrollment of 97,585 students (including 6076 enrolled in subdegree programs and 10,593 in post-graduate programs) of 2014– 2015 academic year (Statistics of HK higher education, 2015). In addition to the eight UGC-funded institutions, there are also nine private institutions of higher education, and some 19 other institutions of higher education (public, and subdegree, not of a university status). Quality assurance could be described as two general domains: institutional QA and programmatic QA. The former is then divided into two types: QA provided by the Quality Assurance Council (QAC) for eight UGC-funded institutions, and the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) for private and vocational institutions. Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE), a signatory of the Washington Accord, provides programmatic accreditation for engineers. The Quality Framework in Hong Kong is “a seven-level hierarchy of qualifications covering the academic, vocational and continuing education in Hong Kong. The framework is broadly comparable to qualifications frameworks in other countries, with levels five to seven covering first and higher degrees”. QA practice in the higher education sector in Hong Kong can trace its historical development of relatively strong ties with the UK’s higher education. The current QA infrastructure, concepts, framework, as well as practices, all bear similarities with those used in the UK higher education sector. The generic QA system follows a hierarchical structure where QA

2

Commonly referred to as “One Country, Two Systems” University Grants Committee, a nonstatutory advisory committee

3

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

37

framework and structure is found at institutional level as well as program level (QAC Audit Manual, 2014), summarized in the following table: Structure

Program

Departmental Assessment Departmental Academic Advisor System Program Advisory Committee

Processes

Annual QA Reports Reports on Departmental Performance Annual Business Plans Course Review & Annual Progress Report Program Reviews & Reports

●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

Institution

Institutional Assessment Institutional Academic Advisor System

Annual QA Reports Annual Business Plans Guidelines and Regulations for Program Planning, Validation and Management

●

●

●

● ●

QA bodies in the form of committees are found at both institutional and program levels and they oversee all QA-related issues: subject and program matters are discussed and acted upon through program level QA bodies; program issues are discussed first at the program level before going through institutional level QA processes for final decision making. The QA processes follow the same procedure: subject level QA information is sent to the program, and the program QA information is sent to the institution for reporting purposes. With such generic QA systems in place, academic-related issues for discussions, clarification, and/or decision making routinely identify a channel through which they seek solutions. Those QA mechanisms, all articulated in a QA handbook, intend to ensure processes and procedures to be observed when expected, and to ensure an oversight of all activities of a department that acknowledges its inter-relationship, ongoing external input, and the individual department’s responsibility for setting its own objectives and assessing progress. An important purpose of QA is for quality improvement. Those QA processes prove crucial. For instance, continuous quality improvement of the department is ensured through the Annual QA Report and Annual Business Plan exercises. While the Annual QA Report provides detailed information concerning the various aspects of the department and provides a self-evaluation of its own performance during the year, the Business Plan outlines the department’s strategy for

38

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

the foreseeable future. The Departmental Assessment exercise intends to provide a longer-term review and assessment for the purpose of assessing the department’s performance versus its mission and strategic objectives in light of the changing needs of the community, the region, and the world.

3.3  EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE INITIATIVES The eight UGC-funded institutions of higher education receive periodical quality reviews from UGC and later, from the Quality Assurance Council (QAC), which was established in 2007 and is responsible for performing a quality audit on all UGC-funded institutions. A brief account of such quality reviews historically reveals several milestones of such quality review exercises: Teaching and Learning Quality Process Reviews (TLQPRs) in 1995–97, and in 2002–3, respectively, and the Performance and Role-related Funding Scheme (PRFS) exercise in 2004, all conducted by UGC. Each round of the three quality review processes focuses on different themes, evaluating the health of higher education and providing valuable information for the most recent quality review process conducted by QAC (Ewell, 2006b).

3.4  THE 3+3+4 TRANSFORMATION AND OBA A milestone development in QA occurred in 2003 when UGC made the decision to request its eight funded institutions of higher education to consider OBA to teaching and learning in their curriculum redesign as part of the 3+3+4 transformation of the educational matriculation (three years of junior schooling, three years of high schooling, and four years of undergraduate studies in universities). To facilitate this change, QAC incorporated in its Quality Audit the assessment of the implementation of OBA as an important component to examine: … whether an institution has quality assurance processes in place appropriate for its stated purposes, whether it pursues activities and applies resources to achieve those purposes, and whether there is verifiable evidence to show that the purposes are being achieved. The QAC’s Audit Manual sets out how the QAC conducts audits and what it expects to receive from institutions” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 21).

During the period of 2004–2008, all the eight UQC-funded institutions invested both manpower and energy, revising each of their curriculums within the OBA framework, with particular attention given to the

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

39

shift of focus from teaching to student learning. The institutional audit conducted by QAC made it clear in its Focus Area of the QAC Audit Manual that the quality of student learning as the centerpiece is embedded in several of the 11 Focus Areas for the audit. Those Focus Areas examine various processes and infrastructure in terms of how “the institution’s practices in each focus area contribute to student learning outcomes” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 48). In addition to the evidence to be provided by the institution under audit, the institution is expected to make external reference points and outcome measures to give “added assurance that the outcomes have been specified and measured appropriately” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 54).

3.5  APPROACHES TO AUDIT IN HONG KONG An audit in the Hong Kong context asks how well students achieve these intended learning outcomes defined by each institution and its programs. In a way, the definition of what student learning comprises is left to each institution to provide evidence for students’ achievement of those learning outcomes. The audit is now taking an approach similar in assessment methodology, but different in assessment substance. Currently, coursebased student evaluation information still comprises the major portion of student learning evidence. In other words, student course grades provide a larger portion of student learning outcome achievement. At the program level and institutional level, use of assessment methods to collect student learning information is sporadic and this could be justified in that Hong Kong institutions follow a stringent internal quality assurance system aforementioned, often called the Department Assessor (DA), which requires both internal and external checks on course level evaluation design and results. Such checks assure the quality of course-based examinations and tests, which is the dominant course evaluation mechanism. Use of external assessment tools is not yet systemized (programs that have external accreditation tend to have more of such external assessment activities than programs that do not have such external accreditation). Such evaluation is so noted during the audit process, which critically examines the internal quality assurance structure, how effectively it works, and takes samples horizontally/vertically of an institution to evaluate its quality. As the term “audit” suggests, the audit process in Hong Kong displays the expected characteristics of an audit in that it is a process of verification against a set of standards, as is clearly described in the Overview

40

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

of the audit: “the purpose of the Audit is to allow the panel to test the material presented by the institution through first-hand investigation and personal interactions.” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 32). The logistics and arrangement for the audit visit reflect such characteristics: interviews and meetings with various (pre-requested) groups of individuals typify the primary site visit activities. The Audit Timetable engages an institution nine months prior to the site visit, with follow-up activities between the institution and the QAC for the next 22 months. The extent to which members of an institution are involved in the audit preparation process is fairly limited to a core of individuals with direct supervision responsibilities. A common approach in an institution’s preparation process is to form a special committee that is given the responsibilities to direct the preparation process (such as information gathering and analysis, conducting internal meetings, and drafting the institutional submission report). Comparatively speaking, campus-wide involvement is limited only to a small core of administrative people, and the majority of the campus community are less actively involved or engaged. To facilitate the audit process, a panel comprising individuals from both inside and outside of Hong Kong is formed from a relatively small pool of the QAC’s Register of Auditors. These auditors have undertaken training on how to perform audit visits. A characteristic of those auditors is their seniority largely by position held in their respectively institutions (other than the lay persons from outside higher education). Some of the panel members are invited from overseas institutions, and normally, no faculty members are included in the panel.

3.6  IMPACTS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ON THE ACADEMIA As a profession, higher education institutions attempt to enhance their educational services as well as its management effectiveness through quality assurance. The adoption of quality assurance approaches would insert impacts on the community of the academy. The intended impacts can bring benefits to institutions; however, they could also pose challenges. An analysis of such impacts is provided below from an examination of the QA criteria in practice in Hong Kong. Reasons for what education quality is to be expected and how it is to be assessed will be discussed below.

3.7  COMMONLY ACCEPTED EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES AS EXPECTED IN QA CRITERIA For the Institutional Audit by QAC in Hong Kong, the criteria used constitutes a crucial component for the QA processes. They are used not only

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

41

to guide the QA processes by those directly involved during the site visits, namely, Audit Panel members in Hong Kong, but also to heavily influence participating higher education institutions in their QA reports preparation (i.e., institutional submission in Hong Kong) and some of the substantial changes in their academic practices. Key features in the QA criteria manifest themselves in three aspects: (1) articulation of expectations for student learning outcomes, (2) expectations of continuous improvement from institutions, and (3) implementation of the evaluation processes.

3.8  A FOCUS ON STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES In Hong Kong, quality assurance has been in existence for some time, but recent changes in its quality assurance approach have made student learning outcomes a central focus. The adoption of OBA in curriculum redesign for all the eight UGC-funded institutions in 2006 during the 3+3+4 changes demonstrates the desire to further enhance educational quality. The first round of institutional audit (2007–11) places a special emphasis on assessing students’ achievement of those articulated learning outcomes. The commonality in the language used to describe student learning focuses on student performance, competence, and abilities, as illustrated in their achievement of those articulated learning outcomes.

3.9  EXPECTATION OF CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT In the first round of an institutional audit in Hong Kong, improvement expectation was articulated in every one of the eleven Focus Areas (standards). Institutions were asked to address questions of how their current processes lead to improvement, how evidence from student learning assessments were used to make improvement plans, and how resources were allocated to facilitate improvement. In terms of monitoring progress, each institution was required to report progress on recommendations. During the second round of audit (2012–15), a focus was added on quality enhancement: … defined in terms of institutional policies, procedures, and activities that are designed to promote the learning experience and learning outcomes of students and also contribute to the enrichment of the curriculum (QAC Audit Manual, 2014, p. 8).

The two rounds of audit conducted by QAC have their specific focus area; the first round assured that the followings were in place in institutions: … effective quality assurance systems for the maintenance of provision at the level of programs and faculties, and institutional oversight of the academic

42

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

standards of higher education qualifications. The next cycle offers the opportunity to build on this established base to take forward priorities for quality enhancement and sector-wide development” (QAC Audit Manual, 2014, p. 12).

3.10  EVALUATION PROCESSES Among all components of the evaluation processes are the self-study process and the on-site visit process. The completion of the self-study process provides an institution with an opportunity to engage its community members, faculty as well as administrative staff, along with students, to critically examine its system, policies, processes, procedures, and results against the quality assurance standards/criteria, and summarize its findings from such reflections into a document (“self-study” as is called in the US accreditation, “self-evaluation report” as is referred to in the China evaluation, and “institutional submission” in the Hong Kong audit) to be submitted as part of the institution’s supportive evidence. When the three elements from the QA approaches are summarized together, they all point to a theme: that student learning as the core operational area of a higher education institution provides an impetus for institutional continuous improvement and verification of resultant accomplishment is needed to assure interested stakeholder groups of the validity of implementing such quality assurance processes.

3.11  CULTURALLY-IMPACTED QA CRITERIA Each quality assurance approach is deeply embedded in the culture which nurtures, impacts, and is served by the educational system (Sun, 2011b). Among Hofstede’s (2001) six dimensions used to analyze characteristics of national cultures, several of the dimensions (i.e., Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, Aggressiveness, and Collectivism) have high associations with the characteristics identified as unique to educational practice and behaviors in Hong Kong. Without doubt, differences will occur in those quality assurance approaches, which makes each one unique in itself as compared with others.

3.12  QUALITY OF STUDENT LEARNING DEFINED: HONG KONG In a recent UGC report (UGC, 2010), three elements were identified for the enhancement of higher education in Hong Kong: effective utilization

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

43

of limited resources for quality education services, competition with international peers during the globalization of higher education, and maintaining relevancy in providing quality assurance for Hong Kong higher education. Hong Kong has made tremendous progress in its higher education sector. Learning from both the quality assurance models from the UK and Australia, Hong Kong higher education has benefited greatly in developing and designing its own quality assurance model for use. The most direct impetus for the current QAC Audit is “the expansion of the postsecondary section” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 5) in Hong Kong, and the UGC-funded institutions “are playing an increasingly active role in the provision of higher education opportunities” (QAC Audit Manual, 2008, p. 5). Like in many other countries, education is a strong public good, and the public is increasingly expressing its interest in quality issues for those educational programs offered in universities. The recent transformation of the higher education system to move to a 3+3+4 structure4 provides a good platform for the current audit process. With the audit model used for the evaluation, the Hong Kong higher education system quality assurance processes also display cultural impact. Two areas stand out: seniority plays an important role in who to involve in the quality assurance processes, and authority of responsibility within the hierarchical positions influences degree of participation in and contribution to quality assurance on campus. Hong Kong’s long local tradition culture contains a unique mixture of both Chinese culture and those from other cultures. In the academic community on campuses, there is a heavy presence of seniority that impacts academic life. As the audit model emphasizes performance and behaviors against a set of standards during evaluation, a strong cultural belief of seniority representing power and the right to make such evaluative statements and conclusions results in fewer people with such seniority being involved directly in the quality assurance processes. Strong internal quality assurance systems currently found in Hong Kong higher education institutions, although a very beneficial component for internal quality assurance, reinforce the authoritative division of responsibilities under which members act accordingly in their performance.

4

Please see Footnote 1 on the 3+3+4 structure change

44

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

3.13  QA OUTREACH AND ITS IMPACT Hong Kong has a relatively long history and experience in its QA outreach with peer international QA bodies. Two such QA organizations, for instance, are the HKIE as a signatory of the Washington Accord, and the HKCAAVQ as a founding member of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) and the Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). Such QA outreach at the international level is found at two forms: (1) government initiated collaboration with QA organizations with other countries and international QA bodies, and (2) participation by programs to seek specialized accreditation. Those outreach efforts have provided useful platforms for QA organizations to (1) benefit from sharing with peer QA professionals from outside of Hong Kong on best practices in QA and enhancing awareness of and recognition by peer QA bodies of how QA is conducted in Hong Kong, (2) gain first-hand experience from such accreditation processes in seeking peer recognition of program quality and in aligning its own QA work with professionally recognized practices and benchmarks, and (3) improve QA practices.

3.14  MODIFICATION IN OBA: A CASE ANALYSIS Continuous improvement characterizes current QA practices in higher education, as has been discussed so far. Such improvement aims to enhance educational services provided both as a public good and as a manifestation of academic integrity held essential by the academia. The following provides a discussion of how OBA, as an approach to curriculum design, could be modified for improvement. An outcomes-based approach (OBA) to teaching and learning expects a “clear articulation of learning outcomes,” against which student learning is assessed. However, educators who wish to use this OBA framework are confronted with two challenges: that many of the higher order knowledge and/or skills (HO-KSs) as defined in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom & Krothwohl, 1956) that higher education aspires to instill in students are difficult to articulate in terms of tangible outcomes, and that those intangible outcomes pose more difficulties for assessment design (i.e., what would be acceptable outcomes for an intended learning outcome of “lifelong learning”?). The proposed modification of the OBA framework would attempt to maintain its core feature of constructive alignment but modify its execution during the curriculum design process with a focus on (1) articulation of the tangibility aspect of HO-KSs, (2) provision and

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

45

creation of a student-centered and activity-oriented learning platform, and (3) learning-based assessment design. It is hoped that this quasi-OBA framework would enhance the execution and implementation of the original intention of the OBA approach (Sun, 2011a, 2011b).

3.15  A QUASI-OBA MODEL Academic curriculum normally consists of two broad categories: disciplinary knowledge and skills and meta-knowledge and meta-skills. The latter category tends to include more HO-KSs. College education attempts to emphasize both, requiring students to master a set of facts, rules, and procedures in a discipline, and also expecting students to develop a way of thinking about and making sense of the world (Gregg & UnderwoodGregg, 2011). It is the latter category that posts challenges both conceptually (how to articulate such expectations as educational outcomes) and technically (how to “teach” and assess them) to curriculum design, implementation, and assessment design, and that tends to outnumber the former category, percentage-wise, in the total number of program intended learning outcomes (Sun, 2010, 2011a). In an OBA-based curriculum design, a linear process is followed in the initial curriculum design: intended learning outcomes are articulated first, followed by selection of teaching and learning platforms (individual subjects and teaching and learning activities) that contribute directly or indirectly to students’ achievement of those intended learning outcomes, and finally by assessment design:

3.15.1  Protocol of an OBA-Based Curriculum Design OBA-based Curriculum design

Articulation of intended learning outcomes (i.e., subjects/courses) (Step 1)

Tangible academic artifacts

Selection of teaching & learning platforms (i.e., subjects/courses) (Step 2)

Assessment design (Step 3)

46

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

The assumption for such a design, that an assessment needs to consist of tangible artifacts from students to indicate the achievement of intended learning outcomes, however, is challenged when reflecting on what a college education entails. An examination of the composition of college education reveals three aspects: exposures to various learning opportunities (college experiences), completion of designed learning activities (learning processes), and end products produced by students for course-based assignments as a result of their experiences and processes (academic artifacts). During their stay in college, students are exposed to a variety of opportunities (public lectures and forums, extra-curricular activities, onand off-campus involvement in organized and/or self-initiated activities or community work) through which they learn to understand others and themselves, learn to make sense of events of different nature, and learn to make connections between what they see outside of class and what they learn in the classroom. Such college experiences become essential in enriching and enhancing the education that they receive. By academic tradition, all students are expected to complete a set of academic activities (a curriculum for a discipline, required practicum, supplementary extracurricular activities, evaluation of learning), which would be recorded and evaluated in terms of credits and eventually lead to an academic degree awarded by a discipline.

3.16  QUASI-OBA DESIGN In expecting students to acquire disciplinary knowledge, faculty members include in their program curriculum learning outcomes, many of whose end products are more tangible to be assessed than other outcomes. Those other learning outcomes whose end products are less tangible, however, tend to be of HO-KSs, and the tendency is to either not assess them at all, or assess them indirectly (through surveys and questionnaires). In order to strengthen the assessment of a complete college education that students receive, an OBA-based curriculum needs to decide on a balanced inclusion of intended learning outcomes for all three aforementioned compositions. For an OBA-based curriculum, the assessability (in terms of the use of direct assessment methods) of those HO-KSs can be enhanced when the assessment focus is shifted from assessing their end products to also include the processes and experiences through which the end product is achieved. With this shift in assessment design, those processes and experiences can be considered to be included as part of intended learning outcomes.

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

47

Not attempting to alter the whole OBA approach, the proposed modification focuses on an expanded array of the learning outcomes of those HO-KSs in terms of the processes through which the eventual realization of such meta-knowledge and meta-skills can be enhanced:

3.16.1  Proposed Quasi-OBA-Based Curriculum Design Quasi-OBA Curriculum design

of tangible academic artifacts TYPE I

Articulation of intended learning outcomes (i.e., subjects/courses) (Step 1)

Selection of teaching & learning platforms (i.e., subjects/courses) (Step 2)

of exposure to college experiences TYPE II

of completion of learning processes TYPE III

Assessment design (Step 3)

In this modified design, three types of intended learning outcomes would be included representing both LO-KSs and HO-KSs, with tangible outcomes for assessment. In other words, many of the HO-KSs would be embedded in TYPE II and TYPE III learning outcomes, and their outcomes can now be “tangible-lized” for assessment purposes through articulations of process- and experience-based learning outcomes that can be included in an OBA-based curriculum. Two issues would need to be carefully considered in developing those program learning outcomes: the first one is type (of HO-KSs), and the second one is amount (including those process- and experience-based learning outcomes to maintain a balance in the whole curriculum). The proportion of each type could be determined by the nature of the academic program and other considerations. A specialized program, for instance, may tend to include more LO-KSs as learning outcomes, while a program comprehensive in nature may elect to include more HO-KSs in its intended learning outcomes. Different disciplinary fields emphasize competencies characterized by disciplinary features/aspects, and those features need to be considered in determining the types. For instance, engineering programs expect their students to apply disciplinary knowledge in completing designs or analyzing problems and identifying solutions. In

48

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

so doing, students will need to be able to develop their abilities in many of the HO-KSs, for example, to identify a potential problem from a mass of given events/information through the use of an appropriate analysis method to analyze and synthesize the given information, before finally selecting a solution after an evaluation of a number of potential solutions. To reach a consensus for determining the types of HO-KSs deemed important for the students to develop, faculty members would need to collect inputs from various concerned stakeholder groups, and feed the inputs into their decision making processes. In addition, faculty members also need to consider how such inclusion of those HO-KSs would enhance the overall balance in the total number of intended learning outcomes, and that sufficient number of end-product outcomes and desirable number of process- or experience-oriented outcomes would be maintained. In special circumstances, external expectations may significantly impact such inclusions. For instance, many ABET accredited programs would have a higher percentage of learning outcomes that are nondisciplinary and of intangible end products.

3.17 CONCLUSIONS Sharing what works in QA with peers from other regions and countries is not only about the acceptance of educational resources, processes and outputs, but also for gaining peers’ recognition of the effectiveness and quality of own QA practice. The description of QA practices of higher education in Hong Kong provides a general picture for peers from outside of the region to better understand the QA situations. While QA in Hong Kong has matured more in its design and implementation, there is still room for improvement in its QA design and implementation. Despite the significant progress made so far in the higher education sector, the UGC is fully aware of challenges confronting the academia in this competitive world driven by globalization. Over the past ten years, UGC conducted studies and invited consultations on strategies for continuous enhancement for the whole higher education sector. A series of recommendations were raised (UGC, 2010) for supporting the enhancement. In the area of QA, some caution may be worthy of consideration. One recommendation (UGC, 2010), that a single QA body instead of the current three QA bodies be created to oversee quality in education services offered by different education providers or through different channels (i.e., lifelong learning), would be worthwhile for reconsideration. As a high-stakes enterprise, the proposal, although culturally fit, may

Quality Assurance in Hong Kong: Fit for Cultural Perception

49

too narrowly center the power of QA check onto one single entity. There needs to be a careful balance between cultural influence in own QA approach and accepted practices of diverse QA approaches. A second area for consideration is an increase of nonlocal student intake for the Hong Kong higher education sector. The portion of international students weighs heavily on internationalization efforts. The capacity to host this group in Hong Kong is severely limited by the current size of campuses. With the historical position as a gateway between the East and the West, frequent reference has been made “to the desirability of making Hong Kong an ‘education hub’” (UGC, 2010). The current stance taken by UGC seems to strategize such a notion with its efforts to enhance its global competitiveness so that the expected economic investment as well as its strategies to utilize the increasing important platforms generated by the fast-growing economic power by mainland China. Such strategic consideration for internationalization for Hong Kong’s higher education will without doubt affect how quality assurance will shape its future capacity development. A 26 percent increase during a four-year span (2010/11–2013/14) in incoming exchange students as part of the internationalization for Hong Kong’s higher education will pose a challenge, as quality assurance for student learning outcomes for this portion of nonlocal students has to be integrated into the current QA practice. The last area for consideration is with the implementation of the newly revised OBA-based curriculum in Hong Kong’s higher education sector. 2016 will see the first cohort of graduates from the 3+3+4 curriculum. Adjustments would need to be made to the curriculum from evidence obtained from assessment of student learning outcomes as well as other areas affected within the infrastructure. Judgment on how fit the OBA approach that underpins the new curriculum is could pose a challenge.

REFERENCES ABET, (2008). Accreditation Standards. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Bloom, B. S., & Krothwohl, D. R. (1956).Taxonomy of educational objectives:The classification of educational goals, by a committee of college and university examiners: Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: Longmans. Ewell, P. (2006a). Applying learning outcomes concepts to higher education: An overview: A report prepared for the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS). Ewell, P. (2006b). Applying student learning outcomes concepts and approaches at Hong Kong higher education institutions: Current status and future directions: A report prepared for the Hong Kong University Grants Committee. National Center for Higher Education Management Systems (NCHEMS).

50

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

HLC/NCA 2010, HLC pathways construction project: A proposed new model for continued accreditation. Available from: [20.06.15]. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd ed). CA: Sage Publications. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill. Gaston, L. P. (2014). Higher education accreditation: How it’s changing, why it must. Sterling, VA: Stylus. Gregg, J. & Underwood-Gregg, D. 2011, The paradox of education reform. Teachers College Record. Available from: [20.06.15]. QAC Audit Manual 2008 Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong. Available from: [27.06.15]. QAC Audit Manual 2014 Quality Assurance Council of the University Grants Committee, Hong Kong. Available from: [27.06.15]. Statistics of HK higher education 2015: . [28.06.15]. Sun, J. R. (2008). Categorization in evaluation: Purpose for evaluation & methodology. Liaoning Education Research, 11, 33–36. Sun, J.R. 2009, ‘Re-enhancement of quality assurance for China’s efforts in globalizing its higher education’. Paper presented at the “China Goes Global” conference, the Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, and College of Education, Peking University, Boston, MA. Sun, J.R. 2010, Interim report on the first year’s implementation of programme learning outcomes assessment plan (P-LOAP): Submission review. Retrieved from internal campus communication, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong. Sun, J. R. (2011a). Priority of focus in evaluating quality of education: A quasi-audit quality assurance approach for Chinese higher education. In X. G. Shi & J. Yan (Eds.), Higher education in World knowledge economy (pp. 301–308). Beijing: Peking University Press. Sun, J.R. 2011b, ‘“Weakest link” in assessment design: A flowing target for outcomes-based approach (OBA) to teaching and learning?’ Paper presented at the Enhancing Learning Experiences in Higher Education: International Conference, Hong Kong. UGC 2010, Aspirations for the Higher Education System in Hong Kong: Report of the University Grants Committee, Available from: [4.12.15].

FURTHER READING ABET. (2008). Accreditation Standards. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York: McGraw Hill. Sun, J. R. (2008). Categorization in evaluation: Purpose for evaluation & methodology. Liaoning Education Research, 11, 33–36. Sun, J.R. 2009, ‘Re-enhancement of quality assurance for China’s efforts in globalizing its higher education’. Paper presented at the “China Goes Global” conference, the Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University, and College of Education, Peking University, Boston, MA.

CHAPTER 4

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience Sudhanshu Bhushan and Ankita Verma National University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA), New Delhi, India

4.1 INTRODUCTION The Indian experience of quality assurance evolved historically in the postindependence period. The University Education Commission, popularly known as Radhakrishnan Commission (1950) recommended the establishment of University Grants Commission (UGC). Subsequently, the Constitution of India (1950) noted the “Maintenance and Coordination of the Standards” as the responsibility of the Union Government. The establishment of UGC in 1956 was the outcome of both the recommendations of the Commission as well as the mandate of the Constitution. Thereafter began the period of regulations that have guided higher education institutions until today. This evolving relationship between the higher education system and the state from a control mechanism gets transformed through quality assurance and accreditation to a more complex and presumably more effective forms of accountability (Jeliazkova & Westerheijden, 2002, pp. 433–448). The story of this evolving relationship is considerably different from the United States where the system of accreditation originated almost a century ago (Dickey & Miller, 1972; Miller & Boswell, 1979, pp. 219–225). In this transformation, the development of quality assurance and accreditation takes place through the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), the National Board of Accreditation (NBA), and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in the specialization of general, engineering and agricultural education respectively. The transformation process is far from complete given that the accreditation mechanism has not been developed for other specializations including medical, law, and nursing. Besides, it is pointed out that the duality of a regulatory as well as an accreditation regime creates certain contradictions that delays the process with increased competition within The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00011-2 Copyright © 2017 Sudhanshu Bhushan and Ankita Verma. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

51

52

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

the higher education sector. A private system of higher education, however, has used accreditation as a mark for respectability and has benefited considerably as a way to attract students in their institutions.

4.2  AN OVERVIEW OF THE INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM The UGC Act 1956 defines the structure of the university system in India. In India, a degree, as distinguished from certificate and diploma, can be awarded by the university defined under section 2(f) of UGC Act, which notes that the university can be established by an act of Parliament or state legislature. Under this falls three types: central (46 institutions), established by a central act; state (329 institutions), established by a state act; and private universities (223 institutions), which are established by a state act (The numbers in parenthesis show the actual number as on March 31, 2015) Deemed university is defined under section 3 of the UGC Act. A university is declared a Deemed University (129) by the central government on the recommendation of UGC. Degree-conferring authority under the respective acts of Parliament also rests with Institutions of National Importance (73). In addition, 13 Indian Institutes of Management are not universities yet they confer a postgraduate diploma of 2 years, which is equivalent to a postgraduate degree. The structure of Indian higher education consists of a 3-year bachelor program and two-year postgraduate (Masters) in Arts, Science, Humanities, Commerce, etc. A Bachelor in a technical and professional course takes another year. However, the Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) degree program takes four and half years with one year of internship. At the Masters level the period of study is three years. The research degrees MPhil and PhD usually takes minimum 1–2 years and 3–4 years respectively, to complete. Another important characteristic of the Indian university system is that almost all state universities are affiliating in nature. It means that state universities affiliate a large number of colleges where students are admitted and actual teaching takes place. However, the graduates of the colleges get degrees from the university. Most of the colleges run three-year bachelor programs, yet quite a few of them get university approval to run postgraduate programs. All state universities have postgraduate departments, which award postgraduate as well as research degrees such as MPhil and PhD. The largest sector of higher education is undergraduate colleges, totaling 35,500

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

53

institutions, which enroll 27.2 million students constituting 80 percent of total enrollment in postsecondary education. There are around 3.8 million postgraduates constituting 11 percent, 120 thousand research students in MPhil and PhD programs, and another 2.5 million in certificate and diploma programs at different postsecondary levels constituting a total of 7 percent. This means Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education in India is 24.3 percent, which is calculated for the 18–23 age group in 2014–15, as per the final estimates of All India Survey of Higher Education conducted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (AISHE, 2016). Despite the impressive expansion in higher education, the sector has 30 percent unmet demand. While some people may be forced to join the labor market due to poor economic conditions, many would have to wait due to shortage of places with high unmet demands. The competition to gain a place in a high-quality institution is intense. Students have a choice to study at public or private institutions. Parents who are able to afford send their children to study overseas. In recent years the expansion in public higher education institutions has not been all that high as much in private institutions, particularly in areas that could fetch high returns in the job market after graduation.

4.3  MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS IN HIGHER EDUCATION 4.3.1  Union Control Indian higher education institutions are regulated by the Government of India through the ministries and regulatory bodies. It is the responsibility of the Union Government, under the Constitution of India, to maintain the standards in higher education. The Union Government has vested this responsibility with the UGC and other technical and professional councils. They have set regulatory restrictions toward the maintenance of standards. These regulations relate to entry qualifications of a teacher such as the National Eligibility Test (NET) and the Academic Performance Indicator (API); the promotion of teachers is based on the API and an external review of credentials and interview of candidates, professional development, teaching and learning process, fitness of a college or university to start a program, regulations relating to doctoral qualifications, and determining the nomenclature of degrees. The union government’s control on the maintenance of standards has created uniformity in the practices for the improvement of quality. However, the higher education system suffers from a rigid framework of rules and regulations that limits innovation and

54

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

university autonomy in decision making. In fact state governments have rarely taken measures to improve the standards of higher education. It has rather neglected its role to prescribe standards in matters relating to the quality of higher education. The union government funding by UGC to the institutions of higher education is linked to the fitness criteria under 2(f) and 12(B) of UGC Act. There are around 5500 institutions that are verified as “meeting standards” to receive grants. There are a number of technical and professional councils approved by the Parliament of India. They are mandated to regulate the standards of the programs provided by technical and professional colleges. For example, engineering colleges’ programmes are assessed by National Board of Accreditation in terms of the fitness of the institution and program. Medical colleges affiliated to a university are regulated by the Medical Council of India (MCI) and Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Similarly, over a dozen of such programs in education, accounting, pharmacy, agriculture, horticulture, nursing, architecture, homeopathy, ayurveda, unani, etc., are regulated with respect to quality by respective councils and respective ministries in charge.

4.3.2  University Level Control The second tier of control on the standards in higher education is that of state governments. However, given that maintenance of standards is the responsibility of union government, state governments largely neglected it and the universities were left with the task to develop mechanisms to maintain standards. The first control on the maintenance of standards is exercised at the time of affiliating a college to the university. An inspection team visits a college and submits a report on the fitness of a college to run programs of study. Based on the inspection report, affiliation to a college is granted to run a teaching program. Thus affiliation is a quality check on a college. Furthermore, a university is free to inspect periodically to monitor the teaching-learning process in a college.

4.4  PROBLEMS IN THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS There was success as well as failure in the maintenance of standards by the union government, UGC, and regulatory councils in technical and professional fields. The higher education system was able to follow uniform criteria for the recruitment and promotion of teachers, and the fitness of institutions to run an educational program. Yet this does not guarantee

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

55

if the standards of education are assured. The reasons could be manifold. First, UGC did not have the power to deregister institutions/programs if it failed the “fitness” assessment. Secondly, universities and colleges suffered from the fund cuts that had a huge impact on resourcing. Third, they suffered from the governance failure, e.g., of running all the universities as per academic calendar. Governance failure resulted from the centralized administration of a large number of colleges. A fourth reason is related to the competence and commitment of teachers despite meeting minimum qualification criteria. Finally, the democratic system in a country like India also supports populist measures. Interest groups of a certain class and caste are influential in policy decisions. There could be many reasons, and it is a matter of further research investigation. In academic circles, it is argued that there is a trade-off between expansion and quality such that proliferation of institutions has affected quality adversely as the institutions of higher education suffer from centralized regulation, politicization, and bureaucratic control. There is a perception among higher education in India that quality and standards have declined in majority of institutions. In the 1990s, new discussions emerged about the need to implement a system of accreditation based on the models used in the United States and Canada. Earlier in 1986 “Policy on Education” Accreditation was recommended only in the context of engineering and teacher education. Accreditation and quality assurance was not in the vocabulary of higher education in India. However, the Programme of Action (1992) subsequent to New Education Policy in 1986 stated that “As part of its responsibility for the maintenance and promotion of standards of education, the UGC will, to begin with, take the initiative to establish an Accreditation and Assessment Council as an autonomous body.” Subsequently, the NAAC was established in Bangalore in 1994.

4.5  SIMULTANEOUS COEXISTENCE OF THE DUAL REGIME OF THE MAINTENANCE OF STANDARDS There is thus a dual regime of the maintenance of standards in higher education. The former regime was one of the regulations regarding maintenance of standards initiated by UGC. There was also simultaneously the coexistence of NAAC, as a body under UGC, to assure the quality through accreditation. This may be referred to as an accreditation regime and the latter did not substitute the former. Rather, both the systems coexist simultaneously. Indian higher education is therefore subject

56

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

to significant government regulation as well as external peer assessment. The transition to the quality assurance and accreditation is based on new thinking and perspective that demands elaboration. In the former regulatory model the UGC monitored developments in the field of collegiate and university education and disbursed grants to the universities and colleges. The UGC also served as a vital link between the union and state governments and institutions of higher learning, and, advised the union and state governments on the measures necessary for improving university education (UGC Act, 1956). The UGC performs a major task of monitoring through the fund it provides to the universities on a regular basis. To improve the quality of teachers, the UGC has also introduced national research facilities, established academic staff colleges (now renamed as human resource development center) to reorient teachers and provide refresher courses, as well as the National Eligibility Test (NET), which is used for assuring a high quality of teachers. Indian higher education is witnessing a major paradigm shift with regards to the quality assurance since the 1990s. Earlier quality assurance measures were prepared, adopted, and monitored by the union government through its own institutions like the UGC and the central and state universities. Later on, with the increase in the number of universities and in order to cope with the pressure of maintaining quality of education in comparison with international developments, the need was recognized to adopt the new system where quality assurance was monitored and enhanced through mechanisms such as external peer review, external audits, as well as an internal quality assurance cell for the institutions. Quality assurance and accreditation is a new mechanism to improve outcomes. Both internal and external quality assurance is a new phenomenon that is aimed to improve the academic quality and standard of various process and outcomes (e.g., program design, teaching and assessment standards). It is also aimed to improve the academic outcomes of learners. Learners should be well informed about the quality of programs that an institution delivers and they should have the freedom of choice regarding course and institution. Student choice and market demand is based on the quality, standard, and reputation of higher education institutions. Therefore, quality assurance is the center of the new market-driven higher education. The new paradigm is significantly different from the past practices. In the past public universities were funded generously and regulated on quality parameters. There was academic collegiality within universities. This was possible as the pressure on expansion was within limits. However,

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

57

in the new paradigm, accreditation was the mechanism for competition and improvement of quality outcomes. A perspective that is gaining prominence in India to improve quality and transparency in institutional governance, information to the students, and having systematic processes for handing and resolving stakeholder grievances to settle the disputes. These perspectives are aimed to ensure accountability, transparency, and empower students to play an important role in university management. The new perspective is further geared to minimize regulation. There seems to be an intent to move from regulation to providing institutional autonomy in planning, decision making and improvements. The quality assurance and accreditation process is based on the approach that external peer review process will motivate the teachers and administrators to improve the quality and standard of education based on the feedback. The process of accreditation, on the other hand, will encourage students to make informed choice about where to study. The government views that student choice will increase competition, and thus competition will improve quality assurance and outcomes. The regulatory approach to ensuring minimum standards in quality in a mass higher education system seems to have failed. For this reason, quality assurance through accreditation is developing as a mechanism to ensure accountability. At present, the reality of Indian higher education is that there is a dual system—both regulatory as well as accreditation with incentives for institutions and teachers to compete to maintain standards.

4.6  ROLE OF NAAC IN QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACCREDITATION In India, the NAAC is a premier quality assurance agency for higher education. It was established in 1994 as per international models of accreditation and uses methods such as an institutional self-study report, on-site visits, and strengths/weaknesses descriptive reports to grade the institution. The core values of NAAC is to promote innovation and excellence in the institutions of higher education through competition. This may be seen in contrast to the core values of a regulatory regime. Its core values entailed funding support to upgrade standards along with fixing accountability assessments for teachers and institutions through regulatory control. NAAC has developed seven criteria to measure the excellence of an institution. These are curricular aspects, teaching-learning and evaluation, infrastructure and learning resources, student support and progression,

58

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

organization and management, and good educational practices. The weighting on each of the seven criteria vary between university and colleges. The main goal of accreditation is to develop capacity for quality assurance and a drive to achieve excellence within institutions. But NAAC’s process has never been mandatory. It was made mandatory only recently with the launch of National Higher Education Movement (Rashtriya Ucchatar Siksha Abhiyan), a flagship program of the union government to support state public universities. In this centrally funded scheme, the funding of state public universities and colleges is linked to accreditation outcomes. As of 2014, 207 universities and 5954 colleges have been accredited by NAAC. Out of the 207 universities, 107 of them have been awarded with grade A+ and A (presumably high quality), while 88 universities receive grades B+ and B (average quality). Only three universities have been given C grade by NAAC (low quality). Out of 5954 colleges, 1105 colleges have been awarded with grades A+ and A (presumably high quality), and 3970 colleges have been given grades B+ and B (average quality). 847 colleges have been given C grade by NAAC (low quality). Universities Colleges

Total

Grade A

Grade B

Grade C

198 5922

107 1105

88 3970

3 847

For continuous improvement and enhancement of quality, the NAAC has proposed to establish an Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) in each accredited institution which will develop a capacity for internal quality assurance and play a facilitating role in its performance improvement. The primary aim of IQACs are to develop a system for conscious, consistent, and catalytic actions to improve academic and administrative performance of the institution, and to promote measures for institutional functioning toward quality enhancement through the internalization of quality culture and the institutionalization of best practices. In other words, IQACs will act as post-accreditation quality assessment measure. All accredited institutions with an IQAC in place are expected to submit annual quality assurance reports to NAAC as self-reviewed progress reports. Since 2007, the establishment of IQACs has become an important prerequisite for accreditation and assessment of NAAC.

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

59

If NAAC has to emerge an important quality assurance body in India it must ensure that the quality assurance arrangements are in line with international good practices and the challenges confronting higher education in India. Though it has adopted instruments and methodologies of assessment and accreditation used internationally, it is necessary that an evaluation of NAAC is undertaken to assess the extent to which (1) the new international practices are successfully adapted in the Indian higher education system, (2) NAAC has impacted the higher education in the improvement of quality.

4.7  EVALUATION OF NAAC Quality assurance and accreditation has become an accepted vocabulary in the discourse on quality in higher education institutions. However, a large number of Indian higher education institutions (government and government-supported institutions as opposed to the private ones) still suffer from a duality: a regulatory regime as well as an accreditation regime. The former demands control through regulation. The latter demands less regulation, greater autonomy of institutions, and competition as a mechanism to improve quality. Regulation may bind institutions by rules whereas accreditation may defy rules sometimes, if not always, for enforcing competitiveness. For example, there are regulations on fees, intake of students, introduction of program, recruitment and promotion of teachers, etc. There are also conditions attached to the grants and the maintenance of funds. Regulations are imposed not only to maintain the standards but also to meet the goals of equity, e.g., reservation in admission of higher education institutions for economically and socially weaker backgrounds. When institutions are bound to follow stringent rules, there is little autonomy for them to respond to accreditation pressures. Institutions can hardly mobilize resources to make the improvement and even follow many innovations. If an external peer review report of the institution highlights that institutions need to introduce the program, mobilize the resources through increase in fees, and changing the intake of students, then that demands decision making at the institutional level. Regulation may not always allow the decision making at the level of institutions. Sometimes the introduction of a program may require approval at the level of university or at the level of state government, and bureaucratic hurdles may be difficult

60

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

to surmount. While regulation may not always block institutional initiatives in a new program implementation, it may quite often. The present situation seems to be one of maintaining the duality in Indian higher education institutions. Regulations have to continue, hence competitive mechanism may not, under the regime of accreditation, work efficiently to assure the quality of programs and institutions. In India, private higher education institutions have been receptive to the accreditation. These institutions compete to improve the grades granted by NAAC. Grade and accreditation matter for HEIs as they create a good image in the minds of students. It has been observed that more private institutions have requested NAAC for accreditation than public institutions. In India, NAAC is the sole accrediting agency to accredit all higher education institutions, except in technical institutions and agricultural universities and colleges. UGC has announced its intent to have all institutions accredited by 2015 without realizing that NAAC has neither such capacity nor the competence to accomplish the task. On the aspect of competence, NAAC attempted to accredit all distance and online programs; however, it failed to do so due to lack of competence. NAAC could have signed a memorandum of understanding with Indira Gandhi National Open University, a premier national level institution of distance learning, to seek expertise in reviewing distance programs. Another limitation of NAAC is the competence and expertise to accredit programs delivered in pharmacy, medical, and various other professional areas. The reasons for its failure to accredit distance education programs and programs in medicine, law, and pharmacy is the lack of coordination with respective councils at the central level who have the responsibility to maintain quality. These councils have not even developed their independent procedure to accredit institutions under their jurisdiction.

4.8  RECENT FAILED ATTEMPTS TO ENHANCE THE STRENGTH OF ACCREDITATION The Government of India through the National Accreditation Authority Bill, 2010, attempted to enhance the power of accreditation through mandatory accreditation (PRS Legislative Research, 2010). The bill envisaged the establishment of the National Accreditation Authority. The Authority would grant a license to accrediting agencies in India to accredit higher education institutions. It was intended to create competitiveness among accreditation agencies and improve the quality of accreditation in India. The National Accreditation Authority Bill was an attempt to make a

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

61

complete paradigm shift and to respect the accreditation regime in India. The following issues were raised against the bill. With the regime of mandatory accreditation, the government, union and state, needs to assure that in their own institutions the institutional infrastructure and teacher’s position are well in place. Otherwise for no fault on the part of institution, they will be penalized. For example, many rural colleges will necessarily have lower grades. The assumption that accreditation may lead to competition through a level playing field may not hold. In fact, level playing is the precondition for accreditation. Accreditation, as defined in the bill, is the process of certification of a minimum standard. If an affiliating system continues and there is no check on the mushrooming of colleges, then the accreditation system will find it difficult to control quality, which is the single and important aim of accreditation. Accreditation can only advise to create the conditions for quality maintenance. It has no regulatory power to examine whether these conditions are actually met. With different accreditation agencies, an important challenge for regulatory authority will be to ensure uniformity in accreditation standards. If there are multiple accreditation agencies, it will occur through competition thus leading to an improvement in accreditation standards. That is possible only when there is no uniform accreditation process. However, the authority would like to impose a uniform accreditation process to achieve standardization in accreditation. This will defeat the purpose of multiple accreditation agencies. The national accreditation system that exists today will be endangered with independent multiple accreditation agencies. Since the practice of accreditation is new in India, only a handful of agencies will be qualified to accredit. Some institutions may seek international collaboration in establishing agencies, however, the focus could be on profit, which may lead to unethical conduct. The National Accreditation Authority bill, 2010, has so far not received the support of the Parliament. Hence, government has failed to create a paradigm shift in favor of accreditation regimes in India. ●

●

●

●

●

●

4.9  FUTURE STRATEGIES Future strategies do not seem to favor the multiple accreditation agency as envisaged in the National Accreditation Authority Bill, 2010. It is envisaged that NAAC will remain the national accreditation agency. NAAC

62

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

has forwarded the proposal to the union government to establish regional accreditation agencies in India that will work under its supervision. A regional accreditation agency, with the mentoring support from NAAC, will develop the accreditation capacity and accredit institutions in various regions. Alternatively, NAAC may have branch offices that may have territorial jurisdiction. The offices scattered throughout India will help to develop capacity at institutional level, both through external accreditation as well as through developing internal quality assurance (Patil, 2006).

4.10  NATIONAL BOARD OF ACCREDITATION Similar to NAAC, which is responsible for quality assurance and institutional accreditation of the universities and colleges, there is the AICTE, which is responsible for monitoring standards in technical education. NBA was constituted in 1994 by AICTE under section 10(u) of the AICTE Act, 1987, for the periodic evaluations of technical institutions and programs according to the specified norms and standards as recommended by the AICTE council. It came into effect in its present form as an autonomous body in 2010 with the objective of quality assurance and relevance of education. Its focus has been on programs in professional and technical disciplines, that is, engineering and technology, management, architecture, pharmacy, and hospitality through the mechanism of accreditation of programs offered by technical institutions. Its mission is to improve the quality of teaching, self-evaluation, and accountability in higher education and to facilitate the institutions in realizing their academic objectives. NBA is also responsible for adopting teaching practices that enable them to produce high quality professionals and to assist them in continuously contributing to the domain of knowledge through innovations and research. But so far NBA only accredits programs at graduate and postgraduate level. It does not accredit any institutions. The programs to be accredited should be offered by an educational institution that has been formally approved as an education institution by the AICTE or the concerned regulatory authority. The parameters adopted by NBA for accreditation of programs are called “Graduate Attributes,” which are based on initial capabilities, competence, and skills, and keeping in mind the outcomes desired by the profession concerned. These parameters vary as per the discipline. The NBA also follows certain criteria during the process of accreditation of a program. These are as follows: Institutional Mission, Vision and

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

63

Programme, Educational Objectives, Programme Outcome, Programme Curriculum, Students’ Performance, Faculty Contributions, Facilities and Technical Support, Academic Support Units and Teaching-Learning Process, Governance, Institutional Support, and Financial Resources and Continuous Improvement in Attainment of Outcomes.

4.11  INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH The ICAR is an autonomous organization under the Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India. The Council is the apex body for coordinating, guiding, and managing research and education in agriculture including horticulture, fisheries, and animal sciences. For quality assurance the ICAR established an Accreditation Board in 1996, which developed a new system of accreditation involving various university communities and accreditation experts. It is comprehensive, rigorous, periodic, and comprises of self-study by the institution and peer review of the concerned institution. The main features of ICAR accreditation process are: the accreditation is voluntarily in nature and not mandatory; financial assistance is linked with the accreditation status of an institution; there is no grading of an institution/program; if an institution is accredited with conditions, the stipulated conditions have to be met within the specified timeframe, noncompliance of which would result in reduced or blockage of ICAR financial assistance. The objective of ICAR Accreditation Board is to assist the people, prospective students, educational institutions, professional societies, potential employers, government and other concerned agencies in identifying those institutions and their programs that meet the minimum norms and standards prescribed by the Council; and, to provide guidance for the improvement of existing agricultural education institutions/programs, and also to develop new institutions/programs. The ICAR accreditation board has the important function of evolving the norms and standards for accreditation of institutions and programs of agricultural education, veterinary sciences, agricultural engineering, and to evaluate the academic programs and the institutional set-up in which these programs are conducted. The Board follows the three tier accreditation system: (1) University accreditation; (2) College accreditation; (3) Individual program, faculty, and departmental accreditation.

64

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

There are other statutory bodies in India that regulate the quality in professional education but so far they have not developed the mechanism for external peer review and accreditation as developed by NAAC, NBA, or accreditation board in agricultural education. They have regulating powers and must receive a visiting inspection team before granting the approval to run the programs. For example, teacher education, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE); medical education, MCI; nursing, Indian Nursing Council (INC); legal education, Bar Council of India (BCI); architecture, Architecture Council, and so on.

4.12  DEVELOPING INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE CELL/MECHANISM Quality assurance within an institution can be achieved with mechanisms such as self-evaluation, peer review by panel of internal and external experts, and identifying and benchmarking of best practices. In the case of the universities in India, the internal quality assurance is done by various management committees such as the Academic Council, Executive Council, Board of Management, and others. Moreover, these universities have to maintain a standard and assure that the graduates are worthy of the degrees awarded to them. They are also responsible for assessing the quality of colleges affiliated to them. One of the most important outcomes of the IQAC is the Annual Quality Assurance Report (AQAR). It is the compilation of the initiatives undertaken by an institution and their impact on its quality by which it showcases the functioning of the institution to the regulatory and funding agencies and accountability to the stakeholders. The submission of AQAR to NAAC is now mandatory for the accredited institution. It is important to note that an Internal Quality Assurance practice is the product of new ideas generated through international collaboration. For example, NAAC is a full member of APQN as well as International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). Participation of NAAC in the regional conferences has helped incorporate international dimensions in the accreditation process. It is also important to note that, toward building collaboration, NAAC has led an international project group on Student Participation in Quality Assurance with the support of the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN): the largest regional network of QA bodies from over 50 countries. All these efforts have helped to develop capacity for quality assurance.

Quality Assurance in Higher Education—An Indian Experience

65

4.13 CONCLUSION The maintenance of standards in Indian higher education is subject to many of the bureaucratic regulations of the governments and regulatory councils. These regulations relate to the appointment and promotion of academic staff, admission and fees of students, fitness of institutions to deliver the program and fitness of institutions to receive funding from the central government, decisions on curriculum, and selection of governing bodies, etc. The process of democratization of higher education system has also led to politicization in decision making. The academic functioning of the university is not free from various extraneous factors. The so-called autonomy of the university to maintain the standards was subject to various controls. Accreditation regime has led to the new ways of promoting quality through competitive market pressures under which students’ choice will improve the quality of institutions. In the opinion of the authors, a regulatory and accreditation regime might conflict with each other. It has been argued that quality assurance and accreditation requires more autonomy at the level of institutions. Regulation, however, deprives the institutions of required autonomy to grow. Therefore, in a regime of full regulation, the benefits of accreditation will be slow. Another danger is related to responsiveness to accreditation in favor of private as compared to public institutions. If the public funding to support the quality of higher education is lacking, there is the fear that accreditation might promote privatization both within government and outside the sphere of government. It would be desirable, therefore, that government uses accreditation as a tool to improve the quality with judicious use of regulation and, under no circumstances should reduce public funding.

REFERENCES Dickey, F. G., & Miller, J. W. (1972). A current perspective on accreditation: Prepared by ERIC Clearinghouse on higher education. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education. Government of India, (2016). All India survey of higher education. Delhi: Government of India, MHRD. Jeliazkova, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2002). Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: Towards a next generation of quality assurance models. Higher Education, 44(3/4) Miller, J. W., & Boswell, L. E. (1979). Accreditation, assessment, and the credentialing of educational accomplishment. The Journal of Higher Education, 50(2) Patil, J. (February 1, 2006). NAAC and the next decade of Indian quality assurance. World Education and News Reviews. Available from Accessed 25.09.15.

66

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

PRS Legislative Research. (2010). Legislative Brief: The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010. Available from Accessed 20.09.15. Radhakrishnan, S. (1950). The report of the University Education Commission (Vol. I). Government of India. Ministry of Education and Culture. UGC Act, 1956, MHRD, 2002. Available on .

FURTHER READING Agarwal, P. (2006). Higher education in India: The need for change. Working Paper No. 180, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. Altbach, P. G. (July 1993). The dilemma of change in Indian higher education. Higher Education, 26(1), 3–20. Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2014). All India survey of higher education, provisional estimates, 2012–13. [online] Available from Accessed 25.09.15. Mishra, S. NAAC, Quality assurance in higher education: An introduction. Available from Accessed 18.09.15. NAAC 20th Annual report. (2013–14). Available from Accessed 26.09.15. NAAC Accreditation Status . Prasad, V. S. (2004). A decade of dedication to quality assurance. National Accreditation and Assessment Council. Available from http://naac.gov.in/docs/NAAC%20A%20 Decade%20of%20Dedication%20to%20Quality%20Assurance.pdf Accessed 20.09.15

CHAPTER 5

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education Kamanto Sunarto University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia

5.1 INTRODUCTION The number of higher education institutions (HEIs) in post-colonial Indonesia has expanded continuously since the early 1950s (for a description and analysis of higher education in Indonesia between 1920 and 1970, see Thomas, 1973; for recent developments, see Hill & Thee, 2013). To assure the quality of existing HEIs and their programs, the government established the National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education, NAAHE (Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi, BAN-PT) in 1994. This was an important step toward the development of a comprehensive higher education quality assurance (QA) system. After performing its functions for 18 years, NAAHE has been assigned new duties since 2012. Some of its former duties have been gradually handed over to a new independent QA agency. This chapter begins with a description of important phases in the rise of QA in Indonesian higher education. Law No. 20/2003 on the National System of Education, enacted in 2003, states that accreditation is implemented to determine the feasibility levels and types of formal and nonformal educational programs and institutions. In actual practice NAAHE assesses the quality of institutions and programs, using national higher education standards as a benchmark. The evaluation of feasibility is only conducted at the initial stage, when requests for the establishment of new institutions and programs are being assessed by the government in collaboration with NAAHE. This law also states that accreditation is undertaken by the government or by authorized independent institutions. This law thus became the first basis for initiatives toward the establishment of nongovernmental as well as governmental independent accreditation agencies beside the NAAHE. The new law identifies eight national standards of education. The scope, functions, and goals of these standards are outlined in Government The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00008-2 Copyright © 2017 Kamanto Sunarto. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

67

68

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Regulation No. 19 of National Standards of Education issued in 2005, which also contains chapters on accreditation including QA agencies, and on internal quality assurance (IQA). This regulation became the basis for the establishment of three national QA agencies: NAAHE (for higher education), the National Accreditation Agency for Schools and Madrasahs (for primary and secondary general and Islamic education), and the National Accreditation Agency for Early Childhood Education and Nonformal Education. The implementation of a national qualification framework (NQF) is a worldwide trend which, according to Tuck (2007), started between the 1980s and the mid-1990s. After conducting benchmarking with established overseas NQFs, the Ministry of National Education collaborated with the Ministry of Manpower and Migration to develop an Indonesian NQF. In 2012 the Government issued Presidential Decree No. 8 on the Indonesian National Qualification Framework (Republic of Indonesia, 2012). A comprehensive higher education QA system was finally presented in Law No. 12 on Higher Education, enacted in 2012. This law contains stipulations on QA system, higher education standards, and accreditation. It states that educational QA is a systemic activity to continuously improve the quality of higher education through planning, and that IQA systems are executed by HEIs themselves while the external quality assurance (EQA) system is executed by accrediting agencies. The law also contains a section on the NQF, which explicitly states that the NQF shall be used as a reference in determining the competence of graduates of academic, vocational, and professional education.

5.2  NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM Law No. 12 on Higher Education classifies HEIs into six types: universities, institutes, upper schools, polytechnics, academies, and community academies (community colleges). Universities offer academic education in various specializations of science and technology; institutions offer academic education in specific specializations. Upper schools offer academic education in a specific specialization. Polytechnics offer vocational education in various specializations. Academies offer vocational education in one or more specializations, and community academies offer vocational education at the diploma 1 or diploma 2 levels in one or more specializations based on local excellences to achieve specific needs. Based on the

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

69

appropriate licenses granted by the government, these HEIs offer diploma 1 programs, diploma 2 programs, diploma 3 programs, bachelor’s and diploma 4 or applied bachelor’s programs, master’s programs, applied master’s programs, specialist programs, doctoral, applied doctoral, specialist 2 programs, and professional education programs. HEIs offer academic, vocational, specialist, and professional programs. Besides offering academic programs, universities, institutes, and upper schools can also offer vocational programs. Those institutions as well as polytechnics are in addition allowed to offer professional programs provided that necessary requirements are met. Academies and community academies can only offer vocational programs. Based on ownership, the law distinguishes between public and private HEIs. Based on the level of autonomy of public HEIs, the law distinguishes between public institutions, public institutions with a specific public service management system, and public institutions with legal entity status. Besides HEIs managed by the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education, there are also public service HEIs managed by other ministries which function as pre-service and in-service educational institutions. The Ministry of Religious Affairs oversees public and private religiously affiliated HEIs (universities, institutions, and upper schools) in five of the six major religions officially recognized by the government: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism (Confucianism is also officially recognized but there are at present no HEIs teaching Confucianism). These HEIs offer a variety of programs in religious studies in preparation for occupations and professions related to religious affairs such as school teachers, scholars, and lecturers in religious subjects, judges in religious courts, administrators of offices of religious affairs, religious practitioners, etc. In addition to religious studies, universities managed by the Ministry of Religious Affairs also offer academic, vocational, and professional programs in other disciplines. Indonesia has 4323 HEIs and 23,224 study programs. There are at present 370 public HEIs including the Open University, a public open and distance learning HEI, and 3953 private HEIs owned by private organizations. The majority of HEIs are upper schools, followed by academies, universities, polytechnics, institutes and a few public community academies, offering programs in education, engineering, social sciences, health, economics, agriculture, mathematics and science, religious studies, the humanities, and the arts (see Appendix 1). Most programs are offered by private

70

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

HEIs, except programs in education, agriculture, mathematics, and science. All public and private institutions employ 247,850 lecturers and provide education to 7,186,171 students (see Appendix 2).

5.3  NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM In 1994 the Ministry of Education and Culture established NAAHE as an independent, nonstructural national higher education accreditation agency. Before the establishment of NAAHE the supervision over the quality of public and private HEIs was undertaken by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The establishment of NAAHE was influenced by a surge in the establishment of QA agencies around the world as part of what Woodhouse (2007b) referred to as “Quality Revolution.” Since the development of Indonesian higher education was conducted in collaboration with international organizations such as UNESCO and the World Bank, the government was well aware of developments in higher education around the world, including the establishment of accreditation agencies in various countries. When NAAHE was established, its functions included not only accreditation but also licensure. At a later stage the function of licensure was handed over to the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) and the function of NAAHE was limited to the accreditation of programs and institutions. Prior to the establishment of NAAHE, programs of private HEIs (and schools) were based on their stage of development, classified into three categories: registered, recognized, and equalized. Programs of private HEIs which had been registered or recognized by the government were not allowed to conduct their final examinations independently; their students were required to take part in state examinations organized by the government. Equalized programs, however, were given equal status to programs of public HEIs and had the authority to conduct their final examinations independently. The establishment of NAAHE was followed by the abolition of this ranking system of private HEIs. In the implementation of accreditation NAAHE does not distinguish between public and private HEIs and programs. The NAAHE accreditation commenced after conducting benchmarking visits of external quality agencies in various countries including the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Japan, and Korea. Benchmarking

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

71

assisted the review of existing domestic ministerial QA policies and the preparation of the necessary standards and guidelines. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) in the United Kingdom had a number of occasions collaborated with NAAHE and its influence could be found in standards and guidelines constructed by NAAHE. Another agency which had also influenced NAAHE accreditation methods was the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), based in the United States. NAAHE began to accredit bachelor’s programs in 1996, followed by master’s programs in 1999, doctoral programs and diploma 1, diploma 2, diploma 3, and diploma 4 programs in 2001 (National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education, 2004). NAAHE also began to accredit distance learning bachelor’s programs provided by Open University in 1998. Institutional accreditation started in 2007. The accreditation of professional programs began with accounting in 2008 followed by psychology, pharmacy, teacher education, and veterinary medicine. It also began to develop the instruments for accrediting other professions including medicine, dentistry, nursing, and midwifery (see National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education, 2012). The diploma level distance learning programs of the Open University began to be accredited in 2014. In the mid-1990s accreditation was still voluntary. The fact that the government is responsible for the entire cost of adequacy and site visits except for the cost of preparing and sending documents, and the need for formal recognition of quality probably helped to explain why, despite its voluntary nature, many HEIs across the country decided to participate in program accreditation. Since 2003 accreditation became mandatory, because Law No. 20/2003 dictates that diplomas are issued to learners who have passed examinations conducted by accredited institutions while certificates of competence are issued to learners or members of community who have passed competency examinations conducted by accredited educational institutions or certification institutions. It also dictates that those HEIs that violate the law face administrative sanctions such as written reprimands, suspensions of access to government funds, or permanent suspensions of operational licenses, while their staff face penal sanctions such as fines and imprisonment. Government Regulation No. 19 issued in 2005 stipulates that NAAHE be a government agency in charge of accrediting HEIs and programs.

72

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

It also specifies that educational institutions be required to conduct QA with the support and supervision of the Ministry, and that NAAHE provide recommendations on QA to institutions and programs it accredits. These regulations led to the establishment of a mandatory IQA system inside HEIs. Demands for accreditation also come from the public. Accreditation has become increasingly important since HEIs use it to attract students, donor agencies use it to select grant recipients, employers in the public and private sectors refer to it when recruiting and appointing employees, and parents and students refer to it in the selection of HEIs and programs. These new developments have led to a surge in the requests for accreditation, so the funding for NAAHE needs revising and accreditation cannot be implemented on schedule. Meanwhile, the government continues to issue licenses for the establishment of new HEIs and programs. This means the numbers of HEIs and programs continue to increase. An issue is that NAAHE’s ability to deal effectively with these challenges is limited because it lacks fiscal autonomy. Law No. 20/2003 introduced eight national standards of education concerning contents, educational process, competence of graduates, academic staff, resources and infrastructure, management, finance, and educational evaluation. These standards were designed to fit all levels and types of education, including formal and nonformal, and primary, secondary, and tertiary education. These standards, used as minimum criteria for assessing the quality of educational programs and institutions, were described in detail in the Government’s Regulation No. 19/2005 and, later, in Law No. 12/2012 on Higher Education with additional higher education standards. These developments prompted NAAHE to revise its standards and adjust them according to the new national standards. The 2003 standards did not mention research and service to society and did not specify the interrelationship between the standards. The seven standards that NAAHE introduced later in 2009 accommodate the eight national standards of education and cover research, community services and collaboration. They include: (1) vision, mission, goals, aims, and strategies for achieving them; (2) governance, leadership, management system, and QA; (3) students and alumni; (4) human resources; (5) curriculum, learning, and academic atmosphere; (6) finances, resources and infrastructure, and information system; and (7) research, service to society, and collaboration. In 2009 the Minister of National Education formalized the new NAAHE standards with a ministerial decree (Ministry of National Education, 2009).

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

73

NAAHE also revised its standards and guidelines for diploma programs, master’s programs, and doctoral programs and organized nationwide meetings to familiarize HEIs with these new standards and guidelines before gradually implementing them. NAAHE standards are common for all programs across disciplines at the same level. There are however separate standards for diploma 1, diploma 2, diploma 3, bachelor’s and diploma 4, master’s and doctoral programs; the higher the educational level, the higher the standards. The methods for each level are adjusted accordingly. In 2006 NAAHE initiated meetings with the Indonesian Medical Council to explore collaboration in developing specific accreditation standards and guidelines for the medical professions. A joint team was established to develop the new standards and guidelines in close coordination with professional associations and associations of professional schools in these fields. These new professional standards and guidelines were then implemented by NAAHE. NAAHE has worked with professional associations and associations of professional schools in the fields of engineering, accounting, teacher education, nursing, midwifery, psychology, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine to construct discipline-specific accreditation standards for other professions. The accreditation standards for accounting programs have been used since 2008. The standards for pharmacy and teacher education programs were released in 2011. The development of accreditation standards in the teaching profession was promoted by the participation of NAAHE assessors in a World Bank project named Better Education through Reformed Management and Universal Teacher Upgrading (BERMUTU). Foreign QA agencies, such as the US National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council, India’s National Assessment and Accreditation Council, and Japan’s National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, are involved in this project. In 2012 new higher education standards were introduced. The law on higher education states that the national standards of higher education consist of the 8 existing national standards of education, plus 16 additional standards—8 standards of research and 8 standards of community services. It furthermore states that, on top of the national standards of higher education decreed by the government, HEIs are allowed to determine their own additional academic or nonacademic higher education standards. The law also contains significant changes in the role of NAAHE and in the definition of an independent accreditation agency. According to this

74

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

law, NAAHE’s tasks are to develop the accreditation system and to accredit HEIs. Programs will be accredited by independent accreditation agencies. NAAHE continues to accredit programs in the fields where independent accreditation agencies have not yet been established. Furthermore, this law distinguishes between two types of independent accreditation agencies: governmental agencies established by the government and nongovernmental agencies established by civil society organizations. NAAHE’s tasks also include providing recommendations to the government concerning the establishment of nongovernmental accreditation agencies. In 2014 the Ministry of Education and Culture issued regulations on national standards of higher education, on the higher education QA system, and on institutional and program accreditation. Since then, NAAHE has been revising its accreditation standards to suit the new national higher education standards and policies. Upon the Ministry’s request, it has also conducted an assessment of the feasibility of an independent accreditation agency and the feasibility of new HEIs and programs before granting them a temporary accreditation status. It also conducts periodic evaluation of the performance of an independent accreditation agency and prepares for the handover of authority to accredit programs to an independent accreditation agency. In addition, it is developing accreditation standards for program and institutional accreditation. Between 1994 and 2014, NAAHE was accountable to the Ministry of Education and Culture. Since 2014 it has reported to the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education.

5.4  NAAHE GOVERNANCE NAAHE is accountable to the Minister. Its current governing body comprises 15 members including its chair and secretary; it is supported by a secretariat of 2 experts and 51 employees accountable to the Ministry, and approximately 2200 assessors from various public and private HEIs accountable to their HEIs. The agency’s operational costs including the cost of accreditation are fully funded by the ministry. The agency conducts mandatory accreditation for more than 4000 HEIs in a cycle of five years, as well as more than 20,000 programs in academic disciplines, except for the health sciences. NAAHE members are appointed by the Minister for a period of five years. Some members can be reappointed for a second term to maintain

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

75

continuity. The NAAHE chair and secretary are elected by its members. NAAHE has the authority to appoint team of experts, team of assessors, and ad hoc committees as deemed necessary. In 2016 the minister for research, technology and higher education restructured NAAHE’s organization. The agency now consists of a board and an executive council. The board is composed of a chair, a secretary, and seven members, while the executive council is composed of a director, who is also a member of the NAAHE board, a secretary, and three members. The office-holders of the board and the executive council are appointed by the minister for a period of five years.

5.5  NAAHE ACCREDITATION SYSTEM Between 1994 and 2012 licensure was separated from accreditation; new institutions and programs obtained operational licenses from the government, and were later allowed to request NAAHE accreditation. Since the enactment of the 2012 Law on Higher Education, however, institutions and programs which have been granted operational licenses also obtain temporary accreditation status from the government. Temporary accreditation statuses are valid for a period of five years only, and are assigned the lowest rank in the accreditation ranking system. Before the temporary accreditation status expires institutions and programs are obliged to apply for accreditation to relevant accreditation agencies. Eligible programs and institutions can request NAAHE accreditation by submitting a self-evaluation report and completing accreditation forms with the required data and information. NAAHE then invites a team of peer reviewers from related academic disciplines (program accreditation) or from various academic fields with experience in the management of a HEI (institutional accreditation) to take part in adequacy assessments. If the outcome of the adequacy assessment satisfies the conditions for a field assessment, then the assessors visit the HEI in question. If a program or an institution does not meet these preliminary conditions, it will not be accredited. During a field assessment the assessors meet administrative staff, teaching staff, employees, students, and alumni to cross-check, validate, and verify the data and information provided in the self-study report, as well as to obtain further information from various stakeholders, if necessary. They also undertake site visits to assess an institution’s infrastructure and facilities. A team of external reviewers examines the assessors’ reports to validate them. If an accreditation report falls short of expectations and the findings

76

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

cannot be verified, NAAHE can seek clarification from the assessors in question or take other courses of action it deems necessary. Site visits can also be conducted in response to appeals by programs or institutions that, for one reason or another, decide to object to their accreditation outcome. Surveillance is conducted in response to complaints by stakeholders of programs and HEIs or by government agencies (for data on appeals and surveillances in 2012–15, see Appendix 3). NAAHE assessors are full-time teaching staff of public and private HEIs nationwide. NAAHE recruits new assessors on a regular basis and organizes training, training of trainers, capacity building, and annual meetings for assessors and involves them in working groups to develop or improve standards and guidelines. Whenever possible, NAAHE also deploys assessors to overseas activities in which assessors participate in training workshops, internship/immersion/benchmarking visits, and overseas audit/accreditation site visits.

5.6  NAAHE ACCREDITATION OUTCOMES In August 1998 NAAHE published a first list of programs it had accredited in 1996 and 1997, accompanied by information about the ranking of each program (see National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education, 1998). In the present accreditation system institutional and program accreditation outcomes are grouped into four categories: very good (A), good (B), adequate (C), and not accredited. In 1996–97, 1365 programs of 209 public and private HEIs located in 18 provinces were accredited. This situation in 1996–97 contrasts sharply with the workload of NAAHE 18 years later: not only has the number of bachelor’s programs increased from 1365 in 1996–97 to 2579 in 2015, but in 2015 NAHEE has in addition also accredited 758 diploma programs, 663 graduate programs, and 800 institutions (see Appendix 3). The NAAHE accreditation data in November 2015 (see Appendix 4) show that the majority of programs in Indonesia (18.841 programs) have been fully accredited. The situation with regard to institutional accreditation is opposite. As of November 2015 only 852 HEIs are fully accredited while more than 3000 HEIs are still holding temporary accreditation status. NAAHE has over the years requested and obtained significant funding increase for institutional accreditation, but endeavors to accredit a growing number of HEIs is like trying to overtake a moving target.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

77

5.7  NAAHE DOMESTIC, BILATERAL, REGIONAL, AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIONS To inform its stakeholders about policies in the field of accreditation and to facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of their accreditation activities, NAAHE has collaborated with various public and private institutions since its establishment. Its major stakeholder is at present the Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education. Other stakeholders include the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which oversees HEIs in the field of major religions; the Ministry of Health, which oversees HEIs in health; the Ministry of Defense; the Police of the Republic of Indonesia; and various bodies and associations such as the association of public HEIs, private HEIs, regional coordinators of private HEIs, regional coordinator of HEI in the field of religion, associations of study programs, and professional organizations. NAAHE either invites their stakeholders to attend its national or regional activities, or delivers presentations at events hosted by their stakeholders. NAAHE communicates with its various domestic stakeholders in various ways: through meetings with stakeholders to inform them of policies or to obtain feedback, and through workshops to familiarize them with accreditation standards. It disseminates information about its accreditation outcomes through its website, annual directories, and through distributing hardcopies of documents. It also provides relevant online information to the public. Since its early stages, NAAHE has also been actively involved in bilateral, regional, and international collaborations with overseas QA agencies and networks. It is a member of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (INQAAHE), the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN), the Association of Quality Assurance Agencies of the Islamic World (AQAAIW or Islamic QA), and the Islamic Scientific Educational and Cultural Organization (ISECO). It has signed memorandums of understanding (MoUs) with overseas QA agencies such as the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) and the National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE) and is the cofounder of APQN, AQAN, and AQAAIW. It participates actively in conferences and workshops organized by QA networks, for example, chairing plenary and parallel sessions, presenting keynote speeches, or presenting papers at plenary and parallel sessions. NAAHE is also in communication with overseas EQA agencies involved in conducting EQA activities in Indonesian

78

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

HEIs such as the Accreditation Board for Technology and Engineering, Inc. (ABET), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), and the Alliance of Business Education and Scholarships for Tomorrow (ABEST21), as well with overseas non-QA organizations interested in QA. NAAHE members have served on the board of regional and international QA networks. Its members and senior assessors have performed the role of assessor, reviewer, or auditor in EQA activities conducted by overseas QA agencies, have performed the role of observers during ABET accreditation site visits to Indonesian HEIs, and taken part in workshops or immersion programs at overseas QA agencies. After becoming a member of regional or international QA networks NAAHE has either attended or hosted overseas periodic conferences and annual general meetings, workshops, and took part in other activities such as internships. Bilateral collaborative activities such as participation in workshops at the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) and MQA also form part of its QA capacity-building endeavors. These endeavors strengthen the awareness of NAAHE board members, administrative staff, experts, and assessors of international QA theories and practices. NAAHE also takes part in QA meetings and workshops organized by non-QA organizations such as the Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the World Bank, ASEAN, and the British Council. The collaboration with QA as well as non-QA organizations in the spirit of cooperation and sharing serves to improve the quality of higher education in Indonesia. Over time, following its communications with various overseas QA agencies and networks, NAAHE began to adhere to and implement various international good practices, such as the INQAAHE Guidelines for Good Practice (Woodhouse, 2007a). NAAHE hopes that its participation in regional or international initiatives to develop a common QA framework will result in mutual recognition of accreditation outcomes.

5.8  THE FIRST NONGOVERNMENTAL INDEPENDENT ACCREDITATION AGENCY The idea to establish an independent accreditation agency in the field of medicine and dentistry that was discussed since 2006 eventually deve­ loped into an idea to establish an independent agency in the health

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

79

professions with the support of the DGHE’s World Bank-sponsored Health Professional Education Quality (HPEQ) project. On December 22, 2011, office holders of national professional organizations and national associations of HEIs in the fields of medicine, dentistry, nutrition, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, and public health signed an agreement to establish an Indonesian independent accreditation agency for higher education in health which shall be named the Indonesian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in Health, IAAHEH (Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri. Pendidikan Tinggi Kesehatan Indonesia, LAMPT-Kes). In preparation for the establishment of IAAHEH, the DGHE invited an expert from the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME) based in the United States to act as a resource person for the stakeholders, and facilitated a benchmarking visit of professionals in the fields of medicine, dentistry, nursing, and midwifery to relevant QA agencies in the United States and Canada. The information obtained from these visits enabled the IAAHEH Task Force and the related stakeholders to develop a new QA system and governance to be implemented after the establishment of the independent agency. In 2014 IAAHEH obtained legal entity status from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, and, based on a recommendation from NAAHE in October 2014, the Minister of Education and Culture consequently issued a license which allows IAAHEH to operate as an independent accreditation agency in the health sciences. During the transition period IAAHEH began to accredit programs in the field of health with the support of the HPEQ project and in coordination with NAAHE which was still responsible for deciding and announcing IAAHEH accreditation outcomes. The HPEQ project which had facilitated the establishment of IAAHEH and supported its operational costs ended in December 2014. The handover of responsibility to accredit programs in the field of health means that as of January 2015, IAAHEH is responsible for the accreditation of 2950 programs in health, consisting of 1509 vocational programs, 714 bachelor’s programs, 116 master’s programs, 27 doctoral programs, 317 professional programs, 266 specialist programs, and 1 subspecialist program (see Table 1.1 in IAAHEH, 2014). In February 2015 the IAAHEH was formally launched by the Minister for Research, Technology, and Higher Education, and on March 1, 2015, IAAHEH began to operate as an independent accreditation agency. One feature that distinguishes IAAHEH from NAAHE, which provides its services free of charge, is that IAAHEH charges a fee to cover

80

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

the cost of its services. The idea to grant public funds to HEIs to cover the cost of mandatory program accreditation has for some time been contemplated and proposed, and the relevant stakeholders are waiting for the outcome of this initiative. In the meantime, however, public and private HEIs with study programs in health are required to bear the full accreditation costs of these programs.

5.9  INDEPENDENT PROGRAM ACCREDITATION AGENCIES: OTHER INITIATIVES Other organizations and associations have expressed their interest in establishing independent accreditation agencies in various disciplines. Some opted for establishing independent civil society accreditation agencies, while others preferred the establishment of independent public accreditation agencies. According to NAAHE sources, expression of interest came from the fields of engineering, agriculture, psychology, tourism, economics and business, law, and religious studies. Initiators from the field of engineering closely associated with the Indonesian association of engineers are now at a relatively advanced stage. They had conducted benchmarking visits to EQAAs overseas with the support of the DGHE and the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and had conducted meetings with representatives of the Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Accreditation (JABEE). The initiators plan to name the civil society agency they wish to establish the Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE). They plan to offer two types of accreditation: a division will provide accreditation services for programs aiming at obtaining mandatory accreditation status in the Indonesian QA system, while another division will provide accreditation for programs aspiring to obtain recognition from JABEE and, eventually, Washington Accord recognition. The two divisions will use different accreditation systems; the first division will conform to the Indonesian EQA system, while the second division will use the JABEE accreditation system as benchmark.

5.10  HIGHER EDUCATION QA SYSTEM: DGHE INITIATIVES The enactment of Law No. 20/2003 and Government Regulation No. 19/2005 brought about significant changes in QA. That accreditation is mandatory has led to a significant increase in demands for accreditation.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

81

Since 2003 DGHE has initiated programs to provide technical support to HEIs in the development of internal QA systems. It has also developed an online national Higher Education Database containing integrated nationwide data on HEIs and programs based on periodic reports by HEIs (for a detailed report on the Indonesian higher education QA system, see Directorate of Learning and Student Affairs, 2014). After the Higher Education Law No. 12/2012 was issued, DGHE started to link the NQF to National Standards of Higher Education, EQA, and IQA to form the Higher Education QA System. DGHE has facilitated the development of learning outcomes for each type and level of education in different disciplines. It has also helped institutions that agree to integrate NQF concepts and principles in their educational learning outcomes.

5.11  CHALLENGES TO QA ENDEAVORS The “quality revolution,” however, faces numerous challenges. One of these challenges is the balance between quality and quantity. Pressures toward a relaxation of QA standards in the face of a rapid expansion of HEIs and programs may eventually lead to an overall decline in the quality of higher education. Another challenge is the growing diversity in EQA. An expected gradual increase in the number of program accreditation agencies requires HEIs to make a choice between multiple and diverse independent accreditation agencies, public as well as private. Public program accreditation agencies offer their services free of charge, while nongovernmental accreditation agencies charge fees. This diversity in costing is a cause of concern for public and private HEIs with programs in health, especially those with limited resources. Increases in the number of nongovernmental independent accreditation agencies will lead to increases in the funds HEIs have to make available for the accreditation of their programs, while increases in the number of public independent accreditation agencies will lead to increases in government spending. Another potential source of diversity is an Article 55 in the 2012 Law on Higher Education, which opens up the possibility of establishing regional independent accreditation agencies. This rule, if implemented, will create regional diversity in accreditation processes and outcomes. A regional diversity in accreditation agencies could hamper the interregional educational and occupational mobility of graduates from a certain region,

82

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

if accreditation outcomes from different regional agencies are not perceived as being equal. A chronic challenge facing QA endeavors is the proliferation of the socalled “diploma mills”—HEIs offering fraudulent certificates and diplomas for a fee. The large number of HEIs and programs limits the ability of the government to effectively monitor the compliance of HEIs to government rules and regulations. The government has on various occasions uncovered “degree mills” practices, such as the sale of diplomas by HEIs to persons who are not their registered students, the sale of bogus diplomas by fake HEIs, and the falsifications of diplomas. The cases of fraudulent practices the government has uncovered so far are probably just “a tip of the iceberg.”

5.12 CONCLUSION The establishment of NAAHE in 1994, the enactment of a NQF in 2012, and the evolvement of a national higher education QA system are important milestones in the rise of QA in Indonesia, forming part of a global trend aiming at the continuous quality improvement in higher education. The implementation of QA in higher education, however, faces numerous challenges. Besides the chronic problem of limited resources in the face of a constant growth in the number of HEIs and programs and a growth in the diversity of QA agencies, QA endeavors also have to deal with challenges posed by “diploma mills” practices committed by HEIs who had breached the trust the government had given to them. A number of HEIs have sought to improve the quality of some of their schools or programs through accreditation by international accrediting agencies such as AACSB, ABET, ABEST21 or European QA agencies and by regional agencies such as the ASEAN University Network Quality Assurance (AUN-QA), or through delivering joint degree and double degree programs with overseas HEIs. These practices lead to improvements in the quality of the schools or programs in question, although it will also widen the gap in the quality between and within Indonesian HEIs.

REFERENCES Directorate of Learning and Student Affairs. (2014). Guide to the higher education quality assurance system (in Indonesian). Hill, H., & Thee, K. W. (2013). Indonesian universities: Rapid growth, major challenges. In D. Suryadarma & G. W. Jones (Eds.), Education in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Indonesian Higher Education

83

Indonesian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in Health (2014). Feasibility study of the founding of the independent accreditation agency in higher education in health (in Indonesian). Minister of National Education Republic of Indonesia (2009). Regulation no. 73 of the Minister of National Education of the Republic of Indonesia on standards and guidelines for bachelor’s’s level study programs (in Indonesian). National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (1998). Decision number 001/BANPT/Ak-I/VIII/1998 on the outcome and ranking of study program accreditation at the bachelor’s level (in Indonesian). National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (2004). General guide to higher education accreditation (in Indonesian). National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (2012). End of term of office report of the 2006–2012 National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education Members (in Indonesian). Republic of Indonesia (2012). Regulation of the President of the Republic of Indonesia no. 8/2012 on the Indonesian National Qualification Framework (in Indonesian). Thomas, R. M. (1973). A chronicle of Indonesian higher education: The first half century 1920– 1970. Singapore: Chopmen Enterprises. Tuck, R. (2007). An introductory guide to national qualifications frameworks: Conceptual and practical issues for policy makers. Geneva: ILO. . Woodhouse, D. (2007a). INQAAHE guidelines of good practice. August. Woodhouse, D. (2007b). Feedback on the guidelines from the perspective of QA agencies. UNESCO 3rd global forum on international quality assurance, accreditation, and the recognition of qualifications. September. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.

FURTHER READING Minister of Education and Culture Republic of Indonesia (2014a). Regulation no. 49 on National Standards of Higher Education (in Indonesian). Minister of Education and Culture Republic of Indonesia (2014b). Regulation no. 50, 2014 on the higher education quality assurance system of the Republic of Indonesia (in Indonesian). Minister of Education and Culture Republic of Indonesia (2014c). Regulation no. 87 of the Minister of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia on the accreditation of study programs and institutions (in Indonesian). Ministry of Research,Technology and Higher Education (2015). Higher education database (in Indonesian) . Republic of Indonesia (2003). Law of the Republic of Indonesia no. 20, 2003 on the National System of Education (in Indonesian). The World Bank (2014a). Indonesia’s higher education system: How responsive is it to the labor market? June . The World Bank (2014b). Tertiary education in Indonesia: Directions for policy. June .

84

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

APPENDIXES Appendix 1. Number of study programs by academic field (November 27, 2015) Academic fields

Frequency

Education Engineering Social sciences Health Economics Agriculture Mathematics and science Religion Humanities Arts Linguistics Animal sciences Total

4872 4377 3594 3119 3087 1581 846 725 665 341 1 1 23,309

Source: Higher education database November 14, 2015 .

Appendix 2. National higher education data second semester 2015/2016 Studentsb

Higher education institutionsa Public

HEI under MRTHE HEIs under MORA HEIs under other ministries and nonministerial institutions Total

Lecturersc

Private

Total

Public

Private

Total

Public

Private

Total

121

3003

3124

2,222,885

4,347,071

6,569,956

71,179

146,556

220,275

75

950

1025

334,783

157,808

492,591

10,784

7,398

18,182

174

0

174

123,624

0

123,624

9393

0

9393

370

3953

4323

2,681,292

4,504,879

7,186,171

91,898

155,954

247,850

Source: Higher education database November 27, 2015. HEIs under MRTHE=HEIs under the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education. HEIs under MORA=HEIS under the Ministry of Religious Affairs. HEIs under other ministries and nonministerial institutions=public pre-service and in-service HEIs under ministries and nonministerial institutions, and other HEIs not under the MRTHE or MORA. a Higher education=Active HEIs. b Students=Active students and students on leave (at diploma and bachelor’s level). c Lecturers=Active lecturers, lecturers on leave, lecturers permitted to pursue educational qualifications, lecturers assigned to work at other institutions, and lecturers assigned to pursue educational qualifications.

86

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Appendix 3. NAAHE accreditation activities, 2012–2015 period Program/ institutional accreditation

Activities

2012

2013

2014

2015

Diploma programs

Adequacy and field assessments Appeals/surveillances Adequacy and field assessments Appeals/surveillances Adequacy and field assessments Appeals/ surveillances Adequacy and field assessments Appeals/surveillances

1148

500

1045

758

4 2594

4 2417

11 3155

0 2579

29 608

28 283

59 800

663

0

2

6

0

30

30

92

800

0

12

2

35

Bachelor’s programs Graduate programs (Master’s and Doctorate) Higher education institutions

Source: NAAHE data. Assessments: desk evaluation and on-site visits. Appeals: on-site visits to verify and validate data in response to appeals by study programs or higher education institutions. Surveillances: on-site visits to verify and validate data in response to complaints by stakeholders of programs or HEIs or by government agencies.

Appendix 4. NAAHE accredited programs and institutions (November 2015) Program accreditation

Academic and vocational programs

Frequency

Diploma 1 Diploma 2 Diploma 3 Diploma 4 Bachelor Professional Master’s Doctoral Total

19 15 3722 397 12,119 161 1977 430 18,841 852

Institutional accreditation Source: NAAHE website .

CHAPTER 6

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues Sulushash Kerimkulova and Aliya Kuzhabekova Nazarbayev University, Astana, Kazakhstan

6.1 INTRODUCTION The Republic of Kazakhstan gained independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. During twenty five years of its independence the newly independent state has transformed its educational system from the centrally regulated and publicly financed arrangement of educational organizations, serving the needs of the internationally isolated and ideologically controlled state, to a more complex system of diverse semi-independent private and government-controlled, but increasingly autonomous public providers of educational services oriented to the needs of a globally integrated market economy with an Asian-type strong presidential version of democratic government. Quality has not always been the main item on the educational reform agenda in Kazakhstan. In the early years of independence, when all postSoviet states were hit by the economic crisis following the dissolution of the previously existing regional economic ties, institutions, and social structures, the government was more concerned with preventing the educational system from total collapse due to the lack of public finances and ideological disorientation, resulting from the abandonment of the communist system of economic relations and values. Later on, the government was more preoccupied with reshaping the basic organizational structure of the educational system to bring it in alignment with structures of exemplary Western educational systems. However, recently, the government has become more concerned with the efficiency and output of the education system; and quality has evolved into one of the key issues on the educational reform agenda. A substantial part of reforms are driven nowadays

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00006-9 Copyright © 2017 Sulushash Kerimkulova and Aliya Kuzhabekova. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

87

88

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

by a concern for quality of education, which is viewed as essential in the larger national pursuit of international competitiveness. Many of the recent educational quality related reforms were largely influenced by world-wide policy trends. Specifically, higher education internationalization and international competitiveness initiatives have been particularly influential in Kazakhstan. As quality assurance approaches were largely borrowed from other countries, they were not always translated properly and sometimes produced unexpected side effects affecting higher education quality, performance, and development. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of the changes and developments in the system of educational quality assurance in Kazakhstan that occurred since its independence, identify the main drivers of the changes for different periods of the reformation process, discuss the role of different international organizations, and identify some challenges in change implementation and negative side effects. The quality assurance system will be analyzed at the national and institutional levels.

6.2  BACKGROUND INFORMATION Since the country’s joining the Bologna Process in March 2010 Kazakhstan has modernized its higher education system and enhanced its quality and relevance by applying the main principles of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) framework, including the three-cycle degree system, credit transfer and accumulation system, academic mobility, and quality of higher education. The reforms led to significant revision and renewal of the national educational legislation. As a result of the reforms it is expected that degrees offered in the country will be comparable with European degrees. The higher education system in Kazakhstan is represented by a diverse set of organizations. The total number of higher education degree-granting institutions is 126, including national and regional level public comprehensive universities, private colleges, specialized higher education institutions (military academies, music and dance academies), as well as joint stock companies (i.e., organizations) that are heavily supported with public funds, but exercise a large degree of autonomy from the Ministry of Education. The principal national authority regulating higher education is the Ministry of Education and Science (MES). It defines the general policy and strategy and has established a number of government agencies and

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

89

government-based committees to monitor and improve the quality of the higher education system. Both public and private HEIs are obliged to implement State Compulsory Education Standards (SCES), regulating the content and structure of education, as well as examination and graduation requirements and external quality assurance procedures. Recently, however, as part of Bologna Process, such content control has been lessened and universities enjoy more academic freedom. Though leadership of public HEIs is still determined by the MES, new principles of university management based on principles of corporate management, strategic planning, quality management, and autonomy of HEIs are being shaped, and the legal basis for granting autonomy to HEIs is currently under development.

6.3  NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM: MAJOR PRACTICES, TRENDS, AND CHALLENGES Within 25 years of independence the National System for Education Quality Evaluation (NCEQE) has been established and is widely recognized (Abdiyev, 2014; Irsaliyev, 2013; OECD & World Bank, 2007; SPED, 2010; Tempus, 2010). Its purpose is to conduct the overall assessment of education at all levels. Within this time the quality assurance system has evolved through its early highly centralized and governmentally controlled stage to recently, a more decentralized, though still highly regulated quality assurance stage and has resulted in the development of a comprehensive legal framework and the creation of a variety of public institutions, government agencies and committees, and mechanisms for higher education quality control and assessment, which depend in one way or another on the MES.

6.4  EARLY PERIOD OF CENTRALIZED APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE The early approach to quality control in higher education in Kazakhstan was highly centralized. Like many other countries, Kazakhstan has also faced a challenge of historical legacy, which subsequently influenced the development of its national quality assurance model. As stated by McLendon (2004, p. 279), the strict policy and rigid control of the Ministry of Education have remained as a legacy of Soviet education and, consequently, formalization and standardization remain as negative characteristics of Kazakhstani higher education policy.

90

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

6.4.1  Challenges Facing Higher Education To understand why the particular approach dominated, one needs to have an idea of the overall changes that took place in the educational system in Kazakhstan. Hence, this section deals with the summary of the main changes and challenges and the government’s approaches to address them during the period from 1991 until around 2007 when the new legal framework was created. One of the main challenges during the first decade of Kazakhstan’s independence was a decline in public funding for all social sectors including education, which led to the need to apply for loans to international organizations. Being a recipient of two loans from the Asian Development Bank between 1995 and 2001 provided in combination with the so-called “post-socialist reform package,” which was delivered by the Bank in the form of recommendations, the Kazakhstan government felt compelled to implement them to secure additional donor funding in the future (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). The goals of the package were to ensure a transition of all post-Soviet states to a neo-liberal economic paradigm and decentralized democratic form of governance. Following the recommendations the country launched liberalization and privatization reform in higher education allowing private provision of educational services and student fees for education. This reform led to a rapid and dramatic expansion of private HEIs between 1991 and 2001 (from 0 to 126) mostly driven by profit incentive which affected the quality of higher education, caused real concerns about it (Tempus, 2012, p. 4), and resulted in a proliferation of HEIs (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 111). Diploma mills, failure to graduate because of a bankruptcy of a private university, or unemployment due to poor preparation for a job became widespread. The government had to come up with a way to ensure at least some basic educational quality in higher education institutions. Another challenge facing educational policy makers in the early days of independence was the lack of understanding of what knowledge and skills were necessary for students in the post-Soviet realities and how the educational process should be organized to ensure the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Implementation of different changes in curriculum and teaching approaches recommended by multiplicity of international donors created a “kasha” of ideas (Merril, 2011), which caused much confusion and underwent a transformation under the influence of old Soviet practices.

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

91

The absence of textbooks and teaching materials, especially in the Kazakh language, which was proclaimed as the state language, greatly affected the quality of education. The previously omnipotent Ministry of Education could no longer control the educational process down to its minuscule details and had to assure that at least the minimal level of state education standards were met. The third challenge was that the educational system of the country was so dissimilar and unknown to the rest of the world that it was very problematic for it to produce graduates able to continue education in countries with stronger educational systems or prepared to work for international employers, as well as to attract international faculty and students. There was an urgent need to make the educational system more similar in form to the systems of developed countries and assure its quality. Having become an informal member of the Bologna Process, Kazakhstan used its framework as a guideline in bringing its educational system up to the standards expected by Western countries. Another important challenge was a high degree of corruption that pervaded the society and the educational system in particular (Heyneman, 2007). In the conditions of limited funding, corruption contaminated every cell of the educational system. A key solution suggested to Kazakhstan by international experts in addressing the problem was the introduction of a standardized assessment in 2004—the Unified National Test (UNT)—which was expected to eliminate corruption at the lowest level of interaction with students. While somewhat reduced, corruption persisted even in assessment and university admission and continued to corrode educational quality. Finally, one more challenge was linked to multiple threats to societal cohesion, brought about as a result of the emergence of an ideological vacuum. The crisis of national identities inherited from the later years of the Soviet Union, as well as a potential for a class conflict in the society with an increasing degree of socio-economic inequality, put much pressure on the MES to ensure a delivery of a balanced version of the curriculum across the educational system and to develop it into the main herald of the newly formulated ideology. While the state education standards were designed with both balance and ideological accuracy, the government needed to ensure that they are actually observed. Given all the challenges, educational quality in the early years was a very elusive concept in Kazakhstan and, ultimately, was not even an educational reform priority since policy makers were more concerned with

92

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

bringing the educational system to the Western standards in its form and process rather than in the final product. In addition to that, the government needed a high degree of control over the whole array of educational reforms to better align them with reforms in other sectors at the stage when the overall country’s development strategy was still not particularly clear and policy makers lacked experience and policy analysis and evaluation capacity.

6.4.2  National Quality Assurance System Framework As a result of the challenges experienced by the educational reformers at the early stage of independence and the growth of negative tendencies affecting quality of higher education services and possibilities of integration with the world education community there was a strong need for appropriate regulation and introduction of the system for assuring the quality of higher education institutions and controlling their work (Tempus, 2012, p. 4). In response to this need the government developed the legal framework and adopted a number of strategic documents between 1999 and 2007 that defined main principles, goals, and mechanisms of the stated realization of state policy in education and the creation of a national system of education quality evaluation. Among them are the Law on Education (1999), the State Program on Education (2000), Strategic Plan for the Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2001), and the State Program for Education Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2005–2010 (2004). Especially important was the latter document which shaped the course of quality assurance development in the country by proclaiming the development of a national system of quality assessment, implementation of the system of quality management, and institutional evaluation and accreditation as three main directions of quality assurance development in Kazakhstan. In compliance with these policy documents the infrastructure and mechanisms to support functioning of quality assurance system started to be developed. But the system was developed in the direction of quality control and state regulation and was highly centralized. At the national level this control was realized by a number of government agencies and government-based committees created by MES to monitor and improve the quality of the higher education system. All of them reported to the MES and, whatever their functions might be, the final decision was made by the MES. The Ministry conducted control over quality at that time via a complex system of external assessment

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

93

procedures such as licensing, attestation, accreditation, and external students’ performance assessment. The most basic type of quality control system was licensing—an obligatory quality control procedure aimed at determining whether HEIs meet the minimum requirements stated by the government for delivering particular study programs. It was conducted by the Committee for Control in Education and Science, which issued a license, thus allowing an organization to provide educational services (Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for Licensing Qualification Requirements for Educational Organizations, 2007). The requirements were predominantly focused on evaluation of inputs: faculty–student ratio, type and amount of facilities, library resources, initial capital, etc. Redundancy of permission functions created bureaucracy, administrative barriers, and corruption. Licensing was followed by state attestation of HEIs—another type of state control carried out by MES Committee for Supervision and Attestation every five years in order to judge the effectiveness and adequacy of a HEI and assess to what extent the institution meets state compulsory education standards for the level, content, quality, and qualification requirements reported during the licensing process (Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for State Attestation of Educational Organizations, 2007). Unlike licensing, attestation was more comprehensive and assessed inputs, outputs, and the actual mechanics of the educational process. Based on HEIs’ self-assessment and the findings of the attestation commission, MES made the attestation decision “attested” or “not attested.” The next type of quality control was accreditation, quite a new practice for Kazakhstan. The first accreditation in Kazakhstan was introduced in 2001 in the form of state accreditation of higher education institutions by the MES on the basis of 27 quantitative performance indicators (Kalanova, 2013). The whole procedure of that accreditation was a “total failure” and caused sharp criticism on the side of different stakeholders, as it ignored international requirements to the process of quality assessment, based on the quantitative evaluation of HEIs, and did not meet their demands and proved to be just a “duplicate for process of attestation.” It was understood later that “making conceptual conclusions based exclusively on statistical data was inadmissible” (Kalanova, 2013, p. 1). The next step toward accreditation development was connected with the creation of a National Accreditation Center (NAC) under the MES in 2005. It was the first agency that started to conduct accreditation. According to an OECD & World Bank (2007) report, this Center

94

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

achieved several great results: first, it generated its own accreditation criteria based on the experiences of the most successful European and US accrediting agencies; second, it provided valuable recommendations and supervision on the process of quality assurance to Kazakhstani universities; and third, it conducted trainings for Kazakhstani experts in accreditation. Its activities laid the ground for conducting independent national accreditation in Kazakhstan. Even more important, the NAC encouraged and motivated institutions to undergo the process of accreditation, which was quite a new concept for Kazakhstani HEIs. Accreditation was added to the existing system as a result of interaction with accrediting agencies in the West, where independent accreditation was viewed as the main mechanism of external quality assurance, and as an outcome of Kazakhstan’s aspiration to become a member state of the Bologna process. But none of the government documents of that period clearly articulated how accreditation purposes were different from the purposes of attestation. The government order of 2007, regulating the process of accreditation, stated only that accreditation is conducted to ensure compliance of HEIs with the “standards of accrediting bodies” (Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for the State Accreditation of Educational Organizations, 2007, p. 1). Simultaneously to accreditation practices, the NAC developed another important element of the national quality assurance system: a higher education institutions ranking. Starting from 2006, rankings were launched to assist the government with determination of funding and grant-allocation priorities, help students and parents in choosing universities for higher education studies, and for the use by other stakeholders. The rankings were aimed at promoting competition between universities and stimulating quality assurance of Kazakhstani higher education and were considered as an effective tool of quality assurance in combination with accreditation and benchmarking for “continuous improvement of HEIs” (Kalanova, 2008). Further to accreditation and university rankings, the Committee for Control in Education and Science under MES used to conduct interim government control by means of an Intermediate Government Control Test (IGCT) for student performance assessment that all second year students (third year students of medicine) had to take. Only those who passed this test were allowed to remain enrolled. On the positive side, it should be noted that at that time this type of control was allowed to solve strategic issues of quality assurance and form minimum requirements for quality, thereby reducing corruption and low

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

95

quality of learning. However, it was criticized as unnecessary and ineffective instrument of quality assurance. World Bank experts criticized this practice for checking student learning, which is not the same as quality of university services and considering testing as ineffective instrument for assessing professional competencies and for serving as a key measure of quality in higher education (World Bank, 2005). One more critical point was that students were threatened with expulsion from the higher education institution in the case of failure. Another external students’ performance assessment instrument was the Unified National Test (UNT) introduced in 2004 with the aim to provide independent assessment of students’ learning results reducing to minimize the factor of subjectivity. UNT had a number of systemic problems connected with combination of two measurements different by their educational goals: final attestation at school level and competition selection at a higher education level. A narrow range of subjects that were tested pushed applicants to mechanical learning and memorization of testing questions on four to five subjects, impairing other subjects left without proper attention. HEIs, in their turn, were limited in opportunities for quality selection of applicants on the results of one profile discipline. As stated by (Irsaliyev, 2013, p. 3), Chair of the Committee for Control in Education and Science, UNT carried out too many social loads: “from assessment of school education to realization of the right for higher education.” UNT has also been criticized by the World Bank experts as inadequate and for not being the ideal way to monitor and assess quality. Though they praised Kazakhstan in making “a quick and concrete step” toward creating a system to monitor quality, they noted that this system was “unable to effectively use the data on the results of exams for assessment of quality” and that monitoring surveys were, to a great extent, a formal procedure that did not promote the development of education (World Bank, 2005, p. 32). This critique was supported also by the OECD findings that testing practice “push students to become more concerned about the test than about their wider learning” and make institutions become “trapped” by the expected outcomes of the test (OECD & World Bank, 2007, pp. 120–121). The quality-control instruments presented above were the major practices applied by the government of Kazakhstan in pursuit of quality assurance in higher education at the early period. Though they were conducted under the strict control of MES and its numerous quality agencies, they laid the foundations for creation of the more decentralized national system of education quality evaluation developed in a later period.

96

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

6.5  RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT The quality assurance system in Kazakhstan has undergone significant changes during recent years. To ensure the quality of higher education services the country has made considerable efforts to move from quality control toward a decentralized quality assurance approach. The positive changes in this direction have become possible thanks to “a strong political will and specific plans of the government to moving towards international best practice in quality assurance, governance, and research” (Tempus, 2010, p. 11). These specific plans found their reflection in a number of strategic documents, including the Strategy for Development of the RK until 2030, State Program for Education Development for 2011–2020 (SPED, 2010), and a renewed legal framework of education development. The policy documents proclaimed an improvement of quality of education as one of the priority directions in strengthening the competitiveness of Kazakhstani education and for developing human capital. In compliance with them and with the Bologna Process requirements the country has made a number of important changes and developments in its quality assurance system. A huge step has been made towards implementing a new system of accreditation by scrutinizing the existing methods of accreditation to gain a stable interaction between the system of higher education in Kazakhstan and the global market of educational service (Zakirova, 2010). The legal framework for the new system created by important amendments to the Law on Education in 2007 and later in 2011 raised the role of accreditation in assuring the quality of education by moving it away from state control, stating its independent character and proclaiming it as a voluntary procedure (Law on Education 2007 with amendments as of 2011). It was stated that the government of Kazakhstan would not interfere into the process of accreditation as it was no longer its “burden,” but the responsibility of HEIs in their choice of accrediting agencies (Law on Education, 2007). A very important step in improving quality assurance system should also be noted: from “compliance mentality” and control to the idea of improvement that HEIs should do upon the completion of accreditation (Law on Education 2011) and by doing so build up their “capacity to assure quality for themselves” (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 121). Starting from 2012 accreditation is carried out by noncommercial, nongovernmental organizations, thus having moved the process of

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

97

accreditation from a government administered and controlled process to a more competitive environment. Such governmental mechanisms as provision of state funding only to accredited HEIs; giving such universities the right to offer their programs at different levels (bachelor’s, master’s, and Ph.D.), and issue diplomas of their own model recognized by the government create strong incentives to HEIs to undergo this process to prove that they provide high quality services. The next serious step towards progressive development of an accreditation model in Kazakhstan is connected with the creation of a Republican Accreditation Council in 2012 and the development of a National Register of Accreditation Agencies. Though the government transfers part of its authorities to the nongovernmental sector, it still regulates the accrediting agencies by their recognition and inclusion into the National Register. The number of agencies listed in this Register has increased from 6 in 2012 to 10 in 2015 and currently includes two national independent agencies that have the right to conduct accreditation at the institutional and program levels and at 8 international agencies (three from Germany, 2 from Austria, 3 from the United States, and 1 from the United Kingdom (MES, 2014), p. 15. However, the impact of accreditation on higher education is not yet clear. It is possible that Kazakhstani HEIs, being used to centralized regulations, take a formalized and superficial approach to accreditation. A lack of understanding of standards, content, and procedures of accreditation can be observed at the school and departmental levels of HEIs. But nevertheless, the work on the development of the institute of independent accreditation is currently an imperative of high priority. It has come in place of attestation, and although both coexist today, accreditation is expected to become a major form of quality assurance in the future (OECD & World Bank, 2007; SPED, 2010). The following figures will indicate the results of the work: 50 percent of HEIs by 2015 and 65 percent by 2020 shall pass the independent national institutional accreditation in accordance with international standards, and 30 percent shall pass independent national programmatic accreditation according to international standards by 2020 (SPED, 2010). Another recent development is connected with the participation of leading Kazakhstani HEIs in international rankings in parallel with previously existed national rankings. The MES statistics reveal recent improvements in the positioning of Kazakhstani universities in international rankings in comparison with past indicators. For example, out of

98

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

22 Kazakhstani universities that applied for participation in the QS global ranking in 2013, two universities entered the cluster of “Top 300.” The Kazakh National University (KazNU) held the 299th position in the QS global ranking, having risen by 91 positions, as compared with its position in 2012. Another university, the Eurasian National University (ENU), held the 303rd position in the QS global ranking, having risen by 66 positions, as compared with its position in the previous year (MES RK 2014). International and national rankings highly motivate Kazakhstani universities to improve their performance on specific indicators, which can be regarded as a positive influence. However, as the president of the national independent IQAA agency (Kalanova, 2008, pp. 309–310) states, it is important to understand that working on specific indicators does not embrace the full quality of higher education, and that participation in international and national rankings should be combined with other quality assurance methods, such as accreditation and benchmarking for “continuous improvement of HEIs.” Certain steps were done towards simplifying and optimizing licensing procedures to avoid bureaucracy, administrative barriers, and corruption. In this regard 9 out of 27 (33 percent) licensing documents are suggested for taking off by the MES (Irsaliyev, 2013). Transparency for all the stages of licensing is provided starting from 2012 by its transfer into e-format and creation of public commissions on licensing which place their decisions on the website (Bylaw on Some Issues of Licensing of Educational Activities, 2013). Innovations also touched state control conducted in the form of attestation. Starting from 2012 the vertical quality control was created by establishing 16 regional departments for purposes of decentralization of control management to raise the efficiency of the education system by a transfer of authorities and responsibilities “down” to lower levels of management. But this system demonstrated its inefficiency. In 9 regions out of 16 such departments were not created as planned. The results of state attestation were by absolute majority positive because of the existing “conflict of interests”: those who governed the organization of educational services monitored their quality themselves (Irsaliyev, 2013). In addition, such decentralization led to other negative consequences: a general decrease of quality of education, growth of its regional differentiation, absence of feedback, and the impossibility of studying the problems at the national level. This situation led to the necessity of keeping state control and attestation until 2015 when it was planned to be conducted only in the form of licensing check (Irsaliyev, 2013).

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

99

There have been also innovations in external students’ performance assessment. They are connected with the replacement of Intermediate Government Control Test (IGCT), which was heavily criticized earlier by the External Evaluation of Learning Achievements (EELA). The results of EELA are analyzed by the Committee for Control in Education and Science and are used for monitoring student performance, evaluation of educational process efficiency, expertise of educational programs, and comparative analysis of educational services of educational institutions (Abdiyev, 2014). What positively distinguishes EELA from the previous IGC Test is that students are not threatened if they fail this test. However, it is not clear whether there is qualitative methodological difference between these two testing instruments: EELA and IGCT. The quality of the testing questions is also under question. As was mentioned before, it is doubtful whether testing is an appropriate measure to check student knowledge. Today, competitiveness of graduates is evaluated by their ability to apply theory in practice and creativity, which is impossible to check by tests. Besides, as stated by World Bank (2005) experts, testing students is a practice not existing in other countries and this practice does not comply with the principles of university autonomy. It also diminishes the quality of creativity and innovation, misleading HEIs by orienting their students for preparation to EELA instead of training them towards market requirements to meet the goals of increasing country’s competitiveness and international trends.

6.6  COLLABORATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Kazakhstan has been actively collaborating with international organizations in its pursuit to internationalize its higher education quality assurance system. Some of the beneficial examples of this collaboration are presented below. In the first decade of Kazakhstan independence implementation of Asian Development Bank recommendations resulted in the adaptation of curriculum and instructional approaches to the new realities by an introduction of new subjects, specializations, and electives; a provision of more freedom to universities and faculty in the choice of what to teach and how to teach by replacing a universal curriculum and textbooks with more flexible state education standards; promotion of greater student independence and student-centered learning; and the cultivation of critical

100

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

thinking skills (Silova & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008). Though at that time these reforms were not directly focused on quality, in the long run their implementation worked for raising the quality of educational services. Some other international organizations, Central Asian Foundation of Management Development (CAMAN), Corporation CARANA and Education Network EdNet (USA), Association of Business & Economic Education (USAID), TEMPUS, and TACIS programs, are also notable for their contribution to the development of quality assurance systems in Kazakhstan (Bishimbayev & Nurasheva, 2011). For example, CAMAN was the first organization to bring public professional accreditation practices in our country and to propose the standards and criteria in the area of economic and business education. These first experiences are realized currently in Kazakhstan through the creation of independent accreditation agencies that generat their own accreditation criteria on the basis of the most successful European and US accrediting agencies experiences. In addition, studies conducted later by OECD and World Bank on Kazakhstani educational policies also comprise the whole set of recommendations, with most of them having been taken on board by Kazakhstani policy makers, such as internationalizing curricula, decentralizing existing quality control mechanisms, and entrusting quality assurance to independent accrediting agencies, provision of incentive measures to encourage institutions for passing accreditation, phasing out attestation with the establishment of accreditation, development of a national quality assurance system, and a national model of accreditation in compliance with international standards, to name a few. The country increasingly cooperates with international assurance quality networks to exchange information and to develop comparable criteria and procedures for accreditation purposes including INQAAHE, ENQA, CEE Network, APQN, and EAEQA. The latter Eurasian Association for Education Quality Assessment (EAEQA) was created following the example of the similar successful supranational world-wide professional organizations in the world. It unites accrediting agencies that carry out external quality evaluation of higher education on the national and/or regional level in the following post-Soviet countries: Russia, Belorussia, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Moldova, Estonia, and Kazakhstan. Participation in this network is beneficial for Kazakhstan, as it provides a joint regional professional platform for discussion, exchange of opinions, and constructive dialog by active participation in such EAEQA events as jointly organized annual international conferences on the issues of quality in education, realization

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

101

of cross-country research in the sphere of quality assessment, development of compatible methodologies of national quality assurance systems, and dissemination of good practice via publications in its journal Quality of Education in Eurasia (EAEQA website). As a result of interacting with international organizations and networks, Kazakhstan included eight leading European and American accrediting agencies into the National Register and brought national accreditation agencies standards in compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance (ESG). As stated by a number of researchers, these steps have definitely had a positive impact on the process of establishing a national accreditation model development allowing the involvement of all stakeholders, including employers, into the process of improving education quality (Bishimbayev & Nurasheva, 2011; Kalanova, 2013; Kerimkulova, 2014; Seidakhmetova & Syrymbetova, 2013). A close integration of Kazakhstan with international organizations, quality assurance networks and agencies has helped the country to internationalize its quality assurance system and raise it on the international level. It is evident that Kazakhstan borrows the most current and advanced international decisions of educational problems and is leading by the speed of educational reforms including quality assurance among other postSoviet countries. But as quality assurance approaches were not always translated properly they sometimes produced unexpected side-effects affecting higher education quality, performance, and development that will be discussed later in this chapter. The country should be careful in its collaboration with international organizations, avoid blind copying, and situations when “superior clapping over the shoulder by the Western hand is accepted as the highest and peremptory ascertaining of achievements” (Gurevich, 2011, n. p).

6.7  INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS In addition to the national quality assurance system, most of the higher educational institutions started to develop internal quality assurance systems and strategies in response to governmental requirements and imposed regulations. Almost every university in the country created at the minimum some sort of a unit responsible for quality control. This office is typically responsible for compliance with the requirements of the national system of quality assurance, for organizing the procedures of licensing,

102

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

attestation, and accreditation, as well as for formulating internal quality assurance strategies and initiatives and monitoring academic achievements. Assessment of HEI operation also includes the opinion of students on the quality of the teaching process. Two quality assurance initiatives became particularly important in HEIs: the pursuit of ISO certification and of international accreditation. One of the main reasons for the attractiveness of ISO certification and international accreditation for Kazakhstani universities is that in the absence of a clear understanding domestically about what a good internal quality assurance system should look like, the agencies that provide ISO certification and international accreditation offered a clear rationale for why particular processes might be beneficial for their customers, in addition to providing some training, support, and explanatory materials. Meanwhile, obtaining a certificate of compliance with standards of some international agency allowed universities to signal a level of quality to their donors and students. International accreditation was particularly popular among the top public and private universities since they were competing among each other in terms of quality as defined by employability of students and students’ satisfaction with educational experiences. By the latest data obtained from the MES via official correspondence the number of Kazakhstani universities that passed international programmatic accreditation reached 31 in 2015 (nearly 25 percent of current number of HEIs) with the number of the accredited programs covering all 3 levels totaling at 243. Though acquiring ISO-9000 certification is considered a useful exercise, OECD report states that it has a limited impact from an educational quality viewpoint. Being originally designed for noneducational organizations the ISO certification process does not seek to assess academic quality or standards, but rather to assess customer satisfaction (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 114). An internal provision of education quality is somewhat hindered by a different understanding of quality by HEIs and ways of showing it, which make them “focus on a provision of various extraordinary credentials gained by them since their foundation” rather than on the “quality of the whole system.” For example, while some of these universities stated that the quality of their programs was good just by obtaining different certifications like an ISO certification; others were sure that their cooperation with “international higher education associations” or participation in a “collaborative international project” was an impressive sign of their high quality. However, in the opinion of international experts none of them can

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

103

be considered as reliable proof of “the overall quality of HEI, its teaching and learning” (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 120).

6.8  IMPACT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ON HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT The creation of a national and institutional quality assurance system in Kazakhstan went through a long and complex way of development that resulted in certain progress in ensuring the quality of higher education. This progress achieved within a short period of time was notably remarked in the reports of international organizations (OECD & World Bank, 2007; Tempus, 2010; Tempus, 2012). However, its creation was also accompanied by a number of problems, unexpected side effects that negatively affected higher education quality, performance, and development. The main problem with the approach to quality assurance, especially at its early stage, was connected with its highly centralized, governmentcontrol-based character. This overcentralization resulted from the desire of the government to achieve the highest efficiency in distribution of limited public funding and to have a high control over the massive scale of educational reforms in the country, when many innovative initiatives were implemented simultaneously and created a high probability of misinterpretation and abuse. Ultimately the government wanted universities to make some basic required changes in terms of the content and organization of the educational process by setting the State Standards and then distribute funding on the basis of the universities’ success in implementing the required change. This centralized approach led to a clear “conflict of interest,” as stated by Raza (2009,p. 30), when the government regulated public HEIs of which it was the owner. The main impact of this centralized approach is that it produced the culture of compliance mentality and did not create any incentives for universities to develop internal quality assurance systems, that is, “their own quality targets and to assess their own strengths and weaknesses to improve themselves” (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 113). Such an incentive was created by the market competition rather than by the government. In addition to that, the process of reorganization of educational processes in HEIs, as well as curriculum reform, were not driven by their internal experience, reflective practice, and critical consideration. Rather, they were imposed by the government in one uniform format, which

104

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

was not always well understood, was often misinterpreted, and was poorly implemented. Though more recently the country stepped on the path of progressive deregulation and certain moves were done toward a decentralized quality assurance approach, still there remain a substantial number of centrally controlled mechanisms and highly bureaucratic procedures that HEIs must follow and that are still limiting HEIs freedom and ability to respond to the needs of the market economy, students, and employers. That is why the government’s attempts to introduce new models of quality assurance “without changing underpinning structures” (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 118) did not bring to the desired effect and sometimes produced undesirable side-effects. For example, the push to greater deregulation by allowing private providers of education without offering the needed levels of autonomy brought to overloading them with excessive accountability measures (Raza, 2009, p. 30). Another specific example, demonstrating the compliance mentality and absence of incentives for HEIs to modify behavior, is provided in the 2007 OECD and World Bank report. It is noted that in response to the governmental attempts to encourage HEIs to be “more proactive” in their self-assessment has produced a culture of more “onerous control” when HEIs have become focused on bureaucratic reporting, rather than taking ownership over their performance (OECD & World Bank, 2007, p. 118). It is considered by international experts that a stronger and more decentralized quality assurance system would help higher education of the country make better contributions to the competitiveness goals of the country (OECD & World Bank, 2007; Tempus, 2012). Another problem that affected HEIs and the development of quality assurance system was connected with implementation of a large number of initiatives and changes taken by the government in response to the needs of issues of higher education quality and ranging from licensing to testing and accreditation, and the creation of numerous quality-related bodies within a short period of time. These initiatives, though helped much to develop the legal and normative quality assurance framework and infrastructure, resulted in practice in the creation of an overregulated, overly complicated and in some respects duplicative quality assurance system with too much emphasis on compliance checks and too little on institutions’ self-evaluation and improvement (OECD & World Bank, 2007; Raza, 2009; Tempus, 2012). It was not well coordinated and the multiple quality bodies were often duplicating the work of each other creating unnecessary burden and overload on HEIs.

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

105

The next problem was that the approach to the development of a quality assurance system was mostly based on the assessment of inputs in the educational process and easily measurable outcomes. As (Chapman, 2005, p. 517) states, quality was variously represented in terms of inputs (e.g., number of teachers, amount of teacher training, number of textbooks), processes (e.g., amount of direct instructional time; lecture vs. other means of presentation); content (e.g., substance based on internationally competitive standards); outputs (e.g., test scores); and outcomes (e.g., the ability to perform well in subsequent employment). External assessors were more concerned with whether a university had the facilities and human resources to properly teach students than with assessment of how exactly students were taught and whether they achieved any learning outcomes and the extent to which they were satisfied in the long term after they graduated from universities. Such an approach did not create any motivation for universities to achieve greater efficiency and, moreover, stimulated universities to invest in the development of the material basis and infrastructure more than in the professional development of faculty skills and in the improvement of the quality of teaching and the learning process. As noted by World Bank (2005, p. 32) report the focus of education managing bodies was on assuring the quality of programs before their realization but not on the educational results of these programs after their realization. One more issue that is worth mentioning is the process of self-evaluation done by universities applying for accreditation. The system of self-evaluation is considered in the world as one of the most advanced means of providing quality in HEIs. But for Kazakhstani universities it is a relatively new and challenging experience leading often to misconceptions about the self-evaluation process. Because of the previously mentioned “compliance mentality” caused by the centralized approach, HEIs were not used to look critically at the results of their performance, and therefore the process of self-assessment was focused more on finding some flaws in work and hiding them, rather than considering them critically with further improvement in mind. According to Bishimbayev and Nurasheva (2011), and Naizabekov and Chalaya (2012), Kazakhstani universities tended to have an “overstated self-assessment”; “the indicators did not reflect the real picture” that might help in self-improvement. Instead of applying a “self-critical approach” the universities were trying to do a “self-promotion” (Bishimbayev & Nurasheva, 2011, p. 4). This tendency can also be explained by the previous “tradition” of quality-controlling bodies to focus on the negative aspects in the work of a university, when

106

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

universities used to be condemned and penalized by the government without receiving advice on how to solve their problems. Considering such an impact, Zakirova (2010, p. 35) points out that it is probably “too early” for Kazakhstani universities to use a self-assessment model, which is widely used in American universities. She explains her point by stating that there are no special units for evaluation and analysis in many universities, and that there are a few professional organizations that can be considered as experts in the sphere of external accreditation. However, the main issue with the quality assurance system is that it was and is still affected by corruption. With so many stakes being associated with the decision of the attestation and accreditation committees, universities were tempted to bribe the Ministry’s decision makers. In fact, one of the reasons universities pursue international accreditation is because of its better ability to send a more trustworthy signal about quality given a high degree of public skepticism to domestic accreditation. On the other hand, rumors went around that some bribing took place even during international accreditation. The State Program for 2011–2020 points out at corruption as at “a serious latent factor encompassing the entire system of higher education” in Kazakhstan and states the necessity of taking specific measures to eradicate it (SPED, 2010, p. 12). There is a hope that in compliance with the country’s goals this issue will be seriously dealt with, thus promoting the improvement of education quality.

6.9  CONCLUDING REMARKS Within 25 years of independence the government of Kazakhstan has made substantial efforts to modernize the higher education system and make it competitive on the international level by enhancing the quality of its higher education and creating a national system for education quality evaluation. The creation and development of this system evolved from a totally centralized quality control and regulatory stage toward a more decentralized quality assurance stage. From the period when the quality of education was seen as an insignificant item on the educational reform agenda at the early stages of the country’s independence to its current status as an imperative with a high priority, a high quality education system is now viewed by the government as essential to the national pursuit of international competitiveness. Much has been done to ensure the quality of higher education with many changes and significant developments having taken place in the country. As was notably remarked in the OECD report these changes and achievements were reached within a very short period of time as compared to other

Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Kazakhstan: A Review of the System and Issues

107

countries. However, on the way Kazakhstan has faced a number of challenges with some of them emerging as the consequences of the Soviet legacy, while others are the results of international borrowings not always translated properly and thus producing sometimes unexpected side effects. The government is aware of the negative tendencies affecting the quality of higher education services, and has continuously set up plans to deal with them. The government is determined to meet all the challenges and direct additional efforts to improve the quality of higher educational services and create possibilities of further integration with the world education community.

REFERENCES Abdiyev, K. (2014). National quality assessment system in education in the Republic of Kazakhstan: description of infrastructure and ongoing assessing activities. Quality of Education in Eurasia, 2, 59–69. viewed 15 August 2015, . Bishimbayev, V. & Nurasheva, K. 2011, Accreditation process in Kazakhstan: state regulation, procedures and prospects, viewed 20 July 2015, . Chapman, D. W., Weidman, J., Cohen, M., & Mercer, M. (2005). The search for quality: A five country study of national strategies to improve educational quality in Central Asia. International Journal of Educational Development, 25, 514–530. viewed 14 May 2015, Elsevier Ltd database, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.02.003.. Gurevich, L. (2011).The lie that raises us up. Expert Kazakhstan, 37(10) n.p., viewed 15 October 2015, . Heyneman, S. P. (2007). Thee universities in Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan: The struggle against corruption and for social cohesion. Prospects, 37, 305–318. viewed 22 July 2015, Springer database, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11125-008-9037-2. Irsaliyev, S. A. (2013). The conquest of knowledge society heights. Accreditation in Education 24 January, viewed 5 August 2015, . Kalanova, S. M. (2008). The methodology of ranking higher education institutions in Kazakhstan. Higher Education in Europe, 33(2/3), 303–310. Kalanova, S. M. (2013). The future of independent accreditation in Kazakhstan. Accreditation in Education 5 April 2015, viewed 10 July 2015, . Kerimkulova, S.I. 2014, Accreditation of higher education in Kazakhstan: current trends and policies, Proceedings of EDULEARN 14 education and new learning technologies international conference Barcelona 7th-9th July, IATED Academy, Spain, pp. 0069–0079. McLendon, M. K. (2004). Straddling market and state: higher education governance and finance reform in Kazakhstan. In S. Heyneman & A. De Young (Eds.), The challenges for education in Central Asia (pp. 275–293). New York: Information Age Publishing. Merril, M. (2011). Kasha and quality in Kyrgyzstan. European Education, 43(4), 5–25. viewed 15 August 2015, Tailor & Francis online database, http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/ EUE1056-4934430401. Ministry of Education and Science, (2014). Report on the dynamics of Kazakh National University and Eurasian National University in QS academic ranking of World Universities. Astana, Kazakhstan: Ministry of Education and Science Publishing Service.

108

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Nayzabekov, A. B., & Chalaya, O. B. (2012). The quality assessment of higher education. Vestnik KarGU, 2(66), 15–19. OECD & World Bank, (2007). Reviews of national policies for education: Higher education in Kazakhstan. Paris, France: OECD. Raza, R. (2009). Examining autonomy and accountability in public and private tertiary institutions. Washington DC: World Bank. viewed 15 August 2015, . Seidahmetova, R. D., & Syrymbetova, L. S. (2013). The role of European standards and leading principles in the development of the national system of independent assessment of quality of higher education. Vestnik KarGU, 1(69), 44–49. Silova, I., & Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Eds.). (2008). How NGOs react: globalization and educational reform in the Caucasus. Central Asia, and Mongolia: Kumaroan Press Inc. Bloomfield. Tempus, (2010). Higher education in Kazakhstan. Brussels Belgium: European Commission, EACEA. Tempus, (2012). Higher education in Kazakhstan. Brussels Belgium: European Commission, EACEA. World Bank, (2005). Modernization of the system of quality assurance assessment in the Republic of Kazakhstan: analytical report. Astana, Kazakhstan: MES RK. Zakirova, G. D. (2010). Internationalization of accreditation processes in the system of higher education of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In G. Zakirova, B. Iskakov, S. H. Iskakova, & Y. Istileulova (Eds.), Integration of higher education of Kazakhstan into international education sphere: achievements, problems, perspectives for development (pp. 28–37). Almaty: National Tempus Office.

Legislation

Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for State Attestation of Educational Organizations 2007 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no. 1270, viewed 14 August 2015, . Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for Accreditation of Educational Organizations 2007 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no.1385, viewed 16 August 2015, . Bylaw on the Adoption of the Rules for Licensing Qualification Requirements for Educational Organizations 2007 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no. 452, viewed 14 August 2015, . By law on Some Issues of Licensing of Educational Activities 2013 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no.195 with amendments and additions as of 27.05.2014 no. 549, viewed 16 August 2015, . Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Education 2007 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no. 319-III with amendments as of 2011 no.487-IV, viewed 20 August 2015 . State Programme for Education Development in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2011–2020 (SPED) 2010 (Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan) no.1118, viewed 17 August 2015, .

FURTHER READING Eurasian Association for Education Quality Assessment (EAEQA), viewed 17 October 2015, .

CHAPTER 7

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges Jang Wan Ko Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

7.1 INTRODUCTION Higher education in Korea has expanded rapidly over the past several decades. With the move from an elite to a universal higher education system, the number of higher education institutions (HEIs) increased from 168 in 1970 to 434 in 2011 (KEDI, 2015). The number of students and faculty in higher education also dramatically increased, from 201,436 and 10,270 in 1970 to 3,735,760 and 82,190 in 2011, respectively. Since 2011, however, the number of students has continually decreased, falling to 3,668,747 in 2014.This reflects the decrease in the school-age population, which is the main challenge to current Korean higher education. Nevertheless, the number of institutions remains relatively unchanged, decreasing by only one institution (to 433), and the number of faculty has continually increased, reaching 90,215 in 2015. Consequently, the student–faculty ratio, which is one of the quality indicators, has improved from 29.5 in 2005 to 24.6 in 2015 (Ministry of Education, 2015b). Meanwhile the number of international students in Korea has increased dramatically since 2000. In 2003, there were 12,314 international students, and 2005, 22,526 and in 2010 83,842. As of 2015, there were 91,332 international students in Korean higher education institutions (Ministry of Education, 2015b). Korean higher education currently faces several issues in relation to college-age population, restructuring of HEIs, institutional autonomy, performance funding based on evaluation, and internationalization of higher education. Of particular concern is the restructuring of higher education. In Korea, the government has played a key role in the development of higher education and has controlled HEIs using an enrollment quota system, which allocates a certain number of students for each university The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00002-1 Copyright © 2017 Jang Wan Ko. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

109

110

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

or college. In recent years, the school-age population has been decreasing, and this trend is expected to continue for the next several decades. Based on government analysis, the total number of college-age students will be less than the current enrollment quota after 2017. Since the major revenue source for universities and colleges is student tuition fees, many HEIs are likely to experience financial difficulty due to student shortage. Although the government encourages HEIs to recruit more international students, this problem will continue. The government has also reduced current enrollment quotas for almost all HEIs and will force some HEIs to close down if they cannot meet the minimum standards of performance indicators.

7.2  SYSTEM BACKGROUND According to the Korean Higher Education Act, higher education institutions in Korea are classified into seven categories: universities, industrial universities, universities of education, colleges and technical institutes, open universities and cyber universities, technology institute, and miscellaneous colleges (Higher Education Act, 2014). The major higher education providers are universities, and colleges and technical institutes. “Universities” refers to general four-year universities, a specific type of general HEI, so people tend to use “general universities” or “comprehensive universities” (Ko, Choi, & Kim, 2013). There were 189 general universities in 2015. Colleges and technical institutes (CTIs) provide two- or three-year programs and are intended to cultivate the technical workforce. Although CTIs are similar to community colleges or junior colleges in the United States, which are often intended for preparing students for fouryear colleges, serving adult learners, and helping with job preparation, the primary function of CTIs is to prepare young students for the workforce in specific industrial areas (Ko et al., 2013). There were 138 CTIs in 2015. The remaining HEIs have limited functions in Korean higher education. Industrial universities are four-year institutions intended for training industrial personnel, yet only two industrial universities remained as of 2015 because industrial universities have converted to general universities. University of Education is exclusively for training elementary school teachers, while secondary school teachers are mainly trained in the college of education in general universities. Only 10 such universities nationwide were operating as of 2015. The open universities and cyber universities contribute to the development of lifelong education

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

111

and provide opportunities for distance learning through information and communication media. A technology institute, which provides two-year programs yet award professional bachelor’s degrees, is intended to cultivate professionals with theory and practical abilities by allowing workers in industries to advance their education. Last, the “various” category of schools includes HEIs, which cannot use school names similar to those of colleges and universities, but are similar to the schools prescribed in the aforementioned Act. The HEIs are also classified by institutional type, namely national, public, and private HEIs. National and public HEIs are established and managed by the national or local government, while private HEIs are established and managed by HEI foundations. The term “private university” refers to a not-for-profit institution because for-profit institutions are not allowed by law. Korean HEIs have different university governance structures. National and public HEIs may have a faculty council and/or a university deliberation committee as the governing board, but as the head of the university, the president, by enacting or amending school regulations, has the sole authority for overseeing school affairs, supervising faculties, setting tuition, admitting and dismissing students, and awarding degrees. The president of a university is appointed by the President of Korea upon the request of the Minister of Education after receiving a recommendation from the university concerned. Private universities/colleges, on the other hand, have their own governing boards. According to the Private School Act (2016), each HEI must establish a Board of Directors, which is to deliberate and make decisions about general institutional matters. The board must have over seven directors, and one of the directors is to be a chief director. Regarding the composition of the board, the Recommendation Committee of the Board of Directors under the University Deliberation Committee has the right to recommend one-fourth of the board members (Ko et al., 2013).

7.3  NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) SYSTEM 7.3.1  Institutional Accreditation The first quality assurance mechanism for all four-year HEIs was introduced in 1982 by the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE), when it was established as a voluntary association of four-year universities. The KCUE began work in quality assurance with two cycles of

112

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

comprehensive university evaluations, the first from 1982 to 1986 and the second from 1988 to 1992, based primarily on peer review. These efforts were upgraded to the comprehensive university accreditation system in which member universities were evaluated and accredited twice in two cycles, the first from 1994 to 2000 and the second from 2001 to 2006 (KCUE, 2016). Yet the accreditation systems in the early stage were not officially endorsed by the government. The current mandatory national accreditation system was established in 2008 based on the Presidential Decree on Higher Education Assessment and Accreditation. According to newly amended and enacted laws, such as Regulation on Self-Assessment of Higher Education Institutions (Ordinance of the Ministry of Education, Science & Technology No. 21) and Regulation on Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions (Presidential Decree No. 21163) in 2008, universities shall implement self-assessment and may acquire institutional accreditation from government-authorized institutes. The purpose of institutional accreditation is to determine whether universities satisfy basic requirements as educational institutions and to provide public confidence by making public the results of accreditation. Institutional accreditation primarily focuses on quality assurance of university education and emphasizes student learning outcomes (KCUE, 2016). For the purpose of institutional accreditation, the Korean University Accreditation Institute (KUAI), affiliated with the Korean Council for University Education, was established in 2009 and was recognized as an Institutional Accreditation Agency by the Ministry of Education in 2010. The KUAI first implemented Institutional Accreditation in 2011. The accreditation criteria offered by KUAI are to (1) prepare universities to possess basic requirements and characteristics as educational institutions to live up to the global trend of promoting a quality control system for the higher education system; (2) bolster Korean universities’ competitiveness at home and abroad; (3) establish universities’ accountability to enhance higher education quality; and (4) set the quality assurance system of higher education to promote international acceptability, exchange, and cooperation.

7.4  ACCREDITING ORGANIZATIONS The Korean University Accreditation Institute (KUAI) runs supportive management units and an institutional accreditation committee. The Institutional Accreditation Committee is the highest decision-making

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

113

committee on institutional accreditation and consists of less than 17 members, including no more than five scholars in education, five representatives from industry and business areas, three public or government officers, and three experts in university evaluation. The main function of the Committee is to discuss and make decisions on the basic plans provided by KUAI and the implementation of the plans for institutional accreditation, final accreditation status and utilization of the results, and to resolve other related issues. Supportive management units consist of two parts: administrative units, and an advisory committee for fair evaluation and accreditation of universities. The administrative units consist of the accreditation planning team and the university assessment and management team; the advisory committee consists of three committees, the accreditation planning committee and the accreditation evaluation committee, and the accreditation monitoring committee. The accreditation planning committee has about 13 experts on institutional accreditation appointed by the president of KUAI. The committee provides advice regarding the regulation and criteria of the accreditation and general quality assurance system in relation to the accreditation. The accreditation evaluation committee actually implements institutional accreditation through off-site documentary review, site visits, result verification, and written evaluation result reports. In general, the committee consists of five members including a chief and four executives. The number of committee members may vary, depending on the number of universities evaluated for a specific year. Committee members shall be nominated out of the “University Evaluation Committee Members Pool” by the chief of KUAI and must have passed the “Evaluator Specialty Program.” The accreditation monitoring committee conducts monitoring service for the accredited institutions after 2 years of accreditation to review whether the institutions keep meeting the evaluation standards.

7.5  ACCREDITATION PROCEDURES The institutional accreditation procedure, shown in Fig. 7.1, typically comprises a review of application dossiers and documentary reports, a site visit, and decision making. A brief description of the procedure is provided below (KCUE, 2016). The first stage of the accreditation process is the acceptance of an application from the subject institutions. The general application process has four steps. Step 1 is a presentation at the university. KUAI holds presentation sessions for universities’ reference on schedule/evaluation

114

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Figure 7.1  Accreditation procedures and roles of universities and KUAI (KCUE, 2016, p. 8).

grounds and criteria a month prior to the application deadline. Step 2 is to submit an application. The universities should apply at least 7 months prior to the offsite documentary review. Step 3 is to select and notify the university after initial screening of the application. KUAI selects the institutions for the accreditation based on the review of six key criteria and other documents. Step 4 is the payment of relevant fees, to be covered by each applicant university. Fees may vary depending on the university scale (based on the number of enrolled students in the previous year). The second-stage, off-site documentary review determines whether the university meets the minimum standards of an educational institution based on its self-assessment report and to point out any additional matters to be examined during the site visit. The next process is the site visit, which is intended to verify what was rendered on the self-assessment report and to judge the overall conditions of the university. A qualitative assessment based on additional information, consultation, and a site visit can assess a university’s operations that are difficult to judge from an offsite documentary review. During the site visit, the university evaluation committee verifies data and information that the university has presented, visits university facilities, and interviews the staff members who participate in the self-evaluation at all levels, including the president, professors, staff, and students. Site-visit duration varies by institutional size: two days for universities with fewer than 5000 students and three days for universities with more than 5000 students. Fourth, result verification compares results in order to ensure the consistency between the evaluation group and the committee members. All members of the university evaluation committee are to confirm the evaluation result (to point out the areas for adjustment of evaluation results) and to review the criteria and, if warranted, to adjust decisions. Fifth, collecting

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

115

university opinions is a procedure for checking any errors with or acquiring additional opinions from the relevant university. In response to the opinions given by the university, the assessment report may be amended or improved upon consent of the relevant committee members. The sixth stage is publicizing accreditation results. The institutional accreditation committee decides if the university is granted with either “Fully Accredited,” “Provisionally Accredited,” “Accredited Deferral,” or “Not Accredited” status. The institutional accreditation committee shall confirm accreditation of universities based on the evaluation report provided by the university evaluation vommittee. Such an accreditation shall be in the form of “Full Accreditation,” “Provisional Accreditation,” “Deferral,” or “Not Accredited” (KCUE, 2016). The decision model is presented in Fig. 7.2. First, “Fully Accredited” is the decision based on the satisfaction of all six key evaluation criteria and five evaluation categories. The accreditation period is five years, and the institution’s maintenance of evaluation criteria is monitored. Second, “Provisionally Accredited” is the decision based on the satisfaction of all six key evaluation criteria and four categories when

Figure 7.2  Decisions on accreditation (KCUE, 2016, p. 30).

116

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

one category evaluated is weak. In this case, the accreditation period is two year; if the unsatisfactory area is improved within one year, the institution will have five-year accreditation; failure to improve the unsatisfactory area within one year results in deferral. Third, “Deferral” is the decision based on relatively weak performance. This occurs when all six key evaluation criteria are satisfied and four categories evaluated are satisfied and one category is weak, or when all six key evaluation criteria and three categories evaluated are satisfied and two categories evaluated have failed. In this case, unsatisfactory areas are reevaluated within two years and if these areas are improved, five-year accreditation is given. Institutions will not be accredited if unsatisfactory areas are not improved. Last, if the requirements for any type of Fully Accredited, Provisionally Accredited, or Deferral decision are not met, institutions are Not Accredited. Universities may appeal within 14 days of the initial notification. The committee may not accept the appeal. If it is, the review committee, upon application of such a demurrer, shall evaluate the feasibility of the case and the bases of the argument. Finally, activity might differ after results are publicized, depending on the accreditation status. If a university is accredited, monitoring shall be implemented after two years have elapsed regarding the upkeep of accredited conditions. If a university is provisionally accredited, the university evaluation committee performs reevaluation for any deficiencies within a year from the decision on accreditation status. If accreditation is deferred, the committee performs reevaluation for any deficiencies or reasons for nonacceptance within two years from the first review. For nonaccredited institutions, the committee performs reevaluation within two years, if requested by the university.

7.6  EVALUATION CRITERIA AND STANDARDS Evaluation criteria for the institutional accreditation consist of two parts: six key criteria and thirty criteria in ten areas in five categories. Table 7.1 describes the evaluation categories, dimensions, and criteria. Six key criteria are mandatory: quota of full-time faculty, new student enrollment rate, retention rate, number of facilities, ratio of educational expenditures to tuition, and ratio of scholarships to tuition. Each of these criteria has a minimum requirement that a university must meet to be accredited. The minimum requirements are based on the rules for

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

117

Table 7.1  Examples of Evaluation Criteria, by Evaluation Category and Area Category

Areas

Criteria

1. Mission and management 2. Education

1.1. Management (3) 1.2. Finance (3) 2.1. Academic programs (3) 2.2. Teaching and learning (3)

3. Institutional community

3.1. Faculty (3) 3.2. Staff (3)

1.1.1 Educational objectives 1.2.1 Financial resources 2.1.1 Organization and administration of general education program 2.2.1 Classes and academic courses 3.1.1 Faculty recruitment systems 3.2.1 Staff recruitment systems 4.1.1 Classrooms and laboratories 4.2.1 Student counseling system and graduate employment support 5.1.1 Research performance 5.2.1 Community service policies

4. Education facilities 4.1. Educational and student support facilities (3) 4.2. Student support (3) 5. Achievements and social responsibility Totals: 5 Categories

5.1. University outcomes (3) 5.2. Social responsibility (3) 10 Areas

30 Evaluation criteria

Adapted from KCUE 2016, pp. 24–25. Note: Number of evaluation criteria in ( ).

establishing a university, according to the Regulations for Establishment and Operation of Universities, and institutional qualifications to apply for government-sponsored projects. The five categories represent university operations and educational activity components, and evaluation criteria are underlying components of evaluation areas.

7.7  INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION DECISION 7.7.1  Program Accreditation There were several program accreditation agencies long before the government recognized the accreditation bodies. The Accrediting Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK) was established in 1999 for evaluating engineering programs, followed by the Korean Accreditation

118

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Board of Nursing Education and the Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation in 2003. Other accrediting organizations such as the Korea Architectural Accrediting Board (KAAB) were established during the 2000s. While those accrediting bodies had conducted evaluation for accreditation using their own criteria, the first rigorous program accreditation was started in 2012 when the Ministry of Education recognized the Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education (KABONE) for nursing education programs in 2011. The KABONE was the first recognized accreditation body by government in the professional fields. Table 7.2 presents the various accreditation bodies and related information.

7.8  INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS Two approaches to quality assurance have been distinguished: (1) for improvement: making judgments on current or past performance against the criteria provided by external authorities and (2) for accountability: aiming at promoting institutional performance (Kis, 2005). Institutional quality management is generally improvement led, with a focus on an individual institution’s interests. In Korean higher education, institutional quality assurance arrangements have also recently developed at the same time with the development of the institutional accreditation system. In the past, only a few universities had their own internal QA system; therefore, the establishment of a university-level internal QA system was recommended (Rhee & Chae, 2006). For the past two decades, one of the notable internal QA movements has been to introduce a new requirement on graduates. HEIs previously used to develop internal regulations to maintain high-quality programs. This method of quality management changed when Sungkyunkwan University in Seoul introduced a three key performance indicators system called “Sampumje” in 1996, which is the institutional-level recognition system (Ko, Joo, Lee, & Ryu, 2011). The indicators include personal character, technology competency, and global competency. To meet the requirements on “personal character,” all students should take a liberal arts class provided by the university and serve more than 40 community service hours during college. The service might include helping peer students or doing voluntary service at the local, national, or international

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

119

Table 7.2  The accreditation bodies for professional fields (Yang, 2013, p. 20) Accreditation Type

Recognized accrediting agencies

Scope

Institution

Korean Council for University Educationa (Korean University Accreditation Institute) Korean Council for College Educationa (Korean Accreditation Board for Vocational Higher Education) Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education (KABONE)a The Korea Architectural Accrediting Board (KAAB)a Accrediting Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK)a Korean Association of Business Education Accreditationa Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluationa Korean Institute of Dental Education and Evaluationa Institute of Korean Medicine Education and Evaluation Korea Trade Education Accreditation (KTEA) Korean Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education(KACPE)

General 1982 Universities 2008 (Four-year HEIs)

2010.12

CTIs (Twoyear HEIs)

1979 2009

2010.12

Nursing Education

2003.10

2011.11

Architectural Education

2005.1

2012.5

Engineering Education

1996.8

2013.1

Business Education

2005.11

2013.9

Medical Education

2003.11

2014.5

Dental Education

2007.12

2015.1

Korean Medicine Education Trade Education

2004.10

Pharmacy Education

2011.10

Program

a

Established

Recognized by Government

2007.11

The recognized organizations by the Ministry of Education. The numbers (year and month) in the table are from each individual institution’s websites.

120

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

level. To achieve “technology competency,” students should either take computer-related courses provided by an external agency or pass level 4 in the E-Test Professional, which is the nationally accredited program in the technology area. For “global competency,” students must pass either a nationally recognized test program or internally provided programs. Students may take English classes as an alternative. According to Sampumje, all students must meet the standards in all three areas before they graduate. Between the late 1990s and the early 2000s, this internal QA approach greatly influenced other institutions. It ignited the spread of this institutional quality-assurance method among Korean HEIs. According to a survey, as a result, at least 61 four-year universities out of 131 respondent universities adopted this form of internal quality control system in 2002 (Lee, 2002). Currently, almost all four-year universities have a similar system in place, though the requirement areas and fields vary across the institutions. Although this approach is widely recognized, whether it is necessary remains a controversy. According to the Education Act, college students must complete 140 credit hours in the university and a thesis in fulfillment of a bachelor’s degree. Because of the Sampumje, however, students also have to complete the requirements in all three domains as indicated. That is, they need additional time and must pay extra fees to complete the graduation requirements. Furthermore, there is criticism that it is not a quality-assurance system but rather additional requirements on graduate outcomes. That is, the critics insist on removing the program because it creates an extra burden without improving actual competencies of students. Nevertheless, universities aggressively adopted this system to show they have extra quality-assurance systems, so that it has become a common requirement for almost all universities. Along with having to satisfy the government’s external QA requirements, institutions have introduced additional internal quality assurance systems to improve their own programs and to respond to the call for greater accountability. Yet most quality management programs in HEIs are not strictly regulated and systematically maintained by the institutions unless there is an internal unit exclusively responsible for institutional quality assurance. To maintain, enhance, and monitor the quality of education and research, as well as the internal quality system, HEIs may need institutional research and assessment capacity along with the development of a rigorous internal QA system.

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

121

7.9  IMPACTS OF THE NATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ON HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY, PERFORMANCE, AND DEVELOPMENT As new accreditation and evaluation systems have introduced and since the government has funded universities based on the results of the evaluations, HEIs are very responsive to the quality assurance systems. That is, while both national/public and private universities enjoyed significant freedom in designing/developing school curriculum, HEIs these days tend to change their curriculums reflecting the performance indicators. For example, many universities have developed more practical and partnership courses to enhance the relationship with industry and business area, which is one of the subitems in the performance indicators. Quality assurance systems can have different purposes. Kis (2005) distinguished between improvement and accountability as goals of quality assurance. For the purpose of improvement, quality criteria and procedures aim to improve future performance of the institution, and to strengthen the conditions and scope of HEIs. For accountability, quality procedures aim to strengthen external oversight and control based on criteria set by external authorities and institutions. Over the past few years, the focus of institutional accreditation has shifted from improvement to accountability in Korea. The national quality assurance system for HEIs in Korea dates back to 1982. The traditional system focused more on internal quality improvement, since no external pressure was exerted by any agencies, including the government and external stakeholders. Even self-assessment was not seriously conducted, and no significant feedback was expected; there was no evidence or reporting about the use of self-assessment at that time. With the advent of accreditation through government intervention, the purpose of accreditation shifted from quality improvement to accountability, with government linking the results of accreditation to university evaluation and financial support. In 2008, the revised Higher Education Act stated “the results of university evaluation, accreditation shall be used for the government’s administrative and financial policies starting from 2014” (Article 11(2) Paragraph 4 of the Higher Education Act). This is a legal ground whereby accreditation is used for restructuring and financing HEIs. Hence, HEIs have endeavored to improve their quality of education and other performance criteria as they develop their own institutional performance indicators and internal quality-assurance systems.

122

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

7.10  REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL QA ACTIVITIES The quality assurance system in Korean higher education is relatively new. Nevertheless, accreditation bodies and HEIs have been actively engaged in regional and international quality assurance activities by joining regional or international QA agencies such as INQAAHE, APQN, and CBQAN. KCUE and KCCE (Korean Council for College Education) are members of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), and the Cross-Border Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education (CBQAN). In particular, the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), established in Hong Kong in 2003, is aimed at “to enhance the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region through strengthening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending the cooperation between them” (APQN, 2014). Although KCUE is a member of APQN, KCUE is one of five agencies that have neither signed collaborative agreements with other member networks nor set up an office responsible for international affairs or exchange (Hou, 2012). This indicates limited communication with other international quality networks. A common pattern of approach to quality assurance in many Asian countries is not to develop a national quality framework, but instead to “[encourage] local accreditors to take part in the international and regional quality assurance networks to enhance quality assurance capacity, and to learn good practices from other foreign agencies through the sharing of information, resources and expertise” (Hou, 2012: p. 15). This is exactly the case with the current Korean quality-assurance system. Another regional initiative related to quality assurance concerns foreign qualification recognition in Asia. Since the first regional convention on academic degree recognition was signed by 14 countries in 1983, a revised Asia–Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education was adopted in 2011. Korea is one of eight countries that signed the 2011 convention and has participated actively in this initiative. Although the establishment of the National Information Center for foreign qualification recognition has been deferred, the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) takes the responsibility for verifying and recognizing foreign degrees. Currently, NRF provides the verification and recognition service for 11 countries, including the USA, Canada, the UK, Iceland, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Germany, Taiwan, Sweden, and South Africa.

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

123

7.11  CURRENT CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS The trajectory of the quality assurance system in Korean higher education is basically similar to that of other countries. For instance, in the United States quality assurance started when regional accreditation boards were first established as voluntary and nongovernmental in the 1880s, and later state boards began to emphasize and link assessment and accountability in the 1980s (Rhoades & Sporn, 2002). In Korea, the first accreditation system was developed in the 1980s when KCUE was established, and recently government has started to use the quality indicators and performance evaluations to make financing decisions regarding higher education institutions. The critical difference is that the Korean government uses quality assurance as a direct policy tool. Since Korea has a centralized education system, government has controlled HEIs through administrative power. However, in a recent policy change, the results of quality and performance evaluation are connected to funding and are applied to the restructuring of the higher education system. For example, although the link of quality to institutional funding is controversial (Kis, 2005), performance evaluation and accreditation are strongly connected to funding in Korea. The government strongly emphasizes the accountability function of the accreditation system and under the current higher education financing system which uses an evaluation-based funding, HEIs have to meet the quality indicators set by the government to receive government funding. Another ongoing issue is related to internationalization. Inter­ nationalization of higher education certainly has an impact on the quality issues in Korea. In general, internationalization is considered to promote educational quality (OECD, 1999). In Korea, higher education communities and the government have focused on the quality of international students rather than on improving the quality of programs. Korean HEIs attract many international students, especially from other Asian countries. The number of foreign students has dramatically increased over the past 10 years, from 32,557 in 2006 to 91,332 in 2015 (Ministry of Education, 2015b). This is due to a government initiative, the Study Korea Project of 2004, to recruit more foreign students. Along with an increase in the number of international students, however, the quality of international students became a main concern of the Korean government. To deal with this issue, the Ministry of Education introduced a new qualification system for international students in 2012. The IEQAS (International Education Quality Assurance System)

124

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

is intended to improve the quality of international students and to provide quality university programs for international students. If HEIs fail to provide and maintain the quality of international students and the educational programs for them, the institutions will not be accredited by IEQAS. As a sanction, international students applying to and accepted by nonaccredited institutions will not obtain a visa from the Ministry of Justice. Since IEQAS was introduced, in fact, the number of international students has decreased from 89,537 in 2011 to 84,891 in 2014. This is a dilemma: While government initiates a new policy to recruit more international students, it has also introduced IEQAS to maintain high quality among international students and programs, an action that results in lower participation of international students in the Korean higher education market. As one of the response, the Ministry of Education has adjusted the recruiting policy, targeting 200,000 international students from by 2020 to by 2023 (Ministry of Education, 2015a). Higher education in Korea is transforming from its traditional role of delivering knowledge and providing well-educated human resources to the role of innovating Korean society, strengthening international competitiveness, and leading in the development of a knowledge society. For such a fundamental change, a well-developed quality assurance system is necessary in the Korean context. Under strong government intervention, providing both control and support, and with HEIs’ strong desire to provide high-quality education, a better-suited quality-assurance system for Korean higher education should evolve soon or shortly.

REFERENCES Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) 2014, Mission statement, http://www.apqn.org/. Higher Education Act, 2014 (Act. No.12174, Partial Amendment, January 1, 2014). Hou, A. Y. (2012). Quality in cross-border higher education and challenges for the internationalization of national quality assurance agencies in the Asia-Pacific region: the Taiwanese experience. Studies in Higher Educationhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075 079.2011.646258. Kis, V. (2005). Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects. Paris: OECD. Ko, J., Choi, S., & Kim, E. (2013). Republic of Korea. In C. J. Russo (Ed.), Handbook of comparative higher education law (pp. 155–175). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Ko, J., Joo, J., Lee, B., & Ryu, H. (2011). A basic research on the improvement of Sampumje. Seoul, Korea: Sungkyunkwan University. Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) 2016, Handbook on university accreditation in Korea 2016, Seoul, Korea. Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI) 2015, Educational statistics. Seoul, Korea.

Quality Assurance System in Korean Higher Education: Development and Challenges

125

Lee, S. (2002). Analysis of qualifying examination for bachelor degree in Korea. The Journal of Educational Administration, 20(1), 187–208. Ministry of Education 2015a, Plan for recruiting foreign students, Sejong, Korea. Ministry of Education 2015b, Basic education statistics, Sejong, Korea. Ordinance of the Ministry of Education,Science and Technology No. 21, 2008 (Regulation on Self-assessment of Higher Education Institutions, December 2008). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), (1999). Quality and internationalisation in higher education. Paris: OECD. Presidential Decree No. 21163, 2008 (Regulation on Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions, December 2008). Private School Act, 2016 (Act. No. 13938, Partial Amendment, February 3, 2016). Rhee, B., & Chae, J. (2006). UNESCO/OECD guidelines on quality provision in crossborder higher education and their policy implications. The Journal of Educational Administration, 24(1), 267–288. Rhoades, G., & Sporn, B. (2002). Quality assurance in Europe and the U.S.: Professional and political economic framing of higher education policy. Higher Education, 43(3), 355–390. Yang, H. J. (2013). The trends and overview of institutional accreditation. Seoul, Korea: Korean Accreditation Board for Vocational Higher Education.

CHAPTER 8

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education Glenda Crosling1,2 1

Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia Monash University, Clayton,VIC, Australia

2

8.1 INTRODUCTION The large-scale development of the higher education system in Malaysia since independence is seen in the system providing education for its own citizens and at the same time developing as an education hub, bringing foreign universities and international students to the country. With students’ increasing demand for higher education worldwide and the range of higher education options in Malaysia, there is competitive pressure on Malaysian higher education institutions (HEIs) to attract students. Concurrently, global awareness of the importance of educational quality assurance (QA) (Lakin, Elliot, & Liu, 2015) means that Malaysian institutions must make clear their good practice through compliance with QA standards. Specifically, since 2007, based on the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) that prescribes national criteria and standards for qualifications, the major processes through which the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) has set out QA standards are the Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation (COPPA) and the Code of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA). Quality standards and their compliance are necessary in the growing higher education environment in Malaysia, where the large number of public, private, and foreign branch institutions creates a complex and multilayered setting. Malaysia’s aspirational higher education objectives, evident as early as the mid-1990s, when the country aimed to become a center for excellence in higher education (Bajunid, p. 253; Lek, 2014), accentuate the importance of institutional sustainability. The recently released 2015 Malaysian government’s Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015– 2025 (Higher Education) states that “the system needs to keep evolving” to The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00004-5 Copyright © 2017 Glenda Crosling. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

127

128

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

stay abreast and ahead of global trends (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015). While the standards set in the MQA’s COPPA and COPIA are broad in scope and do suggest that institutions and their programs should respond to their own particular agendas and settings, the nature of some specific standards may work against moving beyond compliance to enhancement. In this chapter, in discussing the impetus for Malaysian HEIs to demonstrate individuality alongside compliance with QA standards, the history of QA development in Malaysia is explored. The impact of regional QA approaches on Malaysia, as well as Malaysia’s impact regionally and globally in this regard, is discussed. As academic programs are at the core of HEIs, the potential for institutions to move beyond compliance and into enhancement are discussed with reference to MQA’s COPPA and one of COPPA’s supporting documents, MQA Guidelines to Good Practice: Monitoring, Reviewing and Continually Improving Institutional Quality (GGP: MRCIIQ). It can be seen that compliance with standards and HEI individuality can indeed go hand in hand. Most likely reflecting the diversity in the levels of maturity of HEIs in Malaysia, the standards and guidelines within themselves present a range, from basic to higher quality response. In turn, this shows a maturity in the QA agency in Malaysia, as reflected in its ability to recognize the diversity and to take a developmental approach to higher education across the country. The outcome is that the COPPA does provide scope for HEIs through their academic programs to show their character and focus their efforts and to present academic programs that are directed at the needs of particular societal and student groups. But a requirement for this to occur is a staff that understands the nature of quality in higher education, as well as what it means to balance compliance with the standard with the opportunity for an innovative response that is embedded in the scope of the standard.

8.2  DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA Higher education is important in the economic development of nations and plays a significant role in assisting countries to integrate into the global knowledge society. QA, to provide appropriate evidence to stakeholders to support claims of quality (Harmon, 2000), to safeguard and extend the excellence of the system and its ability to achieve its purpose, is integral to the higher education system (Mokhtar, Rahman, Othman, & Ali, 2014). Worldwide, an educated populace is required for the situation where

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

129

“knowledge supplants capital as the source of present and future wealth” (Morshidi, 2006, p. 102), and Malaysia is no different from this situation. As Morshidi (2006, p. 102) explains, in Malaysia higher education supports government in the knowledge society by attracting increasingly larger numbers of both local and international students. Thus, the large-scale development of the system needs to reflect best practice so that students can be prepared adequately for positive contributions on graduation. The considerable development of Malaysia’s higher education system emphasizes the key role of QA in laying down, maintaining, and extending standards. The higher education participation rates are testimony to its large-scale development over time: the gross enrollment higher education ratio in Malaysia was 38 percent in 2009, having risen from 32 percent in 1985, and from 2 percent in 1965 (Tham, 2011, p. 8). Furthermore, the gap is narrowing in achievement of the Malaysian government’s aim stated in 2010, for a participation rate of 40 percent of the relevant population group enrolled in post-secondary education (Tham, 2011, p. 8). The magnitude of this achievement is seen in the comparison of the nearly 50 percent of the Malaysian population living in poverty in 1970 (Crosling, Cheng, & Lopes, 2017; Symaco, 2011, p. 267). As noted in Crosling et  al. (2017), in 2012, enrollments in all public and private HEIs in Malaysia accounted for 412,891 students, showing an increase of 11 percent from the total in 2011 of 366,079 students. The structure of higher education in Malaysia is multilayered, further underscoring the need for QA. It includes not only publicly funded national universities, but also institutions that have been developed through private means. In 2009, the private sector educated about half of the higher education enrollments (ADB, 2012, p. 39, cited in Crosling et al., 2017; Tham, 2011, p. 8). Five types of private HEIs were in action in 2010 (Morshidi, 2006), including 530 private HEIs in the form of 9 international branch campuses, 59 universities, 32 university colleges, and 430 colleges. The private system operating alongside the public enables demand to be met that could not be funded through the public system. The historic building blocks in the development of higher education in Malaysia again demonstrate the complexity. Prior to Independence, only one public university existed in 1962 in Malaysia. In the post-independence and nation building stage, initiated by the government’s 1970 New Economic Policy, enrollments were opened up in the national higher education system on a quota basis (Symaco, 2011). Due to the consequent

130

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

lack of access of sections of the society to public higher education, the second development stage occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. In the liberalization of higher education, as encapsulated in the Private Higher Educational Institutions Act (PHEIA) of 1996, private providers could enter post-secondary education to cater for both Malaysian and international students. This venture was encouraged and supported by the government in order to increase access (Tham, 2011, p. 3). Its success is evident in that the large supply of private providers has increased access not only for Malaysian, but also for international students through cross-border flows (Tham, 2011, p. 4). The bill also allowed private HEIs to offer foreign universities’ curricula in Malaysia and significantly in terms of attracting foreign students, in the English language. Alongside these provisions, institutions could also enroll greater numbers of transnational students (Fernandez-Chung, 2006; Morshidi, 2009; Tan, 2002). Malaysia has demonstrated an innovative flair in this regard in that its pioneering approach resulted in it being one of the first countries globally to have “an influx” of programs offered by foreign HEIs, in cooperation or partnership with local HEIs (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014, p. 19). The importance of programs in the English language as part of the innovation cannot be understated. Through providing academic programs in the global lingua franca, a wider range of students could be attracted. The third stage of internationalization aimed to produce knowledge workers for the developing innovation-based economy. As a key thrust in the 2007 National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP, 2007) internationalization was seen as a strategy to elevate Malaysian HEIs to world class institutions and to develop Malaysia as an international education hub by 2020 (NHESP, 2007).While implicit in the previously outlined two stages, quality and its assurance to underpin economic development were stated in the government’s more recent policies in the era of internationalization. It is stressed in the 2010 Economic Transformation Programme (ETP) (PEMANDU, 2010) that the private higher education sector underpins the country’s growth and global integration. The focus in both the NHESP and ETP is on internationalization and attracting international student enrollments, rather than capacity building at all education levels for local students. According to UNESCO’s Global Education Digest (2010), in 2009, approximately 70 percent of international students in Malaysia were studying in private HEIs, hence Malaysia, which is ranked 11th in the world for international student enrollments (ETP, 2010, p. 479). As quoted by the then Second Education Minister Datuk

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

131

Seri Idris Jusoh in January 2015, Malaysia had 135,502 international students from about 160 nations studying in public and private universities, which he stated as an increase of 16.5 percent from 2013 (TheSundaily, 2015, http://www.thesundaily.mynews/1314991).

8.3  QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA In the context of the ambition to develop Malaysia as a center for excellence in higher education that had been articulated since the mid-1990s, Bajunid (2011, p. 254) states that the development of QA in Malaysia is directly related to the democratization of the system, that is, the development and expansion of higher education through private as well as public institutions. The involvement in Malaysia of foreign partners through twinning programs, articulation, advanced standing and credit transfer has accentuated the need to ensure QA via program equivalence and quality, to protect both students and the reputations of institutions, as well as to manage the development of human resources for the country (Bajunid, p. 255). In addition, “transparency and a clearly understood regime that was applicable to all situations” was required (Bajunid’s, 2011, p. 255). Indeed, awareness of the need for QA in this multifaceted system of local and foreign providers and academic programs was evident as early as 2006, when the comment was made that transnational education through what may be seen as soft diplomacy, has indeed nurtured private education in Malaysia, stimulated the need for QA systems, and enabled capacity building and the quality improvement of academic programs (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, 2006, p. 5). The convergence of circumstances outlined above in Malaysia led to the development in 1997 of the National Accreditation Board (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, known as LAN) for QA of private higher education academic programs. It operated alongside the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) that was established in 2002 by the Ministry of Education for public universities. In 2007, LAN and QAD merged to form the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, and took over responsibility for the QA of both public and private HEIs (Mustafa, date, unknown). MQA currently has responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the QA practices and accreditation of national higher education, and ensuring compliance with the MQF. The MQF, introduced in 2005, provides the framework to accredit tertiary qualifications and is benchmarked against the qualifications of areas such as Australia, New Zealand, and Europe

132

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

(Lek, 2014). While MQA’s role includes monitoring of MQF compliance, it is apparent that its mission is progressive and broader than that of an invigilator. As such, the MQA website states that “the MQA is set to chart new boundaries in higher education quality assurance” (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2015). Malaysia has looked to more developed regions of the world in developing its QA standards and these have been benchmarked against those of internationally prestigious QA bodies such as the United Kingdom’s Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) and the European Association for Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQA). The series of benchmark and enhanced standards developed and encapsulated in the MQA COPPA were complemented by the ensuing documents: Programme Discipline Standards and Guidelines for Good Practice. It may thus be summarized that not only has MQA aimed to maintain standards, but also to lead, develop, and extend the boundaries of QA in Malaysia. It is thus logical to expect that innovation will underpin the country’s efforts to realize its ambition as a center for higher education excellence. Centers of excellence cannot be based solely on replication of best practice and compliance with QA standards. To be classified as “excellent,”they must look to an enhancement of the system, whatever form that may take in the volatile and globalized higher education environment. MQA acknowledges their responsibility in realizing the aim, and as Bajunid, (2011, p. 257) points out, the “leaders of MQA are aware that as an agent of institutional change, the organization must bring benefits to national higher education and to national human resource capacity.” The degree of achievement in this regard has been noted as recently as 2014, such that Malaysia through the MQA has been successful in developing and implementing an enhancement approach to QA (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014, p. 5); MQA has successfully managed the regulatory role of compliance and the quality enhancement approach (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014, p. 6). The same report notes that MQA has developed as a learning organization in supporting the country’s higher education objectives, learning actively from good practice, and putting into practice various approaches to academic QA in Malaysia (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014). It may be said that the encouragement of progressive approaches in Malaysian higher education occurred as early as the mid-1990s with the Halatuju report that year, which stated that for the development of

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

133

Transnational Higher Education in Malaysia, it was vital that local HEIs promoted themselves in the outside world (Lek, 2014, p. 9). Innovation via QA was also indirectly encouraged as early as 2005, with the introduction of the previously mentioned MQF, which linked Malaysian qualifications with those of other countries. Lek (2014) has stated that the Malaysian government’s purpose in this was to increase foreign students’ job opportunities outside Malaysia on graduation (Lek, 2014, p. 9). In effect, this is a progressive and innovative measure as it enhances the reputation and thus the appeal of Malaysian universities for foreign students. Further practical evidence of the focus on best practice and innovation is the restructuring of Malaysian public universities to increase accountability in good governance (as part of the quality mission). At the University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) the need “to innovate and create relevant multidisciplinary programs that are sensitive to current and future needs of both students and employers” (Morshidi, 2006, p. 114) was clearly stated. The Universiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR), “markets itself as a private boutique university which supplies niche tertiary education” (Lek, 2014, p. 11). In delineating its market niche, UNITAR “pays close attention to the needs of the Malaysian economy and those of neighboring countries” (Lek, 2014, p. 12), therefore shaping their programs in particular directions. The MAHSA University focuses on attracting students from the middle class of Africa (Lek, 2014, p. 11) through specialization in medical degrees. INCEIF, The Global University of Islamic Finance, specializes in education of Islamic finance and banking, where demand for knowledge in Islamic finance “is growing at remarkable speed” (Lek, 2014, p. 12).

8.4  INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL INFLUENCE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE IN MALAYSIAN HIGHER EDUCATION Malaysia’s regional position as seen in its membership of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) has meant that it has engaged in joint initiatives to promote regional cooperation, including enhancing the cooperation within the ASEAN University Network (AUN) as discussed later in this section. With the major economic objective of the integration of the member nations into a single market through free flow of commodities, services, investment, and a qualified and quality workforce (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, 2006) for higher education, ASEAN has promoted staff and student exchange among HEIs (Lek, 2014, p. 2).

134

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Regionally, engagement of QA agencies in Southeast Asia is not a new concept, being based on the notion reflected in the Bologna process in Europe, which was the first example of the integration of higher education into the agenda of regionalism (Morshidi, Azman, & Abu Bakar, 2014). Criticisms of regionalism may be that it leads to uniformity or standardization (Morshidi et al., 2014, p. 2) in the higher education systems of the participating countries. Clearly, this would be counter to the ambitions of Malaysia for its higher education system to reflect excellence and be attractive to students not only inside but also outside the country. But such a “normalizing” perspective may be disputed, as regionalism, based on the notion of building a regional coherence in goods and services, trade, and the facilitation of human and nonhuman trade, does not imply duplication of activities (Globalhighered, 2014). As Morshidi et  al. (2014) note, regionalism provides a means for HEIs across countries to contribute, to liaise, and to share with each other for the benefit of all. Indeed, commentators on regionalism consider that the most practical form of regionalism is one that can accommodate a range of national and cultural identities (Morshidi et al. 2014). More specifically, regionalism is concerned with harmonization of higher education activities so that there is regional cooperation and interactions, and that exchanges are facilitated (Morshidi et al., 2014). Morshidi et al. (2014) explain that as Southeast Asia is integrating quickly through trade and investment, increased mobility of human resources in the region and across regions is facilitated. For higher education with its key role in developing the type of human resources that are required for the knowledge society, harmonization through regionalism is an important development. Harmonization in higher education is thus concerned with creating general guidelines so that there is comparability of degree cycles, qualifications frameworks, and QA activities. It is not focused on duplicating the systems. Through ASEAN, QA in Malaysia continues to be influenced by and to draw on more established systems. Currently, collaboration is occurring between ASEAN and the European Union “to support higher education in ASEAN” (Association of Southeast Asian Nations, 2015) through the SHARE project, where, to improve the standards and quality of higher education, European Union experience is shared with the ASEAN region. It contributes to the harmonization of ASEAN regional higher education systems in the development of an ASEAN Quality Framework and QA. The acknowledgment in this approach is the key role of higher education

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

135

in the economic integration of ASEAN countries. At the meeting of the Southeast Asian Ministers for Education Organization for Higher education and Developments (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, 2006), the objectives included the empowering and harmonization of HEIs. A body arising from these goals is the ASEAN Universities Network (AUN), of which Malaysia was a foundation member. Focused on internal QA and quality assessment at the program level of universities, it expressed the need for a National Quality Framework across the ASEAN region, and this aim was reflected in the ensuing establishment of the ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN). Indicating Malaysia’s involvement and most likely its regional influence, the President of AQAN from 2011 to 2014 was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of MQA, and the Executive Secretary was the MQA Deputy CEO. Its Kuala Lumpur Declaration as early as 2008 was to develop the ASEAN Quality Framework in the shape of the Bologna model, and the development of a regional higher education space. Its aims were to harmonize systems and processes and thus ease recognition of qualifications and mobility (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, 2006). Such objectives are evident in that in promoting student mobility across the region: “AUN has implemented the ASEAN Credit Transfer System, a common framework for assessing applications for student exchange” (Lek, 2014, p. 3). Thus MQA, as the Malaysian government’s QA body, is dynamic and has engaged not only in its geographic region but also internationally, both in developing its QA approach and in terms of neighboring countries and internationally, sharing Malaysia’s QA activities. MQA has taken a learning organization approach, utilizing strategic and extensive international collaboration for developmental purposes (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014). These have enabled MQA to compare policies and practices with international best practices. An example is the Malaysian government’s introduction of the MQF in 2005 and its benchmarking of Malaysian tertiary qualifications with those of countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Europe (Lek, 2014, p. 9). Improvement in MQA practices over time has been noted as the outcome of the approach of comparing policies and practices (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014). For instance, such collaboration and comparison is leading to the situation where MQA and the quality agencies of other countries may be able to accept each other’s decisions (Malaysian Qualifications Agency, 2014), rather than having to re-review with their own QA agendas. This is seen as an important element in cross-border education, ensuring that

136

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

the quality of academic programs has met local and international standards concurrently (Hou, 2012, p. 911). MQA’s regional orientation and its contribution to QA capacity building is evident in its role in the establishment and the operation of the network and the association of QA agencies of the Islamic world (QA-Islamic). Additionally, and demonstrating a leadership approach, MQA Council includes a non-Malaysian member, contributing to MQA’s alignment with good international practice. The continuous development of the agency is supported by a rigorous continuous quality improvement system that builds on international and external review. It has a comprehensive strategy for collaboration with national QA agencies globally and regionally, of which the practices include Memoranda of Collaboration, internships, and visits. It can be stated thus that QA in Malaysia draws on international and regional practices, while also contributing to the development of QA systems in other countries, particularly regional countries. The question then becomes whether QA in Malaysia has indeed fostered the development of an excellent system that is of such a quality to function as a regional higher education hub, or whether it has succumbed to the pressures of dealing with a wide range of HEIs at differing stages of maturity and thus focused on compliance with standards only. A review of some of MQA’s standards and documents indicates scope for innovative activity, as explained in the next section. However, whether the opportunity for innovation has been taken up by HEIs in Malaysia is the focus for another study.

8.5  QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ACADEMIC ENHANCEMENT IN MALAYSIA QA in higher education is a significant issue worldwide, as has already been explained in this chapter. It is not without difficulties in implementation. This applies also to Malaysia, where challenges to the development of quality in higher education have been seen to include a gap in understanding of a quality system among staff, and lack of clarity and understanding of the concept of autonomy in higher education (Mokhtar et  al. 2014). The need for innovative program development in Malaysia has been put forward in this chapter, and for it to be realized, academic staff need to grasp the opportunity for meaningful input into the shape of their academic programs and be committed to their further development

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

137

(Crosling, Edwards, & Schroder, 2008) through the QA processes of program monitoring and review (Crosling, 2014). As explained by Bajunid (2011, p. 257), this would entail academics and educational leaders moving away from “mechanistic grading instruments” to more reflective approaches in QA and program development. In Malaysia and elsewhere, it is appropriate to consider innovative academic/educational approaches in terms of programs and their curriculum as these form the core of a HEI. A whole approach to curriculum is relevant in terms of the determination and the advancement of “quality,” and contrasts with perceiving curriculum as the subject content alone. This holistic approach aligns with the need for HEIs to self-promote internationally and this can be done through the innovative nature of their academic programs. This was an aim as early as the mid-1990s in the Malaysia via the Halajutu report, where HEIs were encouraged to attract and develop students who are employable internationally. Attracting students enhances the reputation of the HEI and, indirectly, the Malaysian higher education system overall. Malaysia has been innovative globally, being one of the first countries to pioneer collaboration with the universities of foreign countries. But what is innovation in academic programs, and how can such an attribute be aligned with the need to comply with quality standards? Not only the initial design of programs is implicated in innovation but also program monitoring and review, as these are significant QA processes for continued quality (Woodhouse, 2013). The recently released document by the Higher Education Academy (HEA) of the United Kingdom on teaching achievement (Higher Education Academy, 2014) takes into account the changing nature of teaching in today’s complex higher education sector and includes in its definitions of best teaching practice an assessment of how the specific subject and the approaches to teaching are aligned with institutional values and goals (Higher Education Academy, 2014). Teaching innovation concerns much more than course content, and for curriculum design, includes alignment of the curriculum with aspects such as workforce needs of industry and national policy development (Higher Education Academy, 2014). Changes in curricular development include emphasis on international markets, requiring expertise in intercultural education; an ability in marketization to maintain educational values amidst economic pressures; and increased accountability, requiring expertise in QA (Higher Education Academy, 2014). These sentiments are echoed in the Malaysian case, where for “a stable and strong institution, dynamic and relevant

138

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

curricula and pedagogy are needed” (Grapragasem, Krishnan, & Mansor, 2014, p. 87). Furthermore, QA should draw on academic staff autonomy and expert guidance in moving the institution closer to excellence (Yew, Seng and Ming, date unknown). While QA includes standards that are specific in nature such as in COPPA Section 2.3 where “students must be provided with the most current written information about the program aims, outline, learning outcomes and methods of assessment of the program” (COPPA, 2008, p. 19), there needs to be room for innovation. The MQA COPPA (2008) does provide scope for curricular innovation in the mode outlined by the HEA and others, cited above. In Area oneon “Vision, Mission, Educational Goals and Learning Outcomes,”HEIs are asked to demonstrate that their educational goals are consistent with the HEI’s vision and mission, reflecting their alignment with national and global developments, and at the enhanced level, that university resources are “adequate and appropriate to fulfill its stated goals” (COPPA, 2008, p. 16). The strategic function of HEIs is seen in the standard requiring consultation with principal stakeholders in the formulation of the vision mission and goals and in program review (COPPA, 2008, p. 16). As Konting and Man (2009) point out, a quality institution should continuously improve its services based on the stakeholders’ values. At the curriculum level, COPPA (2008, p. 9) states that programs must be based on needs analysis and again, be consistent with and supportive of the HEI’s vision and mission, they should encourage multidisciplinary approaches, and must incorporate topics of local, national, and international importance and international best practice in the field. The HEI at the enhanced standard level should access in real time and include in the curriculum through the use of the latest technology and through global networking to access real time information, up to date topics of importance (COPPA, 2008). Standards such as these allow the HEI to explain the (perhaps) innovative ways that the standards are realized. The purpose of the MQA GGP: MRIQ (2014) is to complement the COPPA (2008) sections on program monitoring and review and continual quality improvement. From the outset, it places academic program review into the broader perspective in the role of HEIs, which is a “significant role to play in the economic and social advancement of nations” (GGO: MRIQ, 2008, pp. 30–31). COPPA (2008) is cited in the document, such that HEIs need to become dynamic learning organizations, continually and consistently reviewing and monitoring programs to meet the demands

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

139

of constantly changing environment (COPPA, 2008, pp. 30–31; GGP: MRIQ, 2014, p. 3). The document explains that a HEI’s strategic directions are also not static and require review, with the directions cascading to program development, monitoring, and review. Programs need to be aligned with the strategic directions, changing conditions and educational best practice (GGP: MRIQ, 2014, p. 3). Thus, there is provision for and advice that programs be developed according to the HEI’s circumstances, inviting innovative responses. Section 3 of the GGP, while also ensuring that the basic, threshold standards in programs are maintained, advises that they should contribute to the implementation of the HEIs strategic directions by being current, relevant, comprehensive, and challenging.

8.6 CONCLUSION In Malaysian higher education, QA has always been integral in addressing the country’s ambition as a regional education hub. Standards and processes for QA have drawn on the best internationally, and Malaysian expertise and best practice has been shared with the regional community. But in this Malaysian context, because of its state of development, innovation in academic programs cannot be separated from quality judgments, and it is vital that program development is undertaken by committed HEI staff. While QA standards may connote “robot-like” compliance, the MQA COPPA and GGP: MRIQ provide scope for innovation, and academic staff and their HEIs need only recognize and grasp the opportunity provided within them for advancement through progressive and innovative academic programs.

REFERENCES Asian Development Bank, (2012). Access without equity? Finding a better balance for higher education in Asia. The Philippines: Asian Development Bank. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2015). ASEAN, European Union start new programme on harmonisation of ASEAN higher education Accessed June 3, 2015. Bajunid, M. (2011). Leadership in the reform of Malaysian universities: Analysing the strategic role of the Malaysian qualifications agency. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(3), 253–265. Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation (COPPA) (2008). Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Crosling, G. (2014). Insights from the development team:‘Closing the Loop’ in academic programme development. Monitoring, reviewing and continually improving institutional

140

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

quality. Paper presented at the seminar on internal-external quality assurance. Petaling Jaya: Malaysian Qualifications Agency Accessed June 15, 2015. Crosling, G., Cheng, M. W., & Lopes, R. (2017). Access to post-secondary education in Malaysia: Realities and aspirations. In G. Atherton (Ed.), Access, equity and nationhood: How inequalities in higher education partcipation are shaped and addressed across the world. London: Palgrave MacMillan. Crosling, G., Edwards, R., & Schroder, B. (2008). Internationalising the curriculum. The implementation experience in a Faculty of Business and Economics. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1) Fernandez-Chung, R. M. (2006). A study of the impact of education and immigration policies on the recruitment of foreign students to PHEIs in Malaysia (Doctorate of Education). Leicester: University of Leicester. Graprasasem, S., Krishnan, A., & Mansor, A. (2014). Current trends in Malaysian higher education and the effect on education policy and practice: An overview. Institutional Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 85–93. Harmon, G. (2000). Quality assurance in higher education. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Standards, mechanisms and mutual recognition. Bangkok: 8–10 November, Bangkok, Thailand. . Higher Education Academy, (2014). Promoting Teaching. Making evidence count. Heslington, United Kingdom: : Higher Education Academy. Hou, A. (2012). Mutual recognition of quality assurance decisions on higher education institutions in three regions: A lesson for Asia. Higher Education, 911–926. published online 26 May 2012. Konting, M., & Man, N. (2009). Quality assurance in higher education institutions: Exit survey among Universiti Putra Malaysia graduating students. International Education Studies, 2(1), 25–31. Lakin, J., Elliot, D., & Liu, O. (2015). Investigating ESL students’ performance on outcomes assessments in higher education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 72(5), 734–753. Lek, D. (2014) cross border higher education in ASEAN: Structures, policies, development and integration. ASEAN-Canada research partnership working paper series. Working paper no. 4. April, Singapore: RSIS Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies. Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (2006) Malaysia quality assurance system in higher education Accessed June 7, 2015. Malaysian Qualifications Agency (2014) Panel report: INQAAHE GGP alignment certification. Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Malaysian Qualifications Agency (2015). Accessed June 8, 2015. Ministry of Education Malaysia (2015). Executive summary. Malaysia education blueprint 2015–2025 (higher education). Putrajaya. < http://hes.moe.gov.my/event/docs/4.%20 Executive%20Summary%20PPPM%202015-2025.pdf> Accessed June 8, 2015. Mokhtar, R., Rahman, A., Othman, S., & Ali, N. (2014). Malaysian academic quality assurance system in the context of issues, challenges and best practice. Paper presented at knowledge management international conference (KMICe), 12–15 August. Malaysia. Morshidi, M., Azman, N., & Bakar, A. (2014). Towards harmonisation of higher education in Southeast Asia: Malaysia’s perspective. GlobalHigherEd. Accessed June 8, 2015. Morshidi, S. (2006). Malaysia. Higher education in Southeast Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education.

Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement in Malaysian Higher Education

141

Morshidi, S. (2009). Trends in international higher education and regionalism: Issues and challenges for Malaysia. In K. Kuroda (Ed.), Education and Asian regional integration research group, GIARI. Penang: Universiti Sains Malaysia. Mustafa, M. (date unknown). Quality assurance in transnational education in Malaysia. Accessed June 8, 2015. PEMANDU, (2010). Economic transformation programme: A roadmap for Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Prime Minister’s Department, Government of Malaysia. Symaco, L. (2011). Higher education and equity in Malaysia. The International Journal of educational and Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 265–272. Tan, A. M. (2002). Malaysian private higher education: Globalisation, privatisation, transformation and marketplaces. London: Asean Academic Press. Tham, S.Y. (2011). Exploring access and equity in Malaysia’s private higher education. Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute. TheSunDaily (2015). Malaysia has one of the highest proportions of international students pursuing higher education. Accessed October 30, 2015. UNESCO, (2010). Global education digest, comparing education statistics across the world.. Bangkok: UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Accessed 8 June 2015 at http://www.uis. unesco.org/Library/Documents/GED_2010_EN.pdf. Woodhouse, D. (2013). Global trends in quality assurance. Quality Approaches in Higher Education, 4(2), 3–7.

FURTHER READING Azman, N., Sirat, M., & Ahmad, A. R. (2014). Higher education, learning regions and the malaysian transformation policies. Higher Education Policy, 27, 301–321. Published online 13 August 2013 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/hep.2013.26. Code of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA) (2009). Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Malaysian Qualifications Agency. Government of Malaysia (1970) New economic policy. Accessed November 24, 2014. Government of Malaysia (2007a) National higher education strategic plan Accessed November 24, 2014. Government of Malaysia (2007b) National higher education strategic plan Accessed November 24, 2014. Government of Malaysia. (2010). Economic transormation programme PEMANDU Accessed November 24, 2014. Yew, T.L., Seng, J.K.M., Sim, A.K.S., Pillai, K.V.L. (2013) The role of academics in quality assurance of higher education. Paper presented at the 2nd international higher education teaching and learning conference 2015. Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia.

CHAPTER 9

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education Baasanjav Tserendagva1 and Tungalag Jamts2 1

University of the Humanities, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia

2

9.1  INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR OF MONGOLIA During the socialist era before 1990, Mongolia had one state university and eight state institutes (Bat-erdene, Davaa, & Yeager, 1999). Free public education and health services funded by the state were accessible to all citizens during the socialist regime. As of 1990, 96% of adults in Mongolian People’s Republic were literate. Elementary school enrollment ratio was 98%, secondary school 85%, adult attending and vocational schools comprised 15% of the population and 7.5% of adults obtained higher education (Wu, 1994). The education level was considered to be higher than the education rate of other low income countries (Wu, 1994). Since 1992 the education sector financing was liberalized for the first time. Private higher education institutions (HEIs) were established to offer specialization in new areas of study and these institutes of higher education started to charge tuition fees. After the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the funding and financial aid provided to the country ceased. Consequently, many social sectors including the higher education sector experienced serious challenges that led to major reforms. The Mongolian higher education sector has seen a dramatic change since the country made the transition from a state-planned economy to a market-led economy in the 1990s.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00012-4 Copyright © 2017 Baasanjav Tserendagva and Tungalag Jamts. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

143

144

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

The liberalization of the higher education system’s governance and financing has led to a dramatic increase in the number of private HEIs. According to the education package law adopted in 1996, the HEIs have been classified as either universities, institutes, or colleges. HEIs now offer a bachelor, master and doctoral degree programs. However, in recent years the Mongolian Government has been focusing more on improving the quality of the higher education systematically than the quantity.

9.2  THE SIZE OF HIGHER EDUCATION SECTOR The Education Package law clearly emphasized the concept “diversity of ownership” of education institutions and stated that “the government shall treat the institutions equally regardless of higher education institutions ownership” (Education Package Law, 1995). In 1991, the first private HEI was established. There were 16 private HEIs in 1992, 31 in 1993, a number that increased to 51 in 1996. The government promised to support the private institutions by providing resources and teaching staff. As a result, many private universities, institutes and colleges were established and the sector dramatically witnessed the growth of private HEIs. The impact of the rapid expansion of higher education sector however has had a negative impact on the quality of HEIs. Between 1996 and 2000, the number of private HEIs rose from 51 to 134 and the number of public universities increased from 24 to 38. Thus the total number of HEIs increased steeply from 75 to 172 and the number of students rose from 44,088 to 84,895. Since 2000, the government of Mongolia has been initiating innovative actions and setting objectives such as deepening the education sector innovation, and aligning quality assurance mechanisms closer to the international standards. The government has also supported the establishment of branch campuses of foreign universities and providing conditions for operating them on sustainable basis. Support is also provided to the students through offering discounted tuition fees and creating an environment for HEIs to compete fairly in Mongolia. Previously, there were no foreign university branches in Mongolia, but six new branch campuses were established in 2004 that had fewer than 400 students (Ministry of Education, 2008). The number of HEIs was reduced as a consequence of implementing merger

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

145

and licensing policy by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS). Currently 178,000 students are studying in 101 HEIs. 156,000 students are studying at 16 public institutions, 80 private HEIs, and five foreign university branches with 19,000 masters course candidates and 3300 doctoral candidates. As of 2015, the number of 67 HEIs accredited comprises 66% of total HEIs. Number of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) for the Past 5 Years

Number of HEIs Number of students Number of accredited HEIs Number of students studying in accredited HEIs

2010– 2011

2011– 2012

2012– 2013

2013– 2014

2014– 2015

113 170,126 68 161,304

101 172,798 67 164,884

99 175,591 70 168,943

100 174,045 65 163,156

101 178,295 67 169,380

The expansion of the higher education system has also resulted in a large number of undergraduate courses and study programs. Eight hundred bachelor programs that had been delivered in 2014 in HEIs were reduced to 180 bachelor programs in the 2014–2015 academic year. This was aimed to include the broader general education foundation in order to foster transferability of students required by market and it has also resulted in a decrease in the number of highly specialized bachelor programs offered in HEIs. The reform has been a crucial step to meet the market demand for higher education and improvement of quality. As a result of the initiatives to improve and enhance the quality of HEIs, the merger of some state and private universities took place. Research on the relations between the state and higher education in terms of institutional vitality and autonomy in the areas of finance, student admission, and governance and accreditation found that despite the increase in the administrative autonomy of universities, which was the intended purpose of Mongolian law on higher education, the changes made in the laws and legislation were perceived by people differently (Bat-erdene et  al., 1999). The national program on education was adopted in 1995 by the Parliament and it reflected vision of reforming and changing the total education system. Moreover, laws and legislation, which includes State Education Policy, Education Law 2002 with several

146

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

amendments in 2003, 2006 and 2008, and higher and primary education laws were approved by the Mongolian Parliament. These laws encompass the notion of openness in education administrative structures. This has resulted in the decentralizing of the administration and financing of all public schools. The management of schools has been transferred to local governments, the autonomy of colleges and universities has increased and created the legal environment for establishing private HEIs (UNESCO & IBE, 2011). The State Inspectorate of Education, Culture and Science is a government agency that conducted monitoring and assessment activities on the implementation of the educational policies, regulations, and laws and recommends appropriate action to educational institutions, if necessary. As a result of the rapid expansion and diversification of the higher education sector, there was a real demand to regulate and control the quality of higher education. A range of quality assurance methods have been introduced in the country. These quality assurance mechanisms include the licensing of the educational institutions, accreditation, inspection, monitoring, and auditing. In the early 1990s, the Education Law formed the legal basis for a three-tier system and credit system. The Education Law of 1991 specified “the rights of all individuals to access all levels of education and placed the responsibility of oversight of such education under the Ministry of Science and Education. This law provided broad framework for the organization, operation, and financing of education in Mongolia” (Bat-erdene, Davaa, & Yeager, 1999). There was a tendency among the HEIs to establish a board at HEIs consisting of various stakeholders and the development of a new structure for governance and management to align with the Bologna process in terms of content and objectives (Baterdene, 2014). The Bologna process has established systems, for example, degree cycles, qualification frameworks, credit transfer, and so on, to address the issue for access, equity, participation, and quality in higher education. The Higher Education Reform 2012–16 implemented by the Ministry of Education and Science and the Asian Development Bank has been designed to improve the quality of higher education and the development of programs that will meet the market needs and provide fair and accessible higher education to the public. Moreover, the project

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

147

aims to encourage and support the HEIs to achieve the accreditation of three programs internationally and 20 programs locally. The overall aim of the project is to increase the number of graduates, align with the labor market and to compete at international level. This project is also expected to improve the quality and coherence of higher education, increase the efficiency of governance, management, and finance, and to ensure fair and accessible education (Batsaikhan, Altanchimeg, Badamtsetseg, & Tsatsral, 2014). The “Education 2010–2021” National Program was approved in 2010 by Government Resolution No.31 due to the fact that the existing laws and legislation, programs, and master plans were unable to solve the problems facing the education sector in a comprehensive manner. One of the strategies is to increase the state’s role in enhancing the quality of education. For instance, the program aims to implement reform through continuously improving the quality and efficiency of education and aiming to meet international standards. In particular, the National program aims to develop university campuses and improve the learning environments of public and private universities (Ministry of Education, Culture, & Science, 2015).

9.3  NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS In June 1995, the Parliament of Mongolia adopted a package law on education that reflected the legal environment of education accreditation for the first time and in the same year the higher education sector was emphasized as a priority sector of the country in the amendments for the Higher Education Law. The legal basis created a favorable environment for establishing an accrediting institution in the country. Currently, the Education laws, including the Law on Higher Education, Higher Education Financing and Student Welfare Law, State Inspection Law and Licensing Law, form the current legal environment for quality assurance of higher education in Mongolia. The key mechanisms for quality assurance include licensing, inspection, monitoring by MECS, accreditation, and auditing. These mechanisms were developed in connection with ­policy documents. Accreditation has been used as a key mechanism for assuring the quality of higher education in the country. Inspection is done by the

148

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

State Inspectorate to ensure that educational institutions comply with current laws, regulations, and standards whereas monitoring is conducted on mandatory basis to target institutions by the Ministry of Education to assess the performance of the institutions by examining their academic standards and requirements for licensing (Karakhanyan, 2014). If a serious breach is detected, these institutions could face administrative sanctions. Auditing is held annually on mandatory basis as an external assessment by National Audit Authority or authorized auditors in order to check the performance of the educational institutions. If the institutions have an unsatisfactory performance, they could lose funding or other forms of assistance to the institutions and students (Karakhanyan, 2014). However, they have been criticized for a lack of cohesion, ineffectiveness, and for duplication of resources. In general, the aforementioned mechanisms have been considered as being more of an inspection or monitoring nature rather than as a driver for improving quality (Bat-erdene, 2014). As a result, the National Quality Assurance is being reformed. Of the aforementioned quality assurance mechanisms, accreditation is done on a voluntary basis and it pays special attention to quality improvement, although the mechanism had little impact on financing and other administrative decision-making. As a consequence, it is decreasing the trust towards accreditation. The current Law on Higher Education indicated that the Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA) is the main institution for quality assurance. The new education law adopted in June 2016 stated that accreditation shall be conducted every 5 years on compulsory basis and if the educational institutions are not accredited, they could face measures such as a cancellation of their license.

The New Quality Assurance System Responsible party

Stages

Goal

Tools

Subject

Regulation

Criteria

Start

Preparation of starting activities

Licensing

Public

Ensure basic conditions for training

Compulsory MECS

Implementation

Ensure minimum standard Quality improvement Licensing

Monitoring analysis

Private, foreign Public, private, foreign

By ministry initiative

Provide information

Registration

Criteria for special licensing Quality standard Standards set by ministry and professional associations Recognize by the standards set by state

Outcome

Accreditation Public, private, foreign Professional Graduates rights

Higher education institutions, program, professional associations, international accrediting institutions

MECS

Outcome

Official status, conditions of providing financing Official status Identify if they meet criteria

Compulsory MNCEA

Financing conditions Compulsory Professional Grant professional associations, rights ministry Compulsory MECS, MNCEA

Source: Bat-erdene, R. (2014). Mongolia higher education reform project: Quality assurance and accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank.

Monitor by registration, recognize

Quality Assurance Mechanism for External Program Accreditation Stages

Goal

Criteria

Regulation

Criteria

Responsible

Outcome

Start

Preliminary accreditation

Compulsory

Compulsory

MNCEA

Licensing

Compulsory

Standard of program quality Common criteria for activities

Compulsory

MECS

Accreditation

Voluntary

Quality standard of program

Voluntary

MNCEA

Education degree, recognize documents Education degree, recognize documents Education degree, recognize documents Education degree, recognize documents Education degree, recognize documents

Implementation

Professional standard

Professional associations

Professional standard

International accrediting organizations

Source: Bat-erdene, R. (2014). Mongolia higher education reform project: Quality assurance and accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank.

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

151

9.4  NATIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION ACCREDITATION COUNCIL In October 1998, the task force of National Higher Education Accreditation Council was established. The MNCEA, which is the national body for the accreditation of education, was founded in 1998 as an independent agency by decree No. 24 of the Minister of Enlightenment (ACCMON, 2015). The MNCEA conducts accreditation both at the institutional and program level. The main objective of the body is to establish processes for quality assurance and implement evaluation and accreditation activities to improve the overall effectiveness of higher education (ACCMON, 2015). The institution was drawn from American regional accreditation agencies that emphasize formative approaches rather than summative approaches based on fixed standards or criteria (Weidman & Bat-erdene, 2002). MNCEA provides quality management and consulting services for higher, vocational, and technical education institutions (ACCMON, 2015). The structure of the MNCEA comprises two main bodies: the decision-making body called the Board of National Council and an executive agency with seven staff members headed by a director. There are 500 external evaluators who conduct an assessment and evaluation of HEIs and education programs based on the request. The council first accredited the first phase of some HEIs in 1999. In 2003, the second-phase of accreditation started, and at present there have been 67 organizations and 200 programs accredited. The National Council for Education Accreditation is preparing for the next phase of accrediting institutions and programs starting in 2015. The National Council for Education Accreditation is independent of any ministry, HEIs, and other parties and is responsible for presenting the results of its activities before the Government of Mongolia and general public. Roles and responsibilities of council include: Accredit HEIs Conduct preliminary accreditation of new programs Accredit programs which are being used Recognize institutions that are being accredited Assure the procedures for accreditation and make it accredited nationwide Provide information regarding the accreditation In connection with the expansion of the roles and responsibilities of institution and program accreditation between 1998 and 2014, the mission ●

●

●

●

●

●

152

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

of the institution has been designed “to improve education quality, ensure national standards of program, and strengthen the value and position of Mongolian higher education system on international levels.” A new stage of development was set to begin in 2015 (ACCMON, 2015). The criteria for accreditation is being reformulated for 2014–15 in order to ensure openness, transparency, equality, and justice for all stakeholders and is focused on making sure internal quality assurance mechanisms are effective. The intensive reform of programs in the higher education sector, with criteria directed at assessing the implementation of quality and learning outcome, are also being renewed. Number of Accredited Higher Education Institutions and Programs Year

Accredited HEI

Accredited program

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

14 6 10 10 16 23 21 19 12

– – – – – 3 4 7 –

Year

Accredited HEI

Accredited program

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

16 11 6 11 6 – 9 –

6 17 40 41 40 44 33 29

Quality assurance is conducted with the engagement of various stakeholders, including institutions, teaching, and support staff, government agencies, professionals in the field, and the general public. According to the research done by (Karakhanyan, 2014), there was no specific evidence that the MNCEA has defined its stakeholders and the role of HEIs. Except for the incidental participation in the panels, the stakeholders have not been active enough to make contributions to the accreditation process (Karakhanyan, 2014). The MNCEA Board consists of a chairman, a vice-chairman, 15 members of HEIs including four state and three private HEIs, one delegate from ministry, one student, and two delegates from vocational training centers, and four employer representatives. The council is planning and preparing to include student delegates on the expert team. In the case of Mongolia, accreditation is a process in which the HEIs make a request for accrediting institutions on voluntary basis for which they conduct a self-evaluation. This is followed by an external organization or National Higher Education Accreditation Council experts working

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

153

independently to examine their activities based on the request and the accredit of the institutions. The National Higher Education Accreditation Council of Mongolia sets the criteria for the accreditation of institutions and programs. The criteria cover all aspects of HEIs. In the Annex of 19 Resolution of 2007, which was approved by the National Council for Education Accreditation, it was stated that there shall be a culture for establishing quality management, internal control mechanisms, internal evaluations, monitoring mechanisms, and quality evaluations (MNCEA, 2008). As a result, HEIs started to establish a quality unit and employ staff with the responsibility for developing comprehensive quality evaluation, conducting evaluations and analysis, so as to inform the state institution, colleagues, employers of the outcome and to create a database and update the latest information on the HEIs website. Since the implementation of the criteria, HEIs have adopted various mechanisms for quality assurance such as quality units, monitoring, and internal audits. However, due to the lack of common understanding, criteria, and quality culture, the mechanisms haven’t been effective. Internal Quality Mechanism Quality mechanism

Responsible unit/employee Criteria

Controlanalysis, evaluation

Unit

Audit

Unit/ employee

Attestation of teachers

Commission/ task force

Quality Employee assurance, accreditation

Procedure

Outcome

KPI, attestation, Observation, Administrative criteria for inspection, penalty accreditation interview, questionnaire, documentation analysis, selfassessment report Norms for documentation Administrative accounting, analysis penalty procedures Teacher training, Administrative outcome of penalty research work KPI, attestation, Satisfaction criteria for survey, selfaccreditation assessment report, inspection

Administrative penalty Administrative penalty, incentive

Source: Karakhanyan, S. A. W. (2014). Mongolia higher education reform project: Quality assurance and accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank.

154

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Quality units in charge of quality issues are often criticized for preparing information required by foreign institutions rather than focusing on HEIs main duties designed to enhance quality and build a capacity for internal quality assurance. When the quality assurance unit was established, it had goals to prepare for external quality assurance, especially the accreditation process. However, there are many cases that have been criticized, such as the lack of progress in continuously improving the quality of programs after the initial accreditation. Enhancing the quality of a higher education system results not only in the improvement of the quality at an institutional and program level. There is also a need to address the internal quality assurance processes. The HEIs aiming to enhance institutional competitiveness at national and international levels have initiated a culture of internal quality assurance and aim to create a national best practice.

9.5  IMPACTS OF THE NATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ON HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY, PERFORMANCE AND DEVELOPMENT Since 1990, along with the increasing number of private HEIs, the accreditation conducted in 1999 played a major role in expanding the development of private HEIs. Between 1999 and 2004, criteria and indicators have created conditions for HEIs to strengthen its resource base, liberalize governance mechanisms, and develop its teaching staff. The criteria and indicators of second-phase accreditation from 2004 to 2014 is directed at issues such as course content, methodology review, automation of library, database, and research work. This marked a new era of HEIs that have traditionally developed a capacity for a quality learning environment and infrastructure. Accreditation has played a significant role in becoming an academic institution for newly established private educational institutions (Bat-erdene, 2014). In 2008 the accredited HEIs started to prepare progress reports and evaluate the changes introduced to the system. By putting the emphasis on internal evaluation, it created the basis for continuous quality improvement mechanism. Since the implementation of program accreditation in 2004, the higher education sector in Mongolia has witnessed increased development of quality assurance in institutions. Although the program accreditation is conducted based on voluntary requests, the number of participating institutions has increased in recent years. There are 16 professional councils

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

155

affiliated with the MNCEA that are responsible for program accreditation. In particular, these include Education Studies, Health, Engineering, Business, and Economics. These professional councils have the capacity to work independently with responsibilities for and program accreditation. Experts are engaged in the program accreditation process, which involves teaching staff, researchers, and officers conducting research in these specific areas. Some volunteer associations have been established under professional councils to join teams in program accreditation, publishing in journals and sharing best practices and creating a platform for cooperation. Examples include the Association of Mongolian Medical Sciences, a consortium of HEIs offering economics and business programs, and the National Academy of Mongolian Engineers. The National Council for Education Accreditations initiative to implement program accreditation is recognized by international bodies. For example, the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science and the National Council for Education Accreditation have successfully had over 10 HEIs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP). Other examples include: Mongolian University of Science of Technology (MUST) accreditation of informatics program with Natural Sciences and Mathematics (ASIIN), and the National University of Medical Sciences accreditation by the Association for Medical Education in Western Pacific Region (AMEWPR). Although HEIs have had internal quality unit and staff since 2008, there are different perceptions of quality. The criteria for quality are not clearly defined, which can lead to varying results. Although the MNCEA has been training quality assurance officers and providing advice, the outcome hasn’t been satisfactory.

9.6  PARTICIPATION IN REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCY ACTIVITIES AND ITS BENEFITS There are some key benefits for the National Accreditation Council of Mongolia as a member of various quality network agencies and institutions. These include regular updates from magazines and websites, exchanging information, attending the conferences, and other activities including extending HEIs cooperation. Network with regional and international agencies has also increased the number of program accreditation with international organizations. In 1999, the National Accreditation

156

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Council of Mongolia became a member of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agency in Higher Education (INQAAHE). The MNCEA receives regular updates and publications by INQAAHE, and since 2009 an opportunity has been provided to participate in annual conferences and share good practices. The Procedure of MNCEA activities was renewed in 2014 to align with INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice, and the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). Moreover, the criterion for accreditation was improved by adopting good practices from Asia and Europe. In 2003, the National Council for Education Accreditation became a member of the Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN). It adopted APQN membership criteria and the Chiba Principles in its activities. The National Council for Education Accreditation regularly participates in conferences, forums, and seminars organized by APQN and actively cooperates with various higher education and quality assurance institutions. In 2014, APQN awarded the MNCEA “the best institution with international cooperation in quality assurance” for keeping up with the quality assurance of education and cross-border education and for HEIs activities directed at bringing the local quality assurance to international levels. The MNCEA has been actively encouraging and supporting the Mongolian HEIs to apply for international accreditation of programs. National Council for Education Accreditation has been cooperating with QA agencies and institutions on the accreditation of Mongolian HEIs and programs. For instance, in July 2014 the council expressed interest in having the engineering programs of Mongolian universities accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the United States, and the two parties agreed to conduct a two-day training session on introducing the criteria and requirements for engineering programs. Mongolia became a member of the Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Education (CPSC) in 2005 and signed a memorandum of mutual cooperation. CPSC board approved the Government of Mongolia as member in 2006. In December 2004, MNCEA experts, in collaboration with CPSC member countries, discussed issues such as the quality of technical and vocational education of the Asia–Pacific region, common features, coherence, and signed the CPSC Seoul Declaration in 2004 recognizing the importance of an inter-governmental system for accreditation and

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

157

assurance in order to improve technical and vocational education standards. CPSC established Asia Pacific Accreditation and Certification Commission (APACC) in December 2004 to standardize and coordinate mobility of workforce and qualifications systems. The MNCEA signed a Memorandum of Cooperation in December 2005 and it has accredited four HEIs so far. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a nonprofit organization with the aim to enhance education quality in the interest of stakeholders such as students, parents, HEIs, sponsors, and the government. In January 2013 in Washington D.C., the CHEA conference provided opportunities for its member organizations to network. The MNCEA delegation took part in the conference and expressed interest to be a member of CHEA. In 2011, MNCEA made a cooperation contract with ACBSP in Kansas, in the United States. The contract provided opportunity for HEIs offering economics and business administration programs to participate in international accreditation. In June 2012, the MNCEA signed a contract with the Peregrine Academic Services to collaborate in conducting an external evaluation of economics and business administration programs. To spread the activities in other professional sectors, a branch of the institution was established in Mongolia and it has been conducting its activities for a second year. The MNCEA is planning to expand its external relations and cooperation and aims to become internationally recognized quality assurance institution. The council has expressed an interest to be included in the Asia Pacific Quality Register.

9.7 CONCLUSION HEIs in Mongolia face challenges in providing the necessary education infrastructure for students and teachers due to financial difficulties. The main source of income for universities, institutes, and colleges comes from tuition fees, which comprise approximately 80% of total revenue. Sixtythree percent of the revenue is used on salary and related expenses. Only 1.6%, or 114 million MNT (Mongolian Tugrik), is allocated for research activities. Generally, the tuition fees are determined by the universities. However, the Mongolian government regulates the fees to ensure that the fees are reasonable. Outstanding tuition loans originating from a state training fund for students studying in local and international universities amounted to 41 billion MNT by the end of 2007 and the repayment rate has been low (Read, 2008).

158

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

A lack of the high-quality workforce could negatively affect the country’s growth (Stella, 2007). Due to the growing number of students studying at the local universities, the quality of the graduates and skills and knowledge obtained in HEIs are considered to be irrelevant to the workforce. The quality of Mongolian higher education has been questioned and criticized for preparing the graduates due to irrelevant skills and the lack of required abilities in employment such as critical thinking and creativity. According to a survey on the quality of the graduates, stakeholders such as faculty, students, and employers highlighted that the graduates lacked the ability to express themselves, and that they lacked leadership, critical thinking, creativity, analytical skills, and basic knowledge (Bat-erdene, 2014). Due to the above-mentioned challenges, common criteria and student outcomes were developed for bachelor’s degree programs, which were approved by the Minister of Education and Science in 2014. The documents clearly stated the abilities and skills that the students must achieve such as critical thinking, analytical skills, planning skills, personal, and professional abilities (MEDS, 2014). In addition, interpersonal skills and foreign language proficiency skills and teamwork skills have been included as basic skills and abilities that the students have to obtain. It can be briefly concluded that the initial two phases of accreditation have helped the institutions to improve quality assurance. Starting from 2016, there is tendency to encourage HEIs and programs to ensure that quality assurance mechanisms meet international standards. An increased focus has been made to build capacity for internal quality assurance to promote a quality culture. Furthermore, a legal environment is being created to increase the role of accreditation in national quality assurance mechanisms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Dr. Heather Wallace of Deakin University, Australia, who reviewed the chapter and provided comments before submission.

REFERENCES Bat-erdene, R. (2014). Mongolia higher education reform project: Quality assurance and accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank. Bat-erdene, R., Davaa, S., & J.L.,Yeager 1999, The national university of Mongolia: The winds of change, In P.L.W. Sabloff (Ed.), Higher education in the post-communist world: Case of eight universities, Routledge, N ​ ew York, London.

Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Mongolian Higher Education

159

Batsaikhan, Kh, Altanchimeg, B., Badamtsetseg, U., & Tsatsral, Ts (Eds.), (2014). Education accreditation (2). Ulaanbaatar: BCI Publishing. Batsaikhan, Kh, Altanchimeg, B., Badamtsetseg, U., & Tsatsral, Ts (Eds.), (2014). Education accreditation (3). Ulaanbaatar: BCI Publishing. Common Criteria for Bachelor’s Degree Program. (2014). MEDS, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 1.05.15. . Karakhanyan, S. A. W. (2014). Mongolia higher education reform project: Quality assurance and accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank. Ministry of Education and Science. (2015). Education 2010–2021 National Program, viewed 20.09.15. . Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation, (2008). Legal documents of accreditation. Ulaanbaatar: Brochure. Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation. (2015). ACCMON, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 15.04.15. . Parliament of Mongolia. (1995). Education package law, State Information. Read,T. (2008). Mongolia: Education sector reform project. Ulaanbaatar: Asian Development Bank. Stella, A. (2007). Accreditation of higher education in the Asia-Pacific region: GUNI, higher education in the world 2007. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. UNESCO & IBE. 2011, World data on education, viewed 25.09.15. . Weidman, John, C., & Bat-erdene, R. (2002). Higher education and the state: Dilemmas in democratic transition: Higher Education in the Developing World. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wu, K.B. 1994, Mongolia: Financing education during economic transition, Discussion Papers, World Bank.

FURTHER READING Batsaikhan, Kh, Altanchimeg, B., Badamtsetseg, U., & Tsatsral, Ts (Eds.), (2015). Education accreditation (4). Ulaanbaatar: BCI Publishing. Buren, L. (2009). Basic solutions to higher education reform, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 25.09.15. . Consortium of Mongolian Universities and Colleges. (2015). CMUC, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 1.06.15. . Ministry of Education and Science of Mongolia. (2015) MEDS, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 1.05.15. . Lopez-Segrera, Sanyal, B. C., & Tres, J. (2007). Overview of the regional perspective on accreditation in today’s world, higher education in the world: Accreditation for quality assurance what is at stake? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Saranzaya, S. (2015). 67 out of 104 Higher education institutions in Mongolia have been accredited, Online Interview with Senior Officer of Institutional and Program Accreditation, MNCEATungalag. , viewed 1.06.15. System of Legal Information. (2015). Higher Education Law, Ulaanbaatar, viewed 20.05.15, http://www.legalinfo.mn/law/details/251.

CHAPTER 10

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand Somwung Pitiyanuwat1, Siridej Sujiva2 and Tan Pitiyanuwat3 1

The Royal Council, Bangkok, Thailand Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand Bangkok University, Bangkok, Thailand

2 3

10.1 INTRODUCTION Thailand is an independent country that lies in the heart of Southeast Asia. It has a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy. Thailand has a population of 65,117,512, with 2,049,173 (3.15%) students in higher education institutions. Thailand enjoys a high level of literacy (92.6%), and education is provided by a well-organized system. Quality assurance (QA) in higher education is a complex and multi-dimensional framework which, in Thailand, is monitored by the Commission on Higher Education (CHE). QA standards in Thailand are part of Thai Qualifications Framework (TQF). In order to become truly competitive in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and in the world at large, Thai higher education needs to pay more attention to quality of higher education, specifically QA in higher education. We also see the need for new efforts to ensure that academic courses meet employer and student needs as well as securing wider international recognition. Due to the strong and rapid development of information technology infrastructure in Thailand, there has been a major effort to develop and enhance the process of QA into a fully online system, namely, CHE QA online. This will change Thailand’s QA from an amicable site visit method of assessment with a self-assessment report (SAR), both national and institutional levels, into a 21st century model that continuously collects and provides data in a digital format.

10.2  SYSTEM BACKGROUND OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN THAILAND Thailand has a large and comprehensive higher education system, comprising both public and private sectors with degree-granting and The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00010-0 Copyright © 2017 Somwung Pitiyanuwat, Siridej Sujiva and Tan Pitiyanuwat. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

161

162

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

certificate or subdegree institutions. The number of higher education institutions is 169 of which (79 are public higher education institutions, 19 are community colleges, and 71 are private higher education institutions). Currently, there are 150 degree-granting institutions (including 79 public and 71 private universities). These Higher education institutions (HEIs) are under the Ministry of Education (MOE). Thailand’s history of QA dates back to the 1980s when it began a process to reform higher education that involved planning for the first 15-year higher education plan covering the period 1990–2004. These efforts were followed by the 1999 National Education Act, which legislated extensive and comprehensive educational reforms affecting both public and private education sectors. The Ministry of University Affairs (MUA), and the Office of the National Education Commission were all merged into a new MOE. The CHE, being the only legal entity, is responsible for proposing policies and developing plans and standards, mobilizing resources, monitoring, inspecting, and evaluating the provision of higher education (National Education Act (NEA), Section 45). The public sectors’ role in higher education has changed from regulatory to supervisory, while the mission of higher education is being redirected more toward societal participation, student-centered, and life-long learning. In 2002, all public universities were granted with greater autonomy. With regard to QA, the 1999 NEA requires the establishment of a new system of QA and assessment for higher education, which includes both internal and external reviews (Section 47). Section 49 of the National Education Act B.E. 2542 (1999) on “Educational Standards and Quality Assurance” outlines that External Quality Audit (EQA) will be the responsibility of a new independent body as a public organization. The Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONESQA) was established on November 4, 2000 by the government. Senior positions in the new body were appointed, including the director, Professor Somwung Pitiyanuwat, who came with a strong background in education evaluation. ONESQA serves as an independent body for compulsory quality certification and undertakes external assessments of education at all levels. The baseline for Thailand’s QA framework lies in the establishment of standard criteria and requirements for all levels of degree programs offered in the country. The QA system consists of both internal and external arrangements. The internal and external QA aims at creating a system and mechanism to control, audit, and assess operations of institutions to ensure that they comply with the policies established by the

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand

163

governing authorities. All educational institutions are subject to external quality assessment on a 5-year cycle. The results are submitted to the relevant agencies and made available to the public. Educational institutions are required to prepare appropriate documentation and evidence, and arrange for their personnel, students, governing bodies, parents, and others to be part of the quality assessment by providing input at the request of ONESQA. Furthermore, Section 50 of the NEA stipulates that all universities improve and enhance their efforts for achieving quality of teaching and an appropriate academic learning environment. All higher education institutions are required to establish quality management systems and work consistently to improve their performance. In the case where an external assessment shows that an educational institution has not met the standards, ONESQA is required to submit a report to the parent organization recommending corrective action to improve performance. In the case where corrective measures are not implemented, ONESQA is required to report details to government agencies. “Parent organizations” with jurisdiction over higher educational institutions (ministries in the case of public institutions and owners in the case of private institutions) and the institutions themselves are required to establish effective internal QA systems.

10.3  NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION External QA is undertaken by ONESQA on a cycle of 5 years. The external process encourages institutions to continuously enhance their educational quality and achieve efficient educational administration. ONESQA uses an Amicable Assessment Model, a Buddhist idea incorporated into ONESQA’s philosophy, which focuses on assessment conducted in a spirit of care and concern, based on professional ethics, for enhancing educational quality and standards. The three concepts of the Amicable Assessment based on Buddhist principles include: 1. The purpose of an assessment process is to acquire information for learning. It is an assessment of learning and also for improvement of all concerned factors. The assessment is not intended to prove anything, but to improve. With this definition, the assessment is regarded as a technology technique to help everyone learn about the value-based-facts leading to the continual development of both learners and quality. The philosophy of the assessment in the educational QA system is: assessment

164

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

for learning for the continual development of learners and educational quality. 2. The principle of conditionality or conditioned arising (IdappaccayataBali/Sansakit language) is the state where all things are dependent on one another, leading to the understanding that the result stems from a cause. In other words, the relationship of all components is conjoined by causal factors. Everything exists by integration, by factors, by a continual impermanence. Idappaccayata is a way of thinking to trace causal factors, that is, the consideration for the solutions of the problems by searching for the integration of the cause and other factors of all things and other phenomena. 3. Kalyanamitta-dhamma Kalyanamit is the quality of a good friend or any friend with whom you get  along or have befriended who will bring you virtue, values, and prosperity. It refers mainly to teachers or mentors. This leads to develop the QA philosophy of amicable QA and assessment for quality improvement with QA assessors as mentors. In addition, the Amicable Assessment Model consists of four main steps: (1) promoting and strengthening, (2) creating faith in school assessor or experts, (3) assessing with perseverance by applying the Amicable Assessment Model, and (4) providing guidelines and reinforcing development. External QA is applied at three levels: basic education, vocational education, and higher education. For higher education, each institute is to submit data and a SAR to ONESQA before being subject to an external assessment visit. For the assessment, a team of external reviewers appointed by the ONESQA executive board, consisting of experts and academics in the related areas and disciplines, visit the institutional campuses according to a predetermined schedule. After each visit, a draft report is prepared and reviewed by the review team which includes findings and recommendations which is forwarded to the institutions. The purpose of the first review cycle (2001–05) was to encourage all institutions to present their actual performance and statistical data together with their institutional review report that reflect their institutional quality assurance (IQA) system. (The first round consisted of eight standards with 28 key performance indicators (KPIs), while the second round consisted of seven standards and 48 KPIs). The assessors examine the institution’s higher education standards by site visit and by using descriptive methods. The second cycle (2006–10) focused on assessing the quality and standard of the institution using quantitative method and acting as a peer review panel.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand

165

In addition, one focus of this round was to encourage HEIs to enhance their quality and standards. For the future direction of the external QA, the third round focused on research methodology using a qualitative case study method. This method is very important to analyze the casual factors and the outcomes of higher education institutions. The external review has a dual purpose of accountability and self-improvement with no direct impact on institutional funding.

10.4  INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENT (IQA) The CHE is responsible for Thailand’s higher education at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. According to Article 16 of the Ministry of Education Regulatory Act, CHE has the authority to formulate higher education policies and plans corresponding to the National Economic and Social Development Plan and National Education Plan. It is responsible to standards, provide resources, and conduct inspections and evaluations of higher education institutions. The CHE is also responsible to ensure the maintenance standards and excellence of each institution. Moreover, the Board has to consider issuing regulations, criteria, and official orders as deemed necessary. CHE has assured the quality of higher education through quality control of the overall study program with minimum requirements set for both public and private HEIs. The quality control functions were not seen to be sufficient in enhancing quality in higher education. Therefore, in 1996, CHE announced its QA policy and guiding directions. The policy stipulates that all universities/institutions improve their efforts in enhancing the quality of instruction and the academic learning environment. CHE has deployed an online QA nationwide since 2009. This has had a major impact on QA systems, transforming them from simply being an amicable method of assessment into an accessible system continuously collecting and providing data in a digital format. This information system has become the basis of the QA procedure, allowing each institution to perform self-assessment and continuously improve its quality of performance rather than waiting for an annual self-assessment. IQA is a mandatory part of the education administration process and it is maintained on an ongoing basis. The CHE has announced nine aspects of quality factors: (1) philosophy, mission, objectives, and implementation plans; (2) a teaching/learning provision; (3) student development activities;

166

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

(4) research; (5) academic service to the community; (6) preservation of art and culture; (7) administration and management; (8) finance and budgeting; and (9) QA systems and mechanisms. The IQA system consists of quality control, quality audit and quality assessment. According to NEA Section 48, parent organizations and the institutions themselves shall establish an IQA system as part of education administration that must be a continuous process. HEIs have to prepare annual self-assessment reports to parent organizations and relevant agencies. The report is made available to the public for improving the educational quality and standards and providing the basis for external QA. In order to achieve this goal, the flow of communication among the Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), CHE’s secretariat office, universities and ONESQA has been enhanced to allow all involved parties to be informed about the development so that consistent actions can be taken accordingly (Ministry of Education, 2001). In 2009, the TQF was announced. In common with many other countries that have developed qualifications frameworks, this is designed to reinforce national goals about the nature and quality of teaching and learning. In Thailand, these include the development of values and patterns of responsible ethical behavior, the capacity for creative thinking and problem solving, personal and social responsibility, effective communication and the use of IT (in addition to the specific knowledge and skills required in particular fields of study). The framework assists in developing common understanding within local and international institutions about expected standards of learning outcomes and confidence in the quality of graduates. The qualifications in the framework are currently embedded in the missions, goals, QA standards, and student learning outcomes of Thailand’s universities and colleges, and the credit hour requirements are also in general use. There are six domains or clusters of similar types of learning outcomes: ethical and moral development; knowledge; intellectual skills; interpersonal skills and responsibility; numerical skills, communication, and information technology; and professional/psychomotor skills. The implementation handbook that has been prepared by the OHEC describes the standards to be achieved in each domain for each qualification. Student learning outcomes in each domain are expressed in general terms. However, the challenge is to make sure they can be understood and applied in different discipline areas. A second major challenge is to ensure that faculty members are able to use teaching strategies and assessment methods for the different forms of learning.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand

167

A number of initiatives are planned to assist in meeting these challenges. They include: Faculty teams from different universities and professional groups have begun to prepare general learning outcomes related to different specializations. The first of these groups has just finished in the areas of science, mathematics, and computer science programs, while other groups have been working on nursing, logistics, agro-industry, education, biotechnology, hotel, and tourism programs. The general learning outcomes are intended to serve as guides for faculty members, managers, QA staff, and other stakeholders in universities and colleges as they plan to design and review programs. Examples of program and course specifications that indicate detailed plans for teaching strategies, student assessments, and program evaluations are being prepared. They will be available for a number of different majors and, like the descriptions of the major learning outcomes, are intended as a guide for people in universities and colleges when they plan to design and review programs. Funding has been provided for the development of an important new initiative to assist in improving the quality of teaching. The professional organization development (POD) network aims to provide a mechanism for consultation and mutual support, and dissemination of good ideas through workshops, conferences, and other mechanisms for ­communication and assistance. Plans have been made for the provision of training workshops dealing with understanding TQF, planning programs and courses, and providing strategies for teaching and student assessment. The intention is to provide this training in regional locations throughout the country, and to prepare participants to help others through “train the trainer” programs. Research on teaching strategies that are effective for different kinds of learning and information about innovative practices within Thailand and other parts of the world will be very important. An Institute for University Teaching will be established in order to search for and disseminate information about new strategies for teaching and assessment, and research on university teaching. It will also take other initiatives to promote the importance of teaching and recognize outstanding achievements. The institute will work in close cooperation with the POD Network and with the regional training programs. While these activities are planned by the OHEC, the most important action will need to be implemented in universities and colleges. This will ●

●

●

●

●

168

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

require effective leadership and support from the senior administrators in each institution, and the introduction of mechanisms to assist in transition. The staff development centers of each higher education institution can help faculty members to develop and improve their abilities to plan programs and courses, and to use effective teaching and assessment in order to achieve the expected student learning outcome. The policies and programs provide a framework for QA at national level. However, institutions are responsible for effective implementation. Specific strategies may vary from institution to institution depending on the circumstances of the institution and the knowledge, experience, and attitude of the faculty. Institutions are encouraged to provide training to new and existing faculty members on QA mechanisms and the development of programs and courses that are aligned with TQF specifications.

10.5  IMPACTS OF THE NATIONAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ASSURANCE ARRANGEMENTS ON HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY Although experience over the past 8 years shows both positive and negative lessons, considerable progress has been made. It takes different perspectives from different stakeholder groups to fully embrace the concept. Support and cooperation from all parties contributes to the successful implementation of an IQA system in public and private higher education institutions. More innovative methods of teaching are being created through classroom action research and student-centered learning concepts. The involvement of stakeholders through feedback and interviews during the audit process has brought about better understanding between institutions and their external communities. Students are made more aware of their roles and the importance of the IQA system and how they can contribute to quality teaching and learning. The external review process has forced most institutions to improve their management of information systems and employ institutional research as a means for improvement. The introduction of QA systems has created a willingness to share and learn from each other, both internally and externally, and has fostered a very positive atmosphere among the quality network of higher education ­institutions in the country. A quality framework in higher education is a complex and multidimensional concept. Empowered by a nature of database systems, the CHE QA online system provides insightful information on multi-levels of courses, curriculum, department, and faculty. An online CHE QA system

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand

169

enhances self-evaluation and self-improvement through an individual institution’s self-monitoring process. Under this circumstance, the dynamic way of an online self-report system of online CHE accelerates the capacity building among institutions. From a negative perspective, the implementation of TQF and IQA by CHE and EQA by ONESQA has brought with it burdens of paperwork with improvements in QA yet to be seen.

10.6  INTERNATIONAL QA ACTIVITIES Thailand is represented by ONESQA in an all-regional QA network. They include the SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO-RIHED); the ASSEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN); the ASEAN University Network-Quality Assurance (AUN-QA); the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN); and the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE). ONESQA has established links with partner agencies around the world through several memorandums of understandings (MOUs). For instance, there is an MOU between ONESQA and the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT), the Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute (SEEI), the New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Inc. (NEASC), the Council of International Schools (CIS), the United States, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), the United Kingdom, and the British Council Thailand. Moreover, ONESQA has also signed a memorandum of understanding with the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). ONESQA works together with its membership through a range of networking and dissemination activities. These ­provide channels for communication and sharing information. Through international alliances, ONESQA has developed an automated QA and a system for external quality assessment of higher education institutions. The international QA activities have provided a platform to promote Thai higher education in the region with the aim to build and sustain national and institutional improvement in education.

10.7 CONCLUSION The QA system in higher education consists of both internal and external arrangements. The CHE has assured the quality of higher education by announcing its QA policy and the qualifications framework for higher education. An external QA system as a national QA system is undertaken

170

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

by the ONESQA on a cycle of 5 years. The external review has a dual purpose of accountability and self-improvement with no direct impact on institutional funding. ONESQA uses an Amicable Assessment Model, a Buddhist idea incorporated into ONESQA’s philosophy to assess the quality of higher education institutions. CHE and ONESQA’s QA system have not yet been able to create the change of behaviors of the practical units under the MOE that could lead to better educational quality in higher education. However, through international QA alliances, ONESQA has developed an automated QA and a new system for national QA system in higher education. Future directions of QA system in higher education are shown in the following probable scenarios: (1) OHEC and ONESQA will develop a more decentralized and flexible framework of higher education QA in order to promote and support higher education institutions’ institutional assurance arrangements and educational administration; (2) the Amicable Assessment Model with the CHE QA online system is still employed to assess higher education institutions; and (3) a QA system in higher education will focus on the curriculum and institutional levels and move forward to an international QA framework.

REFERENCE Ministry of Education, (2001). National education Act B.E. 1999 and amendments (Second national education Act B.E. 2002). Bangkok, Thailand: VTC Communication Limited Partnership.

FURTHER READING Commission on Higher Education. (2008). Manual for the internal quality assurance for higher education institutions. Bangkok, Thailand: Parbpim Ltd. Grant Harman, (2002). Quality assurance initiatives in Thailand. International Higher Education, 27, 15–16. ONESQA. (2007). Manual for external quality assessment of higher education. Bangkok,Thailand: Pimdee Co., Ltd. ONESQA. (2011). Manual for the third round of external quality assessment (2011–2015): Higher education institutions, 2011 version. . Pitiyanuwat, S. (2008). The quality assurance agency in Thailand. In Paper presented at the ASEAN quality assurance agencies roundtable meeting roundtable meeting, 6–8 July 2008. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Qualifications Agency.123139. Pitiyanuwat, S. (2009a). Collaboration in quality assurance between Thailand and the EU, In Paper presented at European Higher Education Fair-EHEF 2009 Symposium, Bangkok, Thailand.

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Thailand

171

Pitiyanuwat, S. (2009b), The amicable assessment in educational quality assurance. IJQAA. 1(2), Retrieved 15.10.09, ONESQA: . SEAMEO-RIHED. (2009). Handbook on degrees, diplomas, and other certificates granted by higher education institutions in Asia. Retrieved 26.09.09, SEAMEO RIHED: . Seehanath,V. (2008). Quality assurance of higher education in Thailand. In Paper presented at the ASEAN quality assurance agencies roundtable meeting roundtable meeting, 6–8 July 2008. Kuala Lumpur: Malaysian Qualifications Agency.108122. Yavaprabhas, P. S. (2009). Systems and mechanisms for accreditation and quality assurance in Asian countries higher education: Status comparison. Bangkok: SEAMEO-RIHED.

CHAPTER 11

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan: From Quality Control to Quality Assurance Culture Alex Krouglov London Metropolitan University, London, United Kingdom

11.1 INTRODUCTION Uzbekistan lies between two major rivers of Central Asia, the Syr-Darya and the Amu-Daria, and covers a territory of 447,400 square kilometers. Owing to its strategic location, the first cities arose along the Silk Route between China, India, and Europe in the first millennium B.C. Extensive trade and geographical position led to the creation of famous seminaries (madrasahs) in Bukhara, Khiva, Samarkand, and the Fergana Valley, which went through a period of decline and revival in the late 18th and the late 19th centuries. Madrasahs trained young people who then worked and lived throughout Central Asia. During the first two decades of the 20th century, a new reform movement of modernizers “known as the New Method (usul-i jadid)” appeared in Central Asia, which had considerable “influence on education during the initial decades of the Soviet period, and their methods and aims have reemerged since independence” in 1991 (Uzbekistan, 2015). The Soviet period in the education of Uzbekistan, like in all other Soviet Republics, was characterized by the Communist ideology and a cultural assimilation process during which nonRussian communities, voluntarily or not, were gradually giving up their identity, culture, and language in favor of the Russian. This process is known as russification which had a significant impact on education sector in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic. The Russian language was imposed “as the main language of science, technology, and education, since other languages ‘hinder’ scientific and technological progress” and upgraded to the principal status of the language of “wider communication within the Soviet Union” (Krouglov, 1997, p. 13). At the same time, “education became free, and therefore The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00007-0 Copyright © 2017 Alex Krouglov. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

173

174

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

available to all social classes. Although it bore a great deal of ideological teaching and development of Soviet patriotism in children, education was a big step towards development in still rural and backward Uzbekistan” (Hojimatova, 2004). The National University of Uzbekistan was the first public university that was opened in Tashkent in 1918 as Turkestan People’s University. The Soviet system of higher education was highly centralized and most major developments were initiated and imposed from the center. On one hand, higher education benefited from extensive contacts with other Soviet Republics, but on the other, the totalitarian Soviet regime ensured that the system of education was highly prescriptive, inflexible, and based on control from the center. All decisions were made centrally, were highly politicized, and all degree courses were similar across the USSR, with the highest degrees of Candidate of Science and Doctor of Science being approved in Moscow. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the independence of Uzbekistan made a significant impact on the entire culture of the country and creation of a new identity. The higher education system has evolved its own national education context. The government of Uzbekistan embarked on the road of reforms in order to transform higher education and reorient it towards meeting the common national interests. The Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan [O’zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy va O’rta Maxsus Ta’lim Vazirligi] (MHSSE) was tasked with implementing numerous reforms and developing new policies and initiatives. In 1997 President Islam Karimov signed a law on the establishment of a “National Program for Personnel Training,” which outlined a long-term strategy for continuous development of education system, strengthening education, and reinforcing the multilevel HE system in the country (UNESCO, 2003). Higher education has been at the center of attention of the national government, which has addressed numerous priorities around the quality assurance (QA), professional development, and the introduction of new approaches and methodology in teaching and learning.

11.2  HIGHER EDUCATION IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN Demographic composition of the country made a significant impact on establishing priorities of the government in the field of Higher Education (HE). The population of the country was over 30 million people in 2014

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

175

(Government Portal, 2015) and has been growing steadily. Uzbekistan is ethnically diverse, with Uzbek (80%) the largest group, followed by Russian (5.5%), Tajik (5%), Kazakh (3%), Karakalpak (2.5%), Tatar (1.5%), and 2.5% of other origins (Weidman & Yoder, 2010, p. 58). It is important to note that Uzbekistan is a country of young people where people between 15 and 24 make 20.5% of the entire population (Clark, 2015), while over 11 million of young people are less than 17 years of age, which is 42% of the population of the country (EACEA, 2013). The number of HE institutions reflects the need and demand for university education in the country. According to the MHSSE, there are 76 higher education institutions (HEIs), among them 20 universities, 36 institutes, two academies, 11 university branches, and seven branches of foreign universities (2015). All universities and institutes are public. Foreign universities have become very active in setting up their branches in Uzbekistan. For example, Westminster University (UK) opened a branch in 2002 that offers undergraduate and postgraduate degrees in Tashkent. Overall, these new campuses and branches of foreign universities are good examples of cross-border education showing the growing mobility of HE providers that bring “new opportunities to increase access to higher education” (Knight, 2007, p. 134). They also had a positive impact on the HE of the host country. In order to understand fully the size of higher education in Uzbekistan, we will need to look at student numbers across the country, which are regulated by the government through “enrollment and annual admission quotas for each discipline and HEIs” that are announced “each year by the Presidential decree, on advice from the Cabinet of Ministers” (World Bank, 2014, p. 68). HE institutions admitted over 60 thousand students: around 57 thousand on undergraduate degrees and over six thousand on postgraduate degrees in 2013–2014 academic year. In total, there are around 300 thousand students in the country every year. In order to enter the university education, applicants have to pass entry examinations based on multiple-choice questions. Applicants sit the test on August 1 each year. The testing across the country is “organized by the State Center of Testing [Davlat Test Markazi]” under the Cabinet of Ministers (Johansson, 2006). The competition is very high: there are over 600 thousand applicants for 60 thousand places in HE institutions. It means that generally the competition is over 10 applicants per one place. Applicants are allowed to apply only to one institution for a particular course, and if they fail their entry examination, they will have to wait one year and apply again in the following year.

176

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

During the Soviet era, the Russian language dominated in all spheres of life in Uzbekistan. It was the language of the HE, academics, and intelligentsia. The situation began to change in 1989 when the newly adopted Language Law proclaimed the Uzbek language as the official state language of the country, while Russian received the status of the “official language of inter-ethnic communication” (Wei & Kolko, 2005). However, the Law was reviewed in 1995, and the special status given to Russian was revoked (Wei & Kolko, 2005). The Uzbek language is a Turkic language that used the Cyrillic alphabet until the mid-1990s when it was phased out and replaced by Latin script. Both Uzbek and Russian are languages of instruction at universities. Nevertheless the Uzbek language is becoming more and more dominant in the HE. Although some textbooks used in the HE are still in Russian, books in Uzbek have been gradually replacing them. Russian is also losing ground as a language of communication in the field of research, and being replaced by English. This process is slow and requires more support from the central government and other national and international organizations. Researchers in Uzbekistan published more academic articles per million people than most of its neighbors, and significantly more in the context of its GDP (Moed, 2007). The small absolute number of papers was published in English as researchers who were educated during the post-Soviet period were more and more encouraged to publish in foreign publications. Since learning English was not encouraged until recently, the use of English-language research literature remains limited (Gibradze, 2004). However, young researchers increasingly use their English language skills in various international contacts with a wider academic community. The MHSSE provides an overall coordination and funding of HE institutions, while more specialized HE institutions are usually coordinated by other ministerial departments of the Uzbek government. In some cases, there is a joint coordination. For example, the University of World Economy and Diplomacy is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the MHSSE. Overall, 34 HE institutions are accountable to the MHSSE. The Ministry of Public Education oversees five pedagogical institutes, while the Ministry of Public Health has six HE institutes (EACEA, 2013). However, the MHSSE remains the principal government body in charge of the coordination from the wider academic and administrative points of view. It sets strict rules for the development and validation of new courses and programs in line with the State Educational Standards (SES). The MHSSE also determines the allocation of places in the HE by the

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

177

topic of study, which depends on the national requirement for specialists in particular fields. Uzbekistan inherited the system of HE from the Soviet Union, and issues related to the communist past were the main challenges in the HE since the country’s independence in 1991. The Government of Uzbekistan had to rethink and restructure the HE, and since Uzbekistan remained a strong centralized state it “had more of a top-down approach to education reform” (Weidman & Yoder, 2010, p. 59). The National Program for Personal Training (NPPT) of 1997 provided a legal basis for reforms and further development of the HE. “The NPPT formed the central vehicle for educational reforms” in Uzbekistan (Weidman & Yoder, 2010, p. 61). The program identified international cooperation as one of the main tools for achieving its main objectives. One of the directions of developing international cooperation was the establishment of branches of foreign universities in the country, e.g., branches of British, Korean, Italian, Russian, Singaporean, and other universities, and expanding exchanges of academics and students with universities across the world. There have been also challenges and concerns that mostly deal with low access to the HE, quality of training, and relevance of skills and knowledge of its graduates (World Bank, 2014, p. 9). The skills study in the region made a conclusion that Uzbekistan experiences a considerable shortage of university graduates (Sondergaard, 2012, pp. 26–30). Another issue is retaining talented young people in the HE and research. Since students often come from the countryside, they find it challenging to stay in cities and get a new job. There are also limited vacancies in HEIs. It is, therefore, for this reason, graduates with MA degrees often have to work in other organizations in order to gain the required two years of work experience in line with the government Resolution 365. Thus, many of them stay in their work places and do not come back to do further research or studies in universities (Usmanov, 2016, p. 51). A few academics and HE leaders also raised an urgent need for developing ICT-based teaching methodologies and professional development of staff in the field that will have a positive impact on teaching and learning, selfstudy, and distance learning (Abdujalilov, 2016; Begimkulov, Matnazarova, & Adashboyev, 2016). The importance of information and communication technology (ICT) competences is also crucial for HE management and monitoring. These and other challenges prompted the government to prioritize reforms and new developments in the field of HE and QA.

178

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

11.3  THE NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) SYSTEM The Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the MHSSE, and the State Testing Center (STC) are the principal government organizations responsible for ensuring quality in the HE and coordination and implementation of reforms. While the Cabinet of Ministers and the MHSSE are in charge of establishing and reorganizing HEIs, defining licensing procedures, and approving the standards as well as QA procedures and managing the national framework for setting and assessing academic standards in the HE, the STC conducts state accreditation and reviews (“attestation”) of the HEIs through inspections, QA of training, fairness of assessments (tests and examinations) and appropriateness of applying grades. The STC also reviews the standards and state requirements, syllabi, and curricula. All HE institutions are subject to a review or “attestation” procedure every five years. The process includes comprehensive analysis of the institution’s activities over the previous years. The procedures and outcomes of the QA process are approved by the Cabinet of Ministers. After consideration and approval by the Cabinet of Ministers the QA report is made available to the university administration so that it can be considered at the Academic Council in order to develop necessary objectives. Each HEI is responsible for its internal QA procedures and system. The current system of the HE in Uzbekistan can be described as “in transition” as it makes attempts “to move away from a centrally directed system focusing on the measurement of 50 indicators towards the Bologna system, with the introduction of a three-cycle education system and the adoption of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System” (World Bank, 2014, p.  66). However, this is not always easy, as there is a lot of inertia due to imbedded traditions, inability to identify the way forward in a timely manner, and certain opposition to changes at both the institutional and government levels. The SES for 149 specialities at undergraduate level and 650 specialities at postgraduate level existed until 2015. The main objectives of the SES were to introduce national benchmarking system to all HE institutions and contribute to the development of knowledge and learning society based on higher competence and competitiveness of graduates. In accordance with the SES, the content of the curriculum at undergraduate level consisted of subjects covering the following fields: Human and Socio-Economic sciences, 23%–25% of all subjects taught on the course Foundation and Natural sciences, 8%–25% ●

●

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

179

General professional subjects, 33%–50% Specialized professional subjects, 9%–10% Extracurricular subjects, 5%–7% Curriculum in all academic subjects at undergraduate and postgraduate levels was designed in accordance with the SES. There was little scope for flexibility in curriculum development where only a 5% change from the standard curriculum could be allowed. The SES did not have any provision for optional subjects or, for example, double majors or majors and minors. Each new course curriculum was considered at the departmental and faculty levels before being approved by the Academic Council of the university. When approved at the university level, a new course curriculum was sent to the MHSSE for further assessment and approval. The General Guidelines on Academic Standards defined requirements for the quality of training and academic content and specified the achievement of required level by students as well as more generic qualification requirements for all graduates in the HE. All degree courses had to ensure continuity and consistency with the general secondary, professional, and secondary specialized education in order to provide further development in the fields mentioned above. Students were required to do work placements and acquire professional skills related to their discipline. At the end of the course, they had to sit final state examinations in line with the SES. Training at postgraduate level ensured continuity of undergraduate programs and included the following subjects: General methodological disciplines Specialized disciplines Research Postgraduate courses also had to incorporate elective modules and more time for self-study, research and professional development. Students sat state examinations at the end of their courses. In 2015 the situation began to change due to the introduction of new SES consisting of 26 educational areas that were grouped in six knowledge areas. The new SES allowed universities to improve their courses and make teaching and learning more effective. The current SES specify only the knowledge, skills, and competences that should be covered during the course. As a result of this reform, the HE system went from strict regulations and control to more flexibility in developing and enhancing university programs and assessment. Our observations show that although there is some opposition to gradual decentralization, the system of HE has been changing in recent years. ●

●

●

●

●

●

180

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

There are also requirements for applicants wishing to continue their education at undergraduate and postgraduate levels. The government introduced state entry tests that are offered centrally using an ICT-based testing system. More specialized HE institutions have developed their own systems of testing, for example, the Institute of Arts and Design, Conservatorium as well as others. State entry tests are developed and conducted by the STC under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Apart from the admission process and entry tests, the Center has several other important functions, such as “attestation” or assessment of academic staff and institutions, QA, recognition of degrees, and qualifications issued by universities. The development of admission rules is characterized by the introduction of principles of equal rights of citizens and social diversity of the population. There is a trend towards equity and access with focus on applicants with disability, socially disadvantaged areas, or minority language groups. For example, applicants who come from disadvantaged areas or those who served in the armed forces and pass the entry tests receive up to 25% to their overall score. It is important to note that universities support multilingualism. Many universities introduced multilingual teaching in their courses in order to provide equal opportunities for under-represented students from various linguistic backgrounds. On the whole, the government and HE institutions share responsibility for the management and implementation of equal opportunities in the HE. However, in recent years, there has been a gradual shift of responsibility to the HE institutions. Since 2007, about 60% of students in the HE have paid tuition fees for their studies, while 40% received grants from the government. In addition to this, some nation-wide nongovernmental organizations offered annual fellowship grants to talented students. Our analysis of the National QA will be incomplete without considering the system of assessment and marking of student performance, which is described in the “Guidelines on marking system in assessing and monitoring student performance.” The Guidelines cover goals and objectives of assessing student performance, specify rules, and describe procedures and criteria, establish the time when assessments take place, and how the results of marking are presented and analyzed. The marking system envisages the following types of assessment: ongoing work of students, midterm, and final assessed work. The assessed work can be written work, tests, course work, oral tests, presentations, case studies, etc. Ongoing work

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

181

of students and midterm assessment constitute 70% of the overall mark for the module, while final assessment represents 30%. Academic and administrative compliance with the system is monitored by a committee consisting of representatives of the monitoring and internal inspection department of the HE institution and leading academics. The assessment system is based on the following grades which are similar in all HE institutions: 86–100: “excellent” 71–85: “good” 55–70: “satisfactory” 54 and below: “fail” If students fail their examinations or other types of assessment, they are given an opportunity to improve their grades. They need at least “satisfactory” marks to move to the next level in their courses. Monitoring departments of HEIs oversee the collection and analysis of data on the progress of students. They register grades, and based on their grades students receive scholarships or a stipend from the government. Only those who achieve overall “excellent” marks receive full scholarships. ●

●

●

●

11.4  QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESSES There are no specific guidelines or manuals on QA. Quality processes are described in various documents, e.g., there is a paragraph on “quality control of personnel training” in the SES on undergraduate and postgraduate degrees. “Guidelines on marking system in assessing and monitoring student performance” are often used in QA assessment of student and module/ course performance. There is a process in place for course approval, monitoring, and review. In order to approve a new course, the curriculum is presented and analyzed at the departmental level and if approved, it goes to the Academic and Methodological Council of the HE institution and internal and external reviewers. At the next stage, the approved curriculum is considered at the Scientific Council of the HE institution. If the Council approves the new course, the rector authorizes piloting of the module/ course. If the module/course proves to be successful, the curriculum of the module/course is sent to the Coordinating Board of the MHSSE for approval and further implementation in other HE institutions around the country. This process usually takes place in lead institutions specializing in particular subjects as appointed by the Ministry.

182

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Courses were reviewed every five years at undergraduate level and every three years at postgraduate level in line with the SES before 2015. However, since the introduction of the new SES in 2015 the system has become more flexible and programs and courses are reviewed when necessary or when changes are introduced in the curriculum. The MHSSE can initiate the review when there is a new directive from the government. For example, the Pre-Service Teacher Training (PRESETT) courses were reviewed in 2013 and again in 2016. All courses are also subject to compulsory enhancement, and academics can initiate changes in courses or modules. The quality of course delivery is assessed by regular teaching observations by the head of department, experts, and lecturers. The MHSSE and the STC conduct external monitoring of QA through regular inspections of institutions. Students’ feedback is usually collected and analyzed at the end of the course. The results of student course/module evaluation allow course/ module team to introduce necessary adjustments in the structure of the entire course or several modules. By the end of each semester, HE institutions conduct a survey of students on module delivery and lecturers involved in the teaching process. Feedback of students is taken into consideration when changes are proposed in the curriculum and/or in the appraisal of academics. All deans are tasked with constant monitoring of students’ feedback, their progress, and achievements. If courses or modules perform poorly, they are either modified in line with the results of a survey, the requirements of employers, or if modules or courses continue to perform poorly, HEIs may decide to close them. All HE institutions established clear procedures for academic appeals and complaints. For example, some institutions have set up telephone “hot lines” or some other ways of writing to university authorities via their websites or other electronic means of communication. Some other institutions make other arrangements, e.g., provide boxes for complaints and suggestions from students. University authorities have open hours when they receive visitors, families, students or parents. Internal departments of inspection and monitoring keep all complaints under control, ensuring that all of them are answered on time. There are systems in place approved by the MHSSE that ensure planning for QA at the level of HE institutions. They are usually based on the monitoring of assessment: the results of the final examinations and state certification of disciplines. State or public monitoring of QA is carried out

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

183

by HE institutions and the STC. The following measures are undertaken at the level of HE institutions: Incorporating QA in the Strategic Plans of HE institutions Organizing regular reviews of curriculum Providing professional development for lecturers Introducing new teaching technologies and processes Organizing meeting with students Conducting surveys of students Involving HE leaders and managers in the teaching process All HE institutions go through a regular process of assessment or “attestation” with the objective of determining whether the content, level, and quality of training is in line with the SES. The attestation report is presented to the Cabinet of Ministers, which grants the status of accreditation to those HE establishments that meet the required standards. State accreditation is the recognition of the HE institution’s compliance with the criteria and requirements specified in the SES. It grants the institution the right to award degrees for the approved national format. ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

11.5  INTERNATIONALIZATION OF THE HIGHER EDUCATION AND IMPACT ON QUALITY ASSURANCE: CURRENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS Uzbekistan participates in a broad range of international projects with numerous countries and international organizations, like the European Commission, the World Bank, UNESCO, UNICEF, and many others. European Union–funded education programs make a significant impact on the current shape of the HE in Uzbekistan. The HE of the country has engaged in a considerable number of projects exceeding the number of projects in the neighboring countries. The government of Uzbekistan and the MHSSE offer substantial support to international projects in the HE in line with the third phase (since 2005) of the National Program for Personnel Training (NPPT) aimed at improvement and further development through increased international cooperation as the key mechanism for achieving objectives in the reform of the HE. Tempus (Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies) and now Erasmus+ projects funded by the European Commission have been central and offered a new perspective for various institutions in Uzbekistan in a few fields. These projects also have had an impact on the future development of the QA system at the institutional and national

184

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

levels. Since the start of the program in 1994, the European Commission has allocated 22.16 million euros for financing 79 Tempus projects in Uzbekistan (TEMPUS, 2010). Among the most recent projects held in the country that dealt with the systemic issues of QA was the Enhancement of Quality Assurance System through Professional Development of Academic Leaders (QAPD) project (2011–14), which aimed to select the most appropriate actions and measures for the introduction of necessary changes at the national level. From the outset of the project, the Uzbek and EU participating institutions “realized that only QA processes enhancement” would not be sufficient and that there was an urgent need for “additional actions to ensure sustainability and wider impact” (Krouglov, 2012, p. 218). The main aim of the QAPD project was to initiate the creation of a new quality culture through two parallel processes: enhancement of QA systems and structures and professional development of a cadre of academic leaders in participating HEIs in Uzbekistan (Krouglov, 2014, p. 135). Project participants and many HE leaders were united in understanding the need for professional development in the field of QA as the foundation for all future developments. The QAPD project offered hands on training for academic leaders where Uzbek academics went through the whole process from curriculum proposal to piloting, assessment and approval of their new modules and courses. Pilot curriculum development projects were created in all participating Uzbek universities that enabled academics to test new approaches in QA enhancement and curriculum development. The QAPD project also addressed the issues of systemic reform and developed a Quality Manual and recommendations for setting up new Quality Centers with responsibilities for maintaining an overview of the management of the quality of academic awards conferred by a university. As part of the project, five universities in Uzbekistan have run the newly created QA Centers, which combined the work of existing departments and developed new functions, e.g., they have developed new institutional QA procedures & guidance, modernized the curriculum based on the survey of employers, approved periodic review of programs, monitored current performance of programs, assessment of students, and the professional development of teaching staff. The Tempus project analyzed the QA processes in a different perspective and proposed changes which allowed new developments in the system of QA in the country. The QAPD project has had further impact

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

185

through a spin-off project initiated by the British Council. The MHSSE, the British Council, and members of the project team have developed a new national professional development module Quality Culture Program for leaders and managers in the HE, which aims at developing a new quality culture and exploring the implementation of the project results across Uzbekistan. It was successfully piloted in 2015. The recent Presidential Decree 4732 of June 12, 2015, “On measures to improve the system of in-service training of senior academic staff in the Higher Education,” sets out new goals in introducing radical changes in the in-service training programs for academic leaders, bringing them in line with the best international practice in education management, QA in the HE, and developing new approaches in continuous professional development (CPD). The Decree requires new programs to be focused on developing skills and knowledge in the use of ICT/multimedia, QA and English for academic leaders and managers in the HE (LEXUZ, 2015). It means that the developed Quality Culture program for academic leaders has not only become the core in-service program for Rectors, their deputies, and other academic leaders, but also an essential course for them to be accredited as academic leaders of the HE institutions. The Education, Audiovisual, and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) has recently approved funding for a new project Internationalization and Modernization of Education and Processes in the Higher Education of Uzbekistan (IMEP) (2015–18). The project will address wider International HE, QA, and Enhancement agendas and build on the work being done as part of the previous Tempus and other projects in Uzbekistan as well as programs of other agencies, e.g., the British Council (EACEA, 2015). The project is to develop CPD training for teachers and run pilot CPD training in partner universities. This project will establish the preferred new approaches in CPD training and roll it out at the national level. It will ensure consistency and enhancement of standards in teaching and learning in various subject areas in the HE, analyze teaching programs and suggest ways of their modernization. The developed innovative CPD is based on the new content of courses aimed at acquiring competences in ICT, foreign languages, and continuous self-study (Begimkulov et al. 2016, p. 28). The IMEP project will also develop recommendations that will ensure consistency of QA across all subject areas through the implementation of new quality enhancement procedures. It will address another national priority of “Quality Assurance Processes and Mechanisms.” New Quality Enhancement procedures will enable the HEIs to raise the quality and

186

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

standards of teaching and learning across a wide range of courses in the HE of Uzbekistan. Apart from these two main goals, the IMEP project team will develop guidelines: Guidelines for Student Engagement and Guidelines for Employer Engagement. The first set of Guidelines will address national priorities in the HE and expand the involvement of students in teaching and learning. Students as the main beneficiary of the HE will benefit from their direct involvement in various areas, e.g., curriculum development, QA, and enhancement procedures. It will make the training fit-for-purpose and upto-date and bring in new exciting developments in the HE of the country. The work on the Guidelines for Employer engagement will contribute to modernizing HE schemes in Uzbekistan, integrating entrepreneurial spirit and practice into teaching and learning. With the goal of improving conditions for quality growth and jobs, the project will stimulate the university-enterprise cooperation culture by promoting good practices for setting internal interfaces in universities, creation of capacities of human resources, promoting coherent information and communication strategies between universities and local and national businesses. Several international organizations have been active in developing various projects in the HE of Uzbekistan, such as the Asian Development Bank, British Council, Japan International Cooperation Agency, UNESCO, and many others (EACEA, 2013). They have contributed to further internationalization of the HE and have offered academic and technical assistance in developing new methodologies and approaches in the HE as well as supplying new equipment to HEIs. Uzbek universities need to analyze the knowledge and practical experience they received and apply their new skills in teaching and effective use of equipment. International cooperation has been central in the work of the MHSSE. The Ministry identified several specific key objectives in international cooperation that contribute to QA enhancement in the HE: professional development of academics, mobility of staff and students, inviting foreign academics to teach in Uzbek HEIs, joint research and other projects, international conferences, and attracting foreign investments (MHSSE, 2015).

11.6 CONCLUSION Although HE institutions in Uzbekistan have limited freedoms and flexibility and face a number of challenges, there has been a growing understanding among HE leaders in the country that the system of controls in

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

187

the field of QA has not been always effective and requires more resources to run it in order to ensure uniformity and agreement with the SES and other decrees and national regulations. The MHSSE, the STC and many universities explore new approaches so that they could establish more effective and efficient ways of ensuring quality across a wide range of institutions in the country. Together with the EU and other international organizations, many HEIs pilot new projects that enable all stakeholders in the HE of the country to see what may work more effectively in their particular circumstances and environment. The QAPD Tempus project made several proposals in the field of QA and set up Quality Assurance Centers in five universities across the country that offer examples of creative approach to managing QA at the university level. Their experience will enable the HE leaders to assess the outcomes of the project and take on board approaches that could be recommended to all universities. However, this proposal and many others aimed at QA enhancement in the HE may only work fully when/if the government makes a decision about setting up an independent agency dealing with QA at the national level. This is a very challenging process and all parties need time for training of staff and solid planning and preparation in order to achieve this goal and not to destroy what works well in the present-day system. Our analysis shows that internationalization of the HE in Uzbekistan has already brought numerous positive results that have had a direct impact on the QA in the HE. For example, many universities have been exposed to various QA systems around the world, established better links with universities and academics overseas, and received new equipment. However, there is still so much to do in order to move from a control-oriented QA system to a new Quality Assurance Culture that envisages ongoing QA enhancement at all stages of teaching and learning process. The importance of creating a community of teaching and learning and engaging all students, employers, professional and international organizations is critical in achieving positive outcomes. In this respect, the HE in Uzbekistan faces challenges as any HE elsewhere in the world.

REFERENCES Abdujalilov, J. (2016). Improvement of teaching method the lecture based on KAIST experience: Proceedings of the international scientific conference improvement of the processes of retraining and professional development of managing and pedagogical staff from higher educational institutions and advanced foreign experience. Tashkent: Sano-standart nashriyot.

188

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Begimkulov, U., Matnazarova, M., & Adashboyev, S. (2016). Innovative basis of modernization of the system retraining and professional development of pedagogical staff of higher educational institutions: In Proceedings of the international scientific conference improvement of the processes of retraining and professional development of managing and pedagogical staff from higher educational institutions and advanced foreign experience. Tashkent: Sano-standart nashriyot. Clark, N. (2015). Bologna-inspired education reform in central Asia. [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.10.16. EACEA. (2013). Higher education in Uzbekistan. [Online] Available from . Accessed 6.08.15. EACEA. (2015). Erasmus + Program-Capacity building in higher education. Call EAC/ A04/2014. Selection Year 2015. [Online] Available from . Accessed 18.08.15. Gibradze, L. (2004). Academic publishing in Georgia. Slavic and East European Information Resources, 5(1), 47–58. Government Portal of the Republic of Uzbekistan. (2015). Population. [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.07.15. Hojimatova, D. (2004). Transformation of Education in Uzbekistan. Child Research Net [Online]. Available from Accessed 29.07.15. Johansson, E. (2006). Reforming the educational systems of the former Soviet Union. Handout. [Online] Available from . Accessed 6.08.15. Knight, J. (2007). Cross-border Higher Education: Issues and implications for quality assurance and accreditation. In Report: Higher education in the world 2007: Accreditation for quality assurance:What is at stake? [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.10.16. Krouglov, A. (1997). Ukrainian–reconstituting a language. In M. Clyne (Ed.), Undoing and redoing corpus planning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Krouglov, A. (2012). Enhancement of quality assurance systems in the 21st century: Tempus IV in Uzbekistan. Tashkent: Tempus. Krouglov, A. (2014). The changing landscape of partnership relations: Creating new global partnerships with universities and organisations in Uzbekistan. In M. Forstner (Ed.), CIUTI-Forum 2013. Facing the world’s new challenges. Bern: Peter Lang. LEXUZ. (2015). Указ Президента Республики Узбекистан от 12 июня 2015 года № УП–4732. О мерах по дальнейшему совершенствованию системы переподготовки и повышения квалификации руководящих и педагогических кадров высших образовательных учреждений [The Decree of the President of Uzbekistan of 12th June, 2015 № УП–4732. On measures to improve the system of in-service training of senior managers and academic staff in the Higher Education Institutions] [Online] Available from . Accessed 18.08.15. MHSSE (Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialised Education of the Republic of Uzbeskistan). (2015). Higher educational institutions. [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.07.15. Moed, H. (2007). Bibliometric indicators for Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,Tajikistan,Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Phoenix Newsletter. [Online] 10th December. pp. 3–4. Available from . Accessed 20.08.15. Sondergaard, L., et al. (2012). Skills, not just diplomas: Managing education for results in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Directions in Development Report. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Transforming Higher Education in Uzbekistan

189

TEMPUS. (National Tempus Office in Uzbekistan). (2010). About the program in Uzbekistan. [Online] Available from . Accessed 16.08.15. UNESCO. (2003). The development and state of the art of adult learning and education (ALE). National report of the Republic of Uzbekistan. [Online] Available from . Accessed 25.08.15. USMANOV, B. (2016). Preparation of competitive human resources–The priority of state policy: Proceedings of the international scientific conference improvement of the processes of retraining and professional development of managing and pedagogical staff from higher educational institutions and advanced foreign experience. Tashkent: Sano-standart nashriyot. Uzbekistan. (2015). Encyclopædia Britannica. [Online] Available from . Accessed 28.07.15. Wei, C., & Kolko, B. (2005). Resistance to globalization: Language and internet diffusion patterns in Uzbekistan. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia, 11(2), 205–220. Weidman, J., & Yoder, B. (2010). Policy and practice in education reform in Mongolia and Uzbekistan during the first two decades of the Post-Soviet Era. Excellence in Higher Education, 1, 57–68. [Online] Available from . Accessed 19.11.15. World Bank. (2014). Uzbekistan. Modernising tertiary education. [Online] Available from . Accessed 6.08.15.

FURTHER READING TREND. (2013). Admissions quota for Uzbek universities left at last year’s level. [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.07.15. WPR (World Population Review). (2015). Uzbekistan population 2015. [Online] Available from . Accessed 29.07.15.

CHAPTER 12

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education: A Top-Down Approach and Compliance-Driven QA Quyen T.N. Do1, Huong T. Pham2 and Kim D. Nguyen3 1

Hanoi University of Business and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam University of Finance and Marketing, Ho Chi Minh,Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City University of Education, Ho Chi Minh,Vietnam

2 3

12.1  INTRODUCTION: HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM BACKGROUND Vietnam has a population of nearly 90 millions (as of 2013) (General Statistics Office of Vietnam [GSO], 2014), of which about 27% aged between 15 and 29 (ASEAN, 2011). Its higher education is unsurprisingly a massive system. As of 2013, there are 207 universities and 214 colleges with the total number of students exceeding 2.1 million (MoET, 2013). Apart from these providers, there are also 76 research institutions providing Ph.D. training (Hoang-Do & Quyen-Do, 2014). The teaching staff of all universities and colleges is over 87,000. The number of students in the population ranges between 242 and 245 students per 10,000 persons in the recent years. In the recent Plan for Developing Universities and Colleges Network to 2020 passed by the Vietnamese Government in 2013, by 2020 the total number of students will reach 2.2 million. There will be 460 higher education institutions (HEI), including 224 universities and 236 colleges. The number of students in the population will reach 256 students per 10,000 persons (Thủ tưóng Chính phủ [Prime Minister], 2013). Every year there are 2.6–3.0 million graduates from upper-secondary schools nationwide. About two million of these graduates sit the national university entrance examinations; however, only less than a third are admitted to universities and colleges. The amended 2006–20 plan sets the annual new enrollment quota of 560,000 students. The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100553-8.00005-7 Copyright © 2017 Quyen T.N. Do, Huong T. Pham and Kim D. Nguyen. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

191

192

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

12.2  TYPES OF HIGHER EDUCATION PROVIDERS Higher education providers (HEPs) in the Vietnamese higher education system consist of public and private colleges, universities and institutes, national and regional universities, and Ph.D.-granting research institutes (Quôć hội [National Assembly], 2012). Among public institutions, accounting for over 80% of all HEPs, there are two national (Vietnam National University Hanoi and Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City) and three regional (Thai Nguyen University, Hue University and Da Nang University) universities. They are federated two-levelled universities, which were amalgamated from prestigious mono-disciplinary universities and colleges. The establishment of these HEIs was to set up multidisciplinary research-intensive universities in the system. They operate under separate legislative frameworks, different from those for other public universities. Among the remaining public institutions, about 15 well-established universities in important specializations, such as medicine and medication, economics, teacher training, marine, military and national defense, agriculture, and media, are selected to be “key” universities. They are designated to be research-focused institutions and are prioritized for public investment of resources. While public institutions have played a key role in the system for a long while, the nonpublic sector started growing in 1988 with the establishment of the first private university (Thang Long people-founded University). Nonpublic universities and colleges account for 19.7% of the total number of institutions (83 of the total 421 HEIs), yet nonpublic students only represent 14.3% of the total number of students (MoET, 2013). In addition to local private institutions, there are foreign-invested and foreign-owned institutions, such as RMIT University Vietnam, University of Science and Technology (USTH, also known as Vietnam France University), British University Vietnam, and Vietnamese–German University. RMIT University, the first foreign-owned provider, has been in operation since 2001. Most of other foreign-invested institutions are several years old.

12.3  HIGHER EDUCATION REFORMS AND CHALLENGES Vietnamese higher education has undergone a reform process since the 1990s following the ‘Đổi Mới’—Economic Reform—which was initiated in 1986. The reforms have been in various areas of the local higher

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

193

education system, including the structure of the system, systemic governance, financial management, and pedagogies. Nevertheless, lots of issues remain unsolved. Among the problems, educational quality and effectiveness are the most emergent issues. Many projects of all sizes and scales at the macro and micro levels have been implemented in the recent years with a focus on restructuring the system and quality assurance (QA). The Higher Education Project (HEP) 1 and 2, led by the Ministry of Education and Training (MoET) in the 2000s, helped to build the capacity of universities leaders and staff in QA. They also assisted in setting up the accreditation system and other QA arrangements. Rapid changes in the global higher education contexts, greater higher education cooperation plus the country’s fast economic and demographical growth, have posed huge challenges to the local higher education system. The pressure comes from an ever-increasing demand for university education and an urgent call for an improvement of higher educational quality. Two important questions that need addressing include what should be done and how it should be done to its best effect in the local contexts. In this chapter, the challenges and outstanding issues related to quality issues are discussed. The chapter looks into the current status of the local QA system and arrangements to address the two above-mentioned questions of “what” and “how.”

12.4  NATIONAL QA SYSTEM-EXTERNAL QA ARRANGEMENTS 12.4.1  State Management of Quality in Higher Education The state agency that manages the quality of higher education is the Department of Higher Education (DHE), MoET. Except for the two national universities, which are under the oversight of the Prime Minister, all HEPs are under the supervision of MoET in terms of academic matters, including enrollment and admission, curriculum development and organization, assessment, and QA. MoET has deployed some measures and instruments for QA and accountability enhancement. Accreditation, the key QA instrument, is managed and organized by the General Department of Educational Testing and Accreditation (GDETA). GDETA was established in 2003 when accreditation was introduced into the system. The establishment of this agency marked the beginning of an accreditation system in the country’s higher education. It led the

194

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

development of legislative frameworks for accreditation, including regulations, standards and criteria, and procedures. It also led the pilot institutional accreditation within the scope of HEP 1 and 2. GDETA has played a major role in constructing and developing the national accreditation system. Besides MoET and its departments, many public institutions also report to their respective supervising state agencies, such as other ministries, provincial governments and instrumentalities (Hoang-Do, 2014). The line management means these institutions are also accountable to these bodies in terms of educational quality, effectiveness, and efficiency to a certain extent. It should be noted that state management and governance of higher education is highly centralized. HEIs are granted limited autonomy in decision-making in all fields from academic, personnel and financial issues to QA even though more freedom has been given to HEIs recently. Therefore, QA in Vietnamese higher education is largely compliance-driven. Additionally, it is essential that analysis and discussion of QA arrangements at both national and institutional levels be situated in this context.

12.4.2  QA Instruments A lot of instruments and methods for QA and quality improvement have been developed and employed in the world of higher education. Major QA instruments include audit, accreditation and recognition, ranking, and benchmarking. Other methods include certification, licensing, program evaluation, (national) student surveys, and public provision of verified data. Experience and practices in such systems as the United Kingdom, Australia, and those in the European Community show that these instruments and methods are often combined to bring about better effects on accountability and quality improvement. In Vietnamese higher education, accreditation is the key instrument for QA. Besides accreditation, Moet also employs licensing and public provision of data; however, the effectiveness of these tools is still questioned. Meanwhile, the local ranking system has not been operational to provide an indication of the performance of HEPs. A national qualification framework has not yet been developed. MoET has encouraged universities and colleges to conduct student surveys. Many institutions have deployed student surveys using their own questionnaires. Since the questionnaires are not based on the same indicator set or a common template, survey results do not inform higher education managers and researchers about student experience at the systemic level.

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

195

12.4.3 Accreditation Accreditation was first introduced in Vietnamese higher education at the beginning of the 21st century with several conferences and workshops between 2000 and 2002 and with the establishment of GDETA in 2003. The pilot implementation of institutional accreditation took place from 2005 to 2007. By 2009, external reviews were conducted in 40 universities. As of April 2014, 87% of the universities and colleges completed selfevaluation and submitted their self-evaluation reports to MoET. Between 2009 and 2016, none of the institutions were reviewed. Under the pressure of international and local experts and funding agencies, MoET established two independent accreditation centers based in the two national universities in 2014 and the third center in Danang in 2015. So far, the first two centers have run courses to train reviewers. Early in 2016, another accreditation center was established under the umbrella of the Vietnam Association of Universities and Colleges. Universities and colleges have started registration for accreditation with these agencies. Though external reviews have been recommenced, progress has been slow still. Accreditation is the key instrument in the national QA system and is by law compulsory for HEPs (Education Law, 2005, 2009). Nevertheless, except the effort of several HEIs which have tried to carry out internal or external peer reviews using the accreditation standards approved by the MoET, a decade after its pilot implementation, accreditation has not yet been fully operational. Various reasons may have accounted for the delay. Regardless of what the reasons are, the long delay in putting accreditation in full operation has caused adverse impacts on the longterm implementation of the instrument in the higher education system. The principle “compulsory” has not come into effect. The interest of universities and colleges in accreditation has faded away. Furthermore, many institutions completed self-evaluation some years ago and have not been externally reviewed. It is a waste of resources since self-evaluation reports are no longer relevant for external review after two or three years. More seriously, the delay may have cast doubt about accreditation and its success. 12.4.3.1  Accreditation Types and Procedures Accreditation of HEP is compulsory by law while accreditation of programs has not yet been in place. The focus of accreditation is largely on institutional accreditation. MoET encourages and supports institutions’

196

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

efforts to have their programs accredited in the ASEAN region to promote cooperation and exchange in higher education. Vietnam’s accreditation is a variation of the US model, so the accreditation procedures and evaluation methods, in essential, resembles those in the United States. The process includes registration (for accreditation), selfstudy, external review, feedback on review results, and final decision. Two main evaluation methods employed in both systems are self-evaluation and external review. Regarding principles of accreditation, Vietnamese accreditation also takes the “independent” approach that characterizes the US accreditation. However, given that the three accrediting agencies are based in three universities and report to them, questions are raised about whether accreditation can be completely independent. It is not clear if three other principles in the US accreditation model, including “peer review,” “selfregulation,” and “continuous improvement,” are implemented in Vietnam. One difference is that accreditation is obligatory in Vietnamese higher education while the US accreditation is implemented on a voluntary basis. 12.4.3.2  Accreditation Standards and Criteria The set of standards currently in use in the Vietnamese accreditation was elaborated from the original set of 10 standards and 53 criteria after the pilot was implemented between 2005–07. Currently, eight more criteria were added to the 10 standards, making up 61 criteria altogether. Public and private institutions are evaluated against the same set of standards. The set examines 10 areas of university operations: (1) missions and objectives of the university; (2) organization and management; (3) training program; (4) training activities; (5) managerial staff, lecturers, and staff; (6) learners; (7) scientific research and technology development; (8) international cooperation; (9) library, learning equipment, and other facilities; and (10) finance and financial management. Foreign and local scholars have pointed out several issues about the set of standards and criteria. Nguyen, Oliver and Priddy (2009) state that the standards focus on input and process more than outcomes, contain many quantitative criteria, have a loose connection and consistency among standards and criteria, and lack a clear philosophy of accreditation. They stress the need for improving the standards and provide some recommendations on how to improve them. Nevertheless, there have not been significant amendments to the standards and criteria since then.

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

197

12.4.3.3  Accrediting Bodies and the Role of MoET in Accreditation Circular 61/2012/TT-BGDĐT, which stipulates conditions for establishment of accrediting bodies, their functions, responsibilities and authority, was promulgated by MoET on December 28, 2012. The Circular laid the foundation for the establishment of two accrediting centers in the two national universities in 2014 and the third center in Danang University in 2015. As defined by the Circular, accrediting organizations include public and private agencies that undertake the evaluation and recognition of education providers and programs. The Circular also specifies that these agencies be independent of HEPs (MoET, 2012). MoET licenses, recognizes, and oversees accrediting agencies. Moet  also certifies reviewers that are trained and employed by accrediting agencies. Only three public accrediting agencies have been set up so far. As mentioned above, they are based in two national and one of the regional universities, and so report to the presidents of these universities. Private accrediting agencies can be established only after 2016. This structure of the accreditation system raises concern among scholars and experts over the “independence” of the accrediting agencies. The national accreditation structure also shows MoET’s intensive involvement in the accreditation process.

12.4.4  Other QA Instruments Apart from accreditation, licensure and public provision of data are also in place in Vietnamese higher education for QA purposes. MoET introduced a public provision of data in 2009 under a program called “three-disclosures.” With the promulgation of Circular 09/2009/ TT-BGDĐT, dated May 7, 2009, MoET requests HEPs to make information about their institution and operations available to the public. The data include their commitment to educational quality and actual educational quality, their conditions for educational QA, and their financial operations and situations (MoET, 2009). Since 2009, most of HEIs have responded to this request and have publicized the required data on their websites; however, the data and information are not verified by any external agencies. The accuracy and integrity of the data provided are therefore in doubt. The “three-disclosures” program has undeniably helped to enhance transparency in the system. Licensure has been employed in the system for long time to manage and control the opening of new institutions and educational programs.

198

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Decision 07/2009/QĐ-TTg, dated January 15, 2009, and Circular 08/2011/TT-BGDĐT, dated February 17, 2011, specifies requirements on the conditions for QA, for example, teacher-student ratio, minimum campus area, quantity and qualifications of full-time teaching staff, facilities and equipment, and library resources. Most of these requirements are quantitative, fixed and applicable to all types of institutions and disciplines. Failure to meet these requirements leads to time termination and a close down of a program and an institution. These requirements have been used as the minimum standards that HEPs and their programs must meet to operate. In 2012 and 2014, MoET issued its decisions on the termination of hundreds of programs due to their not meeting these minimum standards. Such use of licensure in the management of high education quality has raised a number of questions about how to employ the instrument effectively. The first question is whether it is appropriate to apply common standards to all programs regardless of the differences among disciplines. Second, many of the licensure requirements overlap accreditation criteria. Furthermore, accreditation results are managed by GDETA while licensure results are managed by the DHE. This arrangement may lead to a situation in which an accredited program or institution recognized by GDETA is terminated by DHE due to violation of one of licensure requirements. In September 2015, the government promulgated Decree 73/2015/ NĐ-CP stipulating new regulations on the stratification and ranking of HEIs and ranking standards. There are overlaps between accreditation and ranking standards and criteria. With this Decree, a domestic ranking system was introduced; however, it may not work in the same way with conventional ranking systems. The Decree is also believed to ignite a race for better ranks among local HEIs and may further the compliance culture in QA. The most recent legislative document related to QA in higher education, Circular 24/2015/TT-BGDĐT, coming into effect in November 2015, specifies eight national standards of a HEP. Apart from standards on facilities and campus, teaching staff, curriculum and program, and finance, there are requirements on institutions’ accreditation and ranking results. Apparently, the Circular was a MoET’s move to implement Decree 73 by the government. Again, there are overlaps between accreditation and ranking standards and these standards. These national standards of a HEP seem the most comprehensive and demanding. It should be noted that all of these methods are top-down QA measures mainly focusing on institutions, rather than academic programs.

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

199

12.4.5  QA Agencies At this moment, there are no QA agencies in operation in the national QA system. GDETA, MoET’s department, is in charge of accreditation and testing. QA units inside HEIs are purely internal QA (IQA) organizations, which do not go beyond their institutional tasks. Although the three centers of quality evaluation and assurance in two national and a regional universities have been working on a wider scope, they are far from national QA agencies. Meanwhile, the functions of three independent accrediting centers based in these universities are restricted to accreditation services only. There is a need for an independent professional organization as a national QA agency, which acts as a national advisory committee providing recommendations and advisory services to the government and MoET in terms of systemic quality arrangements, QA frameworks and accreditation development. It should recognize accrediting agencies and certify external reviewers. It also coordinates accrediting agencies and other lower-level QA agencies.

12.5  INSTITUTIONAL-INTERNAL QA ARRANGEMENTS IQA is part of Vietnam higher education QA system (VNHEQAS) as illustrated in Fig. 12.1, a framework developed for higher education QA in Asian-Pacific region (Asian-Pacific Quality Network [APQN], 2008).

Figure 12.1  A framework for higher education QA (APQN, 2008).

200

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

12.6  STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONS According to MoET policy, all HEIs are required to set up QA units or centers (MoET, 2007), which are believed to promote activities aiming to assure quality within individual HEIs. QA units have been established in most Vietnamese universities with varied sizes. For some, the unit is an independent center; for others, it is part of a section that has other responsibilities, mainly of testing and inspection. The size of a QA unit mainly depends on the size of an institution and the functions of the QA unit. Large universities usually have cumbersome QA units with around seven to fifteen staff members. In newly established and small universities, a QA unit often has two to three members. In most HEIs, a vice-rector in charge of academic affairs or equivalent, such as a university president, is responsible for QA. According to (Pham, 2013, p. 21), IQA units in HEIs perform several functions as follows: To foster a QA culture; To support the realization of goals and objectives; To maintain IQ management systems; To do periodic approval, monitoring and review of programs; To develop and implement the institution’s strategy for continuous quality enhancement; and To maintain QA of academic staff. These can be categorized into four major functions: supporting, coordinating, monitoring, and interpreting. As supporting units, they tend to provide “lower levels” of knowledge on institutional or program level accreditation, rather than the expertise on supporting faculties to develop IQA processes as expected. These include (1) organizing seminars, workshops, and training courses about how to conduct self-evaluation and external evaluation for accreditation for managers, faculties, and staff members; (2) providing faculties with consultancy on how to conduct program assessment against Asean University Network-Quality Assurance (AUN-QA) standards; and (3) supporting faculties and academics to develop criteria and measures to assess quality at the faculty level. As coordinating units, these centers connect different units of their institutions to fulfill MoET’s requirements on QA and accreditation. Pham (2013) claims that QA staff members take the responsibility for supporting other bodies to prepare self-evaluation reports at the institutional and program levels. In 2015, out of 421 Vietnamese HEIs, 393 HEIs ●

●

●

●

●

●

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

201

(197 universities and 196 colleges) have completed self-evaluation reports (MoET, 2015). As monitoring units, they regularly conduct student surveys on teaching performance and academic programs. Monitoring is a major role of most centers. Self-evaluation reports and student surveys are, therefore, among the main functions of QA units. They prioritize the accomplishment of the reports over the development of IQA activities, either due to financial constraints, the lack of QA expertise, or the confusion between the nature of IQA and accreditation. In this sense, IQA activities, including collecting evidence for self-evaluation reports and supporting the university to conduct self-evaluation, are for the purpose of accreditation. Apart from this, QA units are also responsible for preparing for the site visits of external review panels to their institution. They are “internal” units that are established to respond to external QA requirements. As interpreting units, QA units in some universities, such as the two national universities, interpret MoET’s accreditation standards and develop criteria for internal audit. They also interpret international and regional standards including AUN-QA and Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) standards for evaluating academic programs. Some programs at these universities have been accredited by the AUN-QA and ABET. HEIs in Vietnam are striving to adapt to the emerging accreditation trend. However, IQA is not an one-off activity for accreditation (Nguyen, 2012).

12.7  COMPLIANCE-DRIVEN INTERNAL QA Universities in Vietnam are expected to adopt a quality approach that reflects their institutional goals and culture and are designed to fulfill internal and external requirements. HEIs are autonomous in developing an IQA system that best fits their contexts, and they commonly refer to the Plan-Do-Check-Act Deming cycle. Some HEIs are deploying an ISO quality management system to manage their documentation and filing system more effectively. Some adopt the MoET’s standards as a guide to quality management. An IQA system generally has three main functions: monitoring, evaluation, and quality improvement. The degree at which QA units execute their monitoring tasks is varied. Most local HEIs have stated their missions, goals, and long-term as well as short-term strategic plans. However, in many cases, a system that monitors how the plans are accomplished has not yet been in place.

202

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

Monitoring institutional performance, including students’ progress, pass rates, dropout rates, employers’ feedback, and alumni’s feedback, is also within the scope of work of IQA. In this aspect, the QA units’ activities may overlap with those of other units in a HEI such as the department of academic affairs. This department consists of a section called “student affairs,” which collects and stores student profiles and student-related activities. Monitoring systems inside universities have not been fully developed to monitor core activities (teaching and learning). Some HEIs still record and store information manually. HEIs in Vietnam lack an effective information collection and management system that facilitates quality assessment and improvement. At the faculty level, limited data has been reported about the QA of curriculum design, implementation and evaluation. One of the key principles in developing QA processes is believed to be the participation and commitment of various stakeholders groups (European Union Association, 2006). Therefore, an important task of QA units is to collect feedback from various stakeholder groups, particularly from the labor market and alumni. However, most universities have seemingly not paid much attention to utilizing stakeholders’ feedback as input for the development and review of academic programs. Academic programs have been designed with the involvement of a wider academic community at the faculty level, but with little involvement of employers, students, and alumni. To meet MoET’s accreditation standards, most universities have developed questionnaires for surveying the opinions and experience of teachers, students, alumni, and employers. However, the survey results are not always analyzed and followed up properly, and the findings may not be used for improvement. It is more about compliance with the government’s regulations. With regard to the deployment of the IQA system within an institution, Vietnamese universities share three things in common. First, a QA unit is in place in most HEIs; however, their functions and working procedures are not always similar. As mentioned earlier, many of them also undertake testing and evaluation of student achievement and internal inspection tasks in addition to QA tasks. Second, local HEIs tend to see the self-evaluation process as IQA. Obviously, most HEIs do not have other QA activities except for those in compliance with accreditation requirements. The self-evaluation for accreditation have led to several other QA activities within HEI such as collecting information from various stakeholders. Though such activities somehow

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

203

contribute to increasing awareness of QA, they are still far from the development of an IQA system. Again, these activities are largely compliance-driven. It is also noteworthy that for some QA units, QA tasks are overshadowed by other tasks, commonly by testing or inspection. Perhaps the confusion between QA and accreditation has contributed to this tendency. Third, the development of evaluation instruments seems to be of focal attention. Even though, HEIs have developed questionnaires for different stakeholder groups including students, alumni, and employers. However, feedback from students, alumni, academics, and employers is not used effectively to inform the revision and improvement of curricula and programs and teaching performance. This has led to the loss of interest in participating in surveys among stakeholders. To recapitulate, the development of an IQA system is still in its infancy in most HEIs. Much needs doing to build a quality culture in Vietnamese HEIs.

12.8  INFLUENTIAL FACTORS Several factors are believed to influence IQA implementation in Vietnamese HEIs. These include: 1. Leaders’ commitment to quality and the implementation of QA while balancing centralized and decentralized approaches; 2. Knowledge and expertise of QA; 3. An effective accreditation process with well-defined standards and a comprehensive statement as to the main purpose of accreditation and the possible consequences; 4. Clear perspectives about QA (Nguyen, 2012). In summary, QA units have been set up in most universities and colleges in many cases to simply accomplish the QA obligations of MoET and accreditation-related tasks. They, in general, lack quality management and improvement measures.

12.9  INTERNATIONALIZATION IN QA There have been national and institutional efforts to integrate into global QA movements. GDETA has become a member of the Asian-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), and the ASEAN QA Network. The membership criteria of these networks and Chiba Principles

204

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

for QA in higher education in the Asia-Pacific have had positive effects on the development of VNHEQAS. The QA frameworks proposed by these international and regional organizations have been key sources of references for the development of the local QA system. And the participation of local institutions and QA practitioners in these associations has helped them to keep up with recent international QA trends and to enhance their QA capacity. Vietnam has also engaged actively in the development of QA in the ASEAN higher education. Besides MoET standards and criteria, the government encourages HEIs and programs to apply for accreditation or assessment by international accreditation agencies, including AUN-QA and ABET. Nineteen programs from Vietnam National University-Hanoi (VNU-HN) and Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City (VNUHCMC) were assessed by AUN-QA during the period 2007–13. In early 2015, the University of Science of VNU-Hanoi registered for AUN-QA institutional accreditation, which is the first case of institutional accreditation in the region. The University of Technology of VNU-HCMC and FPT University have applied for ABET accreditation of their programs. The University of Technology of VNU-HCMC and Hoa Sen University are also pursuing ACBSP accreditation (Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs). One program of the former has been accredited by ACBSP, and one program of the latter is under decision (Hoa Sen Univeristy, 2015). According to the Decree 73/2012/ND-CP, dated September 29, 2012, by the government on regulations for the foreign collaboration and investment in education, all foreign-funded education institutions and joint training programs must be accredited by Vietnamese or foreign accrediting agencies that are approved by the Vietnamese government. The regulation is considered important given the diversity of HEPs and helps to avoid diploma mills. The recognition of programs and degrees also assists in promoting student mobility. Recently, a Conceiving–Designing–Implementing–Operating (CDIO) approach to curricular planning and outcome-based assessment has been promoted among Vietnamese universities as an approach to quality improvement in higher education. This competency based approach is believed to address quality issues in relation to curriculum and syllabus development (VNU-HCMC, 2010). Yet, underlying the pursuit of international accreditation in the Vietnamese higher education are matters beyond quality. International

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

205

recognition of a Vietnam education and student mobility in the ASEAN region are among the motives for the trend. International accreditation is an important “selling point” of a program. The international accreditation status helps HEIs to attract both local and foreign students.

12.10  ISSUES OF THE NATIONAL QA SYSTEM AND RECOMMENDATIONS Obviously, the national QA system in Vietnam is facing a number of challenges that need addressing. Nevertheless, any actions and measures should take into account the complexity and diversity of the local higher educational system. 1. The involvement of professional associations and associations of HEPs in accreditation and QA is low. It is advisable to encourage HEPs to engage actively in QA by joining these organizations. 2. The diversity of national QA arrangements and instruments is low. It is necessary to promote rankings and benchmarking, as well as other methods, for QA and continuous improvement. Nevertheless, it is essential that these methods target at different objects and issues from different angles and approaches to avoid overlaps. The current accreditation and licensure standards and procedures can be integrated; for example, licensure results can be used as a prerequisite for registration for accreditation. 3. There is a need for an education statistics agency, which develops educational databases and verifies the data that universities and colleges publicize on their websites. It develops indicator systems in higher education. This agency can also deploy national surveys to collect data on student experience and to monitor and predict local higher education demands, changes, and trends. 4. It is necessary to develop an accreditation code of conduct for accrediting agencies and external reviewers to assure integrity in accreditation practice. 5. Program accreditation should be promoted. The focus of QA arrangements should be shifted onto programs, instead of institutions. 6. The set of accreditation standards and criteria should be improved so that the focus of evaluation is on outcomes that show improvement and progress leading to the achievement of its objectives and goals and the realization of its missions.

206

The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education

7. The risk-based approach to accreditation should be considered so that high-quality low-risk institutions can be less closely monitored, reducing the burden on both institutions and accrediting agencies. Self-accrediting status can be considered for national and regional universities. 8. The benefits and cost-effectiveness of self-evaluation in accreditation process should be examined to see if this method is necessary. 9. Limited commitment of leadership to quality and the implementation of QA process in many HEIs may result in a tendency of compliance-driven QA without a genuine motivation for quality improvement. Hence, commitment, support, and determination of institutional leaders are required for the development and implementation of IQA. 10. Policy makers and QA practitioners seem more active in QA than academics, students and other relevant stakeholders. Consensus between stakeholders and their wider participation are vital to develop a quality culture within HEIs. 11. Cooperation with local and international QA agencies should be promoted. It is necessary to draw on local and foreign QA experts in the development of the national and institutional QA systems. 12. Appropriate appraisal mechanisms and policies for QA staff should be developed to promote capacity building and enhancement in QA (Center for Educational Testing & Quality Assessment, 2013). 13. The establishment and development of an IQA system and a quality culture inside HEIs are their responsibility and a public call. Hence, the process requires flexibility, resources and efforts, especially the determination of university leaders and managers at all levels (Phan, Dao et al. 2013).

REFERENCES Asian-Pacific Quality Network [APQN]. (2008). Quality assurance principles. Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]. (2011). ASEAN statistics leaflet: Selected key indicators 2011. Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo [Ministry of Education and Training]. (2009). Thông tư Ban hành Quy chế thực hiện công khai đối với cơ sở giáo dục của hệ thống giáo dục quốc dân [Circular stipulating regulations on the disclosure of information about education providers in the national education system]. Bộ Giáo dục và Đào tạo [Ministry of Education and Training]. (2012). Thông tư Ban hành Quy định điều kiện thành lập và giải thể, nhiệm vụ, quyền hạn của tổ chứ̛c kiểm định chất lượng giáo dục [Circular stipulating establishment and close-down conditions, functions, responsibilities and authority of accrediting organizaations].

Quality Assurance in the Vietnamese Higher Education

207

Center for Educational Testing and Quality Assessment. (2013). Internal quality assurance at Vietnam National University–HoChiMinh City (VNU-HCM). AQAN seminar and roundtable meeting: building quality culture and national qualifications framework, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Chủ tịch Quốc hội. (2005). Luật Giáo dục [Education Law]. Q. h. N. Congress. Hanoi. 38/2005/QH11. Chủ tịch Quốc hội. (2009). Luật Giáo dục sửa đổi năm 2009 (Revised Education Law 2009). Hanoi, National Congress. 44/2009/QH12. Đại học Hoa Sen [Hoa Sen University]. (2015). “Kiểm định ACBSP.“ Retrieved 15 July, 2015 from . Đại học Quốc gia Tp. Hồ Chí Minh [Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City]. (2010). “Triển khai thí điểm mô hình CDIO tại ĐHQG-TPHCM [Pilot project to implement CDIO approach in VNU-HCMC.” Retrieved 10 July, 2015 from , ap/A-1_Trien khai thi diem mo hinh CDIO tai DHQG-HCM.pdf. European Union Association. (2006). Quality culture in European universities: A bottom-up approach, report on the three rounds of the quality culture project 2002–2006. Brussels. General Statistics Office of Vietnam [GSO]. (2014). Statistics on Demography and Labour 2013. Hoang-Do, M. (2014). Towards more flexible organization. In L. Tran, S. Marginson, & H. Do (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Hoang-Do, M., & Quyen-Do, T. N. (2014). Higher and tertiary education in Vietnam. In L. Tran, S. Marginson, & H. Do (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Flexibility, mobility and practicality in the global knowledge economy (pp. 260). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Ministry of Education and Training [MoET], (2007). Quyê ́t định Ban hành Quy định vê ́ tiêu chuẩn đánh giá châ t́ lượng giáo dục trường đại học [Decision to issue regulations on standards to accredit higher education quality]. Hanoi: MoET. Ministry of Education and Training [MoET]. (2013). Số liệu thống kê GD&ĐT năm 2013 [Statistics on Education and Training in 2013]. Ministry of Education and Training [MoET], (2015). Danh sách các trường đại học, cao đẳng, trung câ ṕ chuyên nghiệp đã hoàn thành báo cáo tự đánh giá [List of universities, colleges, and vocational schools have completed self-study reports]. Hanoi: MoET. Nguyen, D. K., Oliver, D. E., & Priddy, L. E. (2009). Criteria for accreditation in Vietnam’s higher education: Focus on input or outcome? Quality in higher education, 15(2), 123–134. Nguyen, T. (2012). Internal quality assurance in Vietnam higher education: the influence by international projects, University of Twente. Pham, X.T. (2013). Higher education quality assurance in Vietnam. 2013 AQAN seminar and roundtable meeting. Phan, H. H., Dao, P. L., & Chau, T. T. (2013). Buidling an internal quality assurance system and shaping quality culture in higher education institutions: from the reality in Cantho University. AQAN seminar and roundtable meeting: building quality culture and national qualifications framework, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Quốc hội [National Assembly]. (2012). Luật Giáo dục Đại học [Higher Education Law]. Hanoi, Vietnam. Thủ tường Chính phủ [Prime Minister]. (2013). Quyết định điếu chı̉nh Quy hoạch mạng lưới các trường đại học, cao đẳng giai đoạn 2006–2020 [Decision on the amendment of the planning of universities and colleges network 2006–2020].

INDEX Note: Page numbers followed by “f” and “t” refer to figures and tables, respectively.

A Academic Council, 64 Academic enhancement, in Malaysia, 136–139 Academic Performance Indicator (API), 53–54 Accountability, 51 Accreditation, 51–52, 56–57, 67, 96–97, 147–148, 195–197 agencies, independent, 73–74 bodies of, 197 criteria for, 196 institutional, 75, 111–112 international, 102–103 Ministry of Education and Training, role of, 197 NAAC, role of, 57–59, 58t outcomes, 76 procedures of, 113–116, 114f, 115f, 195–196 program, 75, 117–118, 119t recent failure attempt to enhancing strength of, 60–61 standards of, 196 system, 75–76 types of, 195–196 Accreditation and Assessment Council, 54 Accreditation Board for Technology and Engineering, Inc. (ABET), 48, 77–78, 82, 156, 201, 204 Accreditation Committee of Cambodia (ACC), 1, 3, 7–9, 12–13, 24–25 management and staff, 10–11 Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs (ACBSP), 155–157, 204 Accrediting Board for Engineering Education of Korea (ABEEK), 117–118 Aggressiveness, 42 Aid donor agencies, 4

Alliance of Business Education and Scholarships for Tomorrow (ABEST21), 77–78, 82 All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), 54, 62 All India Survey of Higher Education, 53 Amicable Assessment Model, 163–164, 169–170 Annual Business Plan exercises, 37–38 Annual Quality Assurance Report (AQAR), 37–38, 64 ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN), 77–78, 135, 169, 203–204 ASEAN University Network (AUN), 133, 135 ASEAN University Network Quality Assurance (AUN-QA), 82, 169, 200–201, 204 Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), 78 Asian Development Bank (ADB), 5–6, 90, 99–100, 146–147, 186 Asian-Pacific Quality Network (APQN), 22–23, 203–204 Asia Pacific Accreditation and Certification Commission (APACC), 156–157 Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), 78 Asia–Pacific Quality Network (APQN), 22, 27–28, 44, 64, 77–78, 100–101, 122, 156, 169 Asia Pacific Quality Register, 157 Asia–Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, 122 Association for Medical Education in Western Pacific Region (AMEWPR), 155 Association of Business & Economic Education (USAID), 100 Association of Mongolian Medical Sciences, 155

209

210

Index

Association of Quality Assurance Agencies of the Islamic World (AQAAIW or Islamic QA), 77–78 Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), 22, 28, 133, 195–196 Credit Transfer System, 135 Quality Framework, 134–135 Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), 26–27, 77–78, 82 Attestation, 178, 180, 183 Audit of higher education’s quality assurance Hong Kong, 39–40 Quality Assurance Council, 43 Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), 78

B Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS), 52 Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi (BAN-PT), 67 Bar Council of India (BCI), 64 Better Education through Reformed Management and Universal Teacher Upgrading (BERMUTU), 73 Board of Directors, 111 Board of Management, 64 Bologna Process, 91, 134, 178 British Council, 78, 186 British Council Thailand, 169 British University Vietnam, 192 Bureaucratic control, 54

C Cambodia. See also Cambodian higher education, stakeholder views of quality assurance in Accreditation Committee of Cambodia, 24–25 Council of the Ministers, 3, 8–9 Department of Higher Education (DoHE), 10 Education Law of 2007, 2 higher education institutions in, 1–4, 8–13

Ministry of Education,Youth, and Sport (MoEYS), 2–3, 5–12 Cambodia Independent Teacher Association (CITA), 10 Cambodian higher education, stakeholder views of quality assurance in, 1 ACC management and staff, 10–11 corruption, 9 development, 2–3 donor funded projects, lack of implementation, 6–7 fragmented governance, 8–9 importing, 3–5 Internal Quality Assurance Units, 11–12 political interference, 7–8 Cambodian Higher Education Association (CHEA), 10 CEE Network, 100–101 Central Asian Foundation of Management Development (CAMAN), 100 Centralized regulation, 54 Chiba Principles, 156, 203–204 China higher education institutions in, 16–18, 21, 23–26, 28–29 Ministry of Education (MOE, State Education Commission), 18–20, 23–24, 29–30, 35 China Academic Degrees & Graduate Education Development Center (CDGDC), 19–20, 22–23, 22t, 29–30 China University Alumni Association, 21 Chinese higher education, quality assurance in, 15 actors and ownership of, 23 consequences of, 24–26, 25t criteria for, 24, 25t emergence of assessment, 16–18 evolution and status quo of, 18–23, 22t funding sources, for assessment activities, 26 implications of, 29–32 procedures and methods of, 23–24 QAUE actual impact of, 27–29 approaches to quality assessment, 23 intended impact of, 26–27

Index

Code of Practice for Institutional Audit (COPIA), 28, 127–128 Code of Practice for Program Accreditation (COPPA), 28, 127–128, 132, 138–139 Collectivism, 42 Colleges and technical institutes (CTIs), 110 Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Education (CPSC), 156–157 Committee for Control in Education and Science, 93–94, 99 Compliance-driven internal QA, 29–30, 201–203 Compliance mentality, 96, 103–106 Conceiving–Designing–Implementing– Operating (CDIO) approach, 204 Conditionality, 164 Conditioned arising, 164 Constitution of India, 51, 53–54 Continuous professional development (CPD), 185 Corporation CARANA and Education Network EdNet (USA), 100 Corruption effect on quality of higher education, 9 Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), 70–71, 156–157 Council of International Schools (CIS), 169 Cross-Border Quality Assurance Network in Higher Education (CBQAN), 27–28, 122

D Da Nang University, 197 Decision on the Educational System Reform, 16–17 Degree mills, 82 Department Assessor (DA), 39 The Detailed Schemes of Teaching Evaluation in Higher Vocational Education Institutions in Hubei Provinces, 20 Diploma mills, 82 Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), 70, 80 Health Professional Education Quality project, 78–79 initiatives, 80–81

211

Diversity of ownership, of education institutions, 144 Donor funded projects, lack of implementation of, 6–7 DSR, 10 Duality, 51–52, 59–60

E Economic Transformation Programme (ETP), 130–131 Education, Audiovisual, and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), 185 Education Law of 2007 (Cambodia), 2 “Education 2010–2021” National Program, 147 Enhancement of Quality Assurance System Professional Development of Academic Leaders (QAPD), 184–185 EQAA, 80 Erasmus+ projects, 183–184 Eurasian Association for Education Quality Assessment (EAEQA), 100–101 Eurasian National University (ENU), 97–98 European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), 100–101, 132, 155–156 European Commission, 183–184 European Community, 194 European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System, 178 European Higher Education Area (EHEA) framework, 88, 155–156 European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance (ESG), 100–101 European Union, 134–135 European Union Association, 202 European University Association, 31–32 Evaluator Specialty Program, 113 Executive Council, 64 External Evaluation of Learning Achievements (EELA), 98 External program accreditation mechanism, 147–150 External quality assurance (EQA), 68, 77–78, 80–81 External Quality Audit, 162

212

Index

F FPT University, 204 Fragmented governance, if higher education, 8–9

G General Department of Educational Testing and Accreditation (GDETA), 29–30, 193–194, 198, 203–204 General Guidelines on Academic Standards, 179 General Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO), 191 The Global University of Islamic Finance, 133 Graduate Attributes, 62–63 Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER), 53 Guidelines for the Reform and Development of Education in China, 18–19 Guidelines to Good Practice: Monitoring, Reviewing and Continually Improving Institutional Quality (GGP: MRCIIQ), 128, 138–139

H Halajutu Report, 137 Harmonization, in higher education, 134 Health Professional Education Quality (HPEQ) project, 78–79 Higher education, in quality assurance Cambodia, 1 China, 15 growing performance of, 21 Hong Kong, 35 India, 51 Indonesia, 67 Kazakhstan, 87 Korea, 109 Malaysia, 127 Mongolia, 143 Thailand, 161 Uzbekistan, 173 Vietnam, 191 Higher Education Act of 2008 (Korea), 121 Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT), 169

Higher Education Evaluation Center (HEEC), 19–20, 22–23, 22t, 27, 29–30 Higher Education Financing and Student Welfare Law, 147 Higher education institutions (HEI) in Cambodia, 1–4, 8–13 in China, 16–18, 21, 23–26, 28–29 in India, 60 in Indonesia, 67–82 in Kazakhstan, 88–90, 93–99, 101–106 in Korea, 109–111, 113–114, 118–121, 123–124 in Malaysia, 127–131, 133–139 in Mongolia, 143–145, 151–158 private, 69–70 public, 69–70 in Thailand, 161–162, 164–166 in Uzbekistan, 174–175, 177–178, 182, 184, 186 in Vietnam, 191–192, 194, 197–204, 206 Higher Education Law, 147 Higher Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, 18–19 Higher education providers (HEPs), 193– 194, 197–198, 204 types of, 192 Higher order knowledge and/or skills (HO-KSs), 44–48 Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ), 36, 44 Hong Kong higher education, quality assurance in, 35 audit of, 39–40 criteria for, 40–41 culturally-impacted, 42 evaluation processes of, 42 expectation of continuous improvement, 41–42 external initiatives of, 38 impacts of, 40 outcomes-based approach, 26, 38–39 modification in, 44–45 outreach, 44 quality of student learning, 42 Special Administrative Region (SAR) of, 36–38, 37t

Index

student learning outcomes of, 41 3 + 3 + 4 transformation of, 38–39 Hong Kong Institution of Engineers (HKIE), 36, 44 Hue University, 192

I Importing quality assurance, in higher education, 3–5 INCEIF, 133 India. See also Indian higher education, quality assurance in Constitution of India, 51, 53–54 Department of Agricultural Research and Education (DARE), 63 higher education institutions in, 60 Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 63 Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, 54 Ministry of Human Resource Development, 53 National Assessment and Accreditation Council, 73 Parliament of India, 54 University Grants Commission, 26, 35–36, 38–39, 42–43, 48–49, 51, 53–56, 60 Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), 51–52, 63–64 Accreditation Board, 63 Indian higher education, quality assurance in, 51 accreditation, recent failure attempt to enhancing strength of, 60–61 future strategies of, 61–62 Indian Council of Agricultural Research, role of, 63–64 internal quality assurance cell/ mechanism, developing, 64 maintenance of standards in, 53–54 dual regime, simultaneous coexistence of, 55–57 problems in, 54–55 union control, 53–54 university level control, 54 National Assurance and Accreditation Council

213

evaluation of, 59–60 role of, 57–59, 58t National Board of Accreditation, role of, 62–63 overview of, 52–53 Indian Institutes of Management, 52 Indian Nursing Council (INC), 64 Indira Gandhi National Open University, 60 Indonesia. See also Indonesia higher education, quality assurance in higher education institutions in, 67–82 Law on Higher Education (2012), 75, 81–82 Ministry of Defense, 77 Ministry of Education and Culture, 70, 74, 79 Ministry of Health, 77 Ministry of Law and Human Rights, 79 Ministry of Religious Affairs, 69, 77 Ministry of Research, Technology, and Higher Education, 69, 74, 77 National Standards of Education, Regulation No. 19, 67 National System of Education, 67 Police of the Republic of Indonesia, 77 Indonesia higher education, quality assurance in, 67 challenges to endeavors, 81–82 Directorate General of Higher Education’s initiatives, 80–81 independent accreditation agencies, 73–74 establishing, 78–80 initiatives, 80 National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education accreditation outcomes, 76 accreditation system, 75–76 domestic, bilateral, regional, and international collaborations, 77–78 governance, 74–75 quality assurance system, 70–74 national higher education system, 68–70 Indonesian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in Health (IAAHEH), 78–80 Task Force, 78–79

214

Index

Indonesian Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (IABEE), 80 Indonesian Medical Council, 73 Indonesian National Qualification Framework (NQF), 68, 81–82 Information and communication technologies (ICT), 177, 180, 185 INQAAHE Guidelines for Good Practice, 78 Institutional quality assurance (IQA) agreement, 164–168 Intermediate Government Control Test (IGCT), 94, 99 Internal quality assurance (IQA), 67–68, 71–72, 81, 199, 206 compliance-driven, 29–30, 201–203 Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC), 58, 64 Internal quality assurance cell/mechanism, developing, 64 Internal Quality Assurance Units (IQAUs), 2, 11–12 International Education Quality Assurance System (IEQAS), 123–124 Internationalization and Modernization of Education and Processes in the Higher Education of Uzbekistan (IMEP), 185–186 Internationalization of quality assurance, 183–186, 203–205 International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), 22–23, 27–28, 44, 64, 77–78, 100–101, 122, 169, 203–204 Guidelines of Good Practice, 155–156 IQAA, 98 Islamic Scientific Educational and Cultural Organization (ISECO), 77–78 ISO certification, 102–103

J Japan National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation, 73 Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Accreditation (JABEE), 80

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), 80, 186 Jiangsu Agency for Education Evaluation, 20–21 Jiangsu Provincial Department of Education, 20–21 Jusoh, Datuk Seri Idris, 130–131

K Karimov, Islam, 174 Kasha, 90–91 Kazakh National University (KazNU), 97–98 Kazakhstan. See also Kazakhstan higher education, quality assurance in higher education institutions in, 88–90, 93–99, 101–106 Law on Education (1999), 92 Law on Education (2007), 96 Law on Education (2011), 96 Ministry of Education and Science (MES), 88–89, 91–95, 97–98, 102 National Accreditation Center (NAC), 93–94 National Register of Accreditation Agencies, 97 Republican Accreditation Council, 97 State Program for Education Development (SPED) for 2011– 2020, 96 State Program for Education Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2005–2010, 92 State Program on Education (2000), 92 Strategic Plan for the Development of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2001), 92, 96 Kazakhstan higher education, quality assurance in, 87 background information, 88–89 centralized approach to, early period of, 89–96 challenges to, 90–92 national quality assurance system framework, 92–95 challenges to, 89

Index

collaboration with international organizations, 99–101 institutional quality assurance arrangements for, 101–103 impact of, 103–106 practices of, 89 trends of, 89 recent developments in, 96–99 Key performance indicators (KPIs), 164–165 Khmer Rouge, 2, 5–6 Korea. See also Korean higher education, quality assurance in higher education institutions in, 109– 111, 113–114, 118–121, 123–124 Ministry of Education, 112, 117–118, 123–124 National Information Center, 122 Private School Act, 111 Korea Architectural Accrediting Board (KAAB), 117–118 Korean Accreditation Board of Nursing Education (KABONE), 117–118 Korean Council for College Education (KCCE), 27–28, 122 Korean Council for University Education (KCUE), 27–28, 111–112, 122–123 Korean higher education, quality assurance in, 109 accreditation procedures, 113–116, 114f, 115f accrediting organizations, 112–113 challenges to, 123–124 evaluation criteria and standards, 116– 117, 117t future directions of, 123–124 institutional accreditation decision, 117–118 program accreditation, 117–118, 119t institutional quality assurance arrangements, 118–120 impact of, 121 national quality assurance system, 111–112 impact of, 121 institutional accreditation, 111–112 regional and international activities of, 122 system background of, 110–111

215

Korean Institute of Medical Education and Evaluation, 117–118 Korean University Accreditation Institute (KUAI), 112–114 Kuala Lumpur Declaration, 135

L Law on Higher Education, 147–148 Lembaga Akreditasi Mandiri. Pendidikan Tinggi Kesehatan Indonesia (LAMPT-Kes), 78–79 Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), 78–79 Licensing Law, 147 Licensure, 197–198 Liu, Fengtai, 16–17 Lower order knowledge and/or skills (LO-KSs), 47–48

M MAHSA University, 133 Malaysia. See also Malaysian higher education higher education institutions in, 127– 131, 133–139 Kuala Lumpur Declaration, 135 National Accreditation Board, 28, 131 National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP), 130–131 New Economic Policy (1970), 129–130 Quality Assurance Division (QAD), 131 Transnational Higher Education, 132–133 Malaysia Education Blueprint 2015–2025 (Higher Education), 127–128 Malaysian higher education, 127 academic enhancement in, 136–139 development of, 128–131 quality assurance in, 131–133 international and regional influence on, 133–136 Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), 77–78, 131–132, 135–136, 169 Code of Practice for Institutional Audit, 28, 127–128 Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation, 28, 127–128, 132, 138–139

216

Index

Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF), 127, 131–133 Medical Council of India (MCI), 54 Memoranda of Collaboration, 136 Mongolia. See also Mongolian higher education Education Law 2002, 145–146 Education Law of 1991, 146 higher education institutions in, 143– 145, 151–158 Higher Education Reform 2012–16, 146–147 Ministry of Education and Science, 146–147 Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (MECS), 144–145, 147, 155 National Audit Authority, 147–148 National Quality Assurance, 147–148 State Education Policy, 145–146 State Inspectorate of Education, Culture and Science, 145–148 Mongolian higher education higher education institutions, 143–145 quality assurance in, 143 accreditation programs, 152 impact of, 154–155 internal quality mechanism, 152 National Higher Education Accreditation Council, role of, 151–154 national quality assurance arrangements, 147–150 new system, 147–150 participation in regional and international quality assurance agency activities, 155–157 sector of, 143–144 size of, 144–147 Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA), 147–148, 151–152, 154–157 Mongolian University of Science of Technology (MUST), 155

N National Accreditation Agency for Early Childhood Education and Nonformal Education, 67

National Accreditation Agency for Higher Education (NAAHE), 26–27, 67, 79–80, 82 accreditation outcomes, 76 accreditation system, 75–76 domestic, bilateral, regional, and international collaborations, 77–78 governance, 74–75 quality assurance system, 70–74 National Accreditation Agency for Schools and Madrasahs, 67 National Accreditation Authority Bill, 60–62 National Accreditation Council of Mongolia, 155–156 National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), 51–52, 54–56, 61–62, 64, 73 evaluation of, 59–60 role in quality assurance and accreditation, 57–59, 58t National Board of Accreditation (NBA), 51–52, 62–63 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 73 National Council for Education Accreditation, 151, 155–156 National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), 64 The National Education Planning Outline of China’s National Plan for Medium and Long-term Education Reform and Development, 18–19 National Eligibility Test (NET), 53–54, 56 National Framework for PhD Assessment, 1–3 National Higher Education Accreditation Council, 151–154 National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP), 130–131 National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE), 73, 77–78 National Program for Personal Training (NPPT), 177, 183 National Register of Accreditation Agencies, 97

Index

National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), 122 National Standards of Higher Education, 81 National Supreme Council for Education, 1 National System for Education Quality Evaluation (NCEQE), 89 National University of Medical Sciences, 155 National University of Uzbekistan, 174 Natural Sciences and Mathematics (ASIIN), 155 Netbig, 21 New Education Policy, 54 New England Association of Schools and Colleges, Inc. (NEASC), 169 NVIVO software, 5

O “One Country, Two Systems”, 36 Open University, 69–71 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 93–95, 100, 102, 106–107 Outcomes-based approach (OBA), to quality assurance, 26, 38–39, 41, 49 modification in, 44–45

P Parliament of India, 54 Peer review, 21 Peregrine Academic Services, 157 Performance and Role-related Funding Scheme (PRFS), 38 Police of the Republic of Indonesia, 77 Policy-borrowing, 4–5 “Policy on Education” Accreditation, 54 Political interference, in higher education’s quality assurance, 7–8 Politicization, 54 Postgraduate education, assessment of, 19–20 Post-socialist reform package, 90 Power distance, 42 Pre-Service Teacher Training (PRESETT), 182 Presidential Decree on Higher Education Assessment and Accreditation, 112 Private higher education, assessment of, 20 Private Higher Educational Institutions Act (PHEIA) of 1996, 129–130

217

Private School Act, 111 Privatization of higher education, 1 Professional organization development (POD) network, 167 Programme Discipline Standards and Guidelines for Good Practice, 132 Programme of Action, 54 Project of Teaching Evaluation in Higher Vocational Education Institutions, 20 Public provision of data, 197

Q Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE), 15–16, 19, 22–26, 29–32 actual impact of, 27–29 approaches to quality assessment, 23 intended impact of, 26–27 Quality assurance, higher education in Cambodia, 1 China, 15 growing performance of, 21 Hong Kong, 35 India, 51 Indonesia, 67 Kazakhstan, 87 Korea, 109 Malaysia, 127 Mongolia, 143 Thailand, 161 Uzbekistan, 173 Vietnam, 191 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), 31–32, 70–71 Quality Assurance Council (QAC), 35–36, 38–39, 41–42 Register of Auditors, 39 Audit, 43 Quality Culture Program, 184–185 Quality Framework in Hong Kong, 36 Quality gap, 16 Quality Network, 22 Quality of Education in Eurasia, 100–101 Quality revolution, 70, 81 Quasi-OBA model, 45–46 -based curriculum design, 47–48 curriculum design protocol, 45–46 design, 46–48

218

Index

R Radhakrishnan Commission, 51 Rashtriya Ucchatar Siksha Abhiyan, 57–58 Regulation on Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions, 112 Regulation on Self-Assessment of Higher Education Institutions, 112 Republican Accreditation Council, 97 RMIT University Vietnam, 192 Russian language, 173–174, 176

S Sampumje, 118–120 SEAMEO Regional Centre for Higher Education and Development (SEAMEO-RIHED), 169 Self-assessment report (SAR), 161 Self-critical approach, 105–106 Self-evaluation report, 42 Self-promotion, 105–106 Self-study, 42 Shanghai Agency for Education Evaluation, 20–21 Shanghai Education Commission, 20–21 Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute (SEEI), 169 SHARE project, 134–135 Southeast Asian Ministers for Education Organization for Higher education and Developments, 134–135 Special Administrative Region (SAR), 36–38, 37t Stakeholder’s views of quality assurance, in Cambodian higher education, 1 ACC management and staff, 10–11 corruption, 9 development, 2–3 donor funded projects, lack of implementation, 6–7 fragmented governance, 8–9 importing, 3–5 Internal Quality Assurance Units, 11–12 political interference, 7–8 State Compulsory Education Standards (SCES), 88–89 State Educational Standards (SES), 176–179, 183, 186–187

State Inspection Law, 147 State Inspectorate of Education, Culture and Science, 145–146 State, role in higher education’s quality assurance assessment, 29–30 Student affairs, 201–202 Student–faculty ratio, 109 Student learning outcomes, 41 Supreme National Council for Education, 2–3

T TACIS, 100 Teacher Education Accreditation Council, 73 Teacher–student ratios, 26–27 Teaching and Learning Quality Process Reviews (TLQPRs), 38 Teaching expenditure, 26–27 Teaching facilities, 26–27 TEMPUS (Trans-European Mobility Scheme for University Studies), 100, 183–184 Tentative Regulation of Assessment in Higher Education Institutions, 18–19 Thailand. See also Thailand higher education Commission on Higher Education (CHE), 161–162, 165–166, 168–170 Institute for University Teaching, 167 Ministry of Education (MOE), 161–162 Ministry of Education Regulatory Act, 165 Ministry of University Affairs (MUA), 162 National Economic and Social Development Plan, 165 National Education Act (NEA), 162 National Education Plan, 165 Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment (ONE SQA), 162–166, 169–170 Office of Higher Education Commission (OHEC), 165–168 Office of the National Education Commission, 162

Index

Thailand higher education national quality assurance system in, 163–165 quality assurance in, 161 impact of, 168–169 institutional quality assurance agreement, 164–168 international activities of, 169 system background of, 161–163 Thai Nguyen University, 192 Thai Qualifications Framework (TQF), 29, 161, 166–167, 169 “Three-disclosures” program, 197 3 + 3 + 4 transformation, 38–39, 41, 43 Top-down approach, 29–30 Transnational Higher Education, 132–133 Turkestan People’s University, 174

U UGC Act 1956, 52–54, 56 Uncertainty avoidance, 42 Undergraduate education, assessment of, 19 UNESCO, 70, 183, 186 Global Education Digest, 130–131 UNICEF, 183 Unified National Test (UNT), 27, 91, 95 Union control, 53–54 United Kingdom (UK) Higher Education Academy (HEA), 137–138 higher education system, 29 Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 31–32, 70–71, 132 Westminster University, 174–175 United States Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, 156 Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs, 155–157 Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 70–71 higher education system, 29 National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 73 Teacher Education Accreditation Council, 73

219

Universities, 110. See also individual universities infrastructure of, 26–27 level control, 54 Universiti Tun Abdul Razak (UNITAR), 133 University Deliberation Committee, 111 University Education Commission, 51 University Grants Commission (UGC), 26, 35–36, 38–39, 42–43, 48–49, 51, 53–56, 60 University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), 133 University of Science and Technology (USTH), 192 University of Science of VNU-Hanoi, 204 University of Technology of VNU-HCMC, 204 University of World Economy and Diplomacy, 176–177 Uzbekistan. See also Uzbekistan higher education, transforming Academic and Methodological Council of the HE institution, 181 Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 175, 178, 180, 183 Coordinating Board of the MHSSE, 181 higher education institutions in, 174–175 higher education institutions in, 174– 175, 177–178, 182, 184, 186 Language Law, 176 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 176–177 Ministry of Higher and Secondary Specialized Education of the Republic of Uzbekistan [O’zbekiston Respublikasi Oliy va O’rta Maxsus Ta’lim Vazirligi] (MHSSE), 174–179, 182–187 Ministry of Public Education, 176–177 National Program for Personal Training, 174, 177 Scientific Council of the HE institution, 181 State Center of Testing [Davlat Test Markazi], 175, 178 State Educational Standards, 176–179, 183

220

Index

Uzbekistan higher education, transforming, 173 grading system, 180–181 internationalization, 183–186 national quality assurance system, 181–183 impact of, 183–186 processes, 181–183 post-Soviet Uzbekistan, 174–177

V Vietnam. See also Vietnamese higher education Department of Higher Education (DHE), 193, 198 General Department of Educational Testing and Accreditation, 193–194, 198, 203–204 General Statistics Office of Vietnam (GSO), 191 Ministry of Education and Training (MoET), 193–202, 204 Plan for Developing Universities and Colleges Network to 2020, 191 Vietnamese–German University, 192 Vietnamese higher education background of, 191 challenges to, 192–193 higher education providers, types of, 192 quality assurance in, 191, 199f agencies of, 199 compliance-driven internal QA, 201–203

influential factors, 203 institutional-internal QA arrangements, 199 instruments of, 194 internationalization of, 203–205 issues of, 205–206 licensure, 197–198 public provision of data, 197 recommendations for, 205–206 state management of, 193–194 structure and functions of, 200–201 reforms of, 192–193 Vietnam France University. See University of Science and Technology (USTH) Vietnam National University-Hanoi (VNU-HN), 192, 204 Vietnam National University-Ho Chi Minh City (VNUHCMC), 192, 204 Vocational education, 20

W Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC), 169 Westminster University, 174–175 World Bank, 3, 5–6, 24–25, 70, 73, 78, 93–95, 99–100, 183

Z Zhou Ji, 24–26