Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation

D I A M O N D A W A R DFirst Place

QUT

Brisbane

A HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE MODEL FOR SMALL STATES: THE MALDIVES CASE STUDY

Co-authors:

NAME : Abdul Hannan Waheed a.waheed@student.qut.edu.au

Position : Full-time PhD student INSTITUTION : Centre for Learning Innovation (CLI), Faculty of Education,

Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

NAME: Professor Hitendra Pillay h.pillay@qut.edu.au

Position : Professor INSTITUTION : Centre for Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of

Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

Background

The main research question is “what constitutes key elements and mechanisms of an effective QA system in higher education for Small States?”

OBJECTIVES

Small States QA literature• 1.5 million or less

• A significant gap: focussing on bigger systems; not Small states

• Adopt compromised versions of models• Band-aid solution (Houston & Maniku, 2005)

To develop a holistic higher education quality assurance system for Small States, based on the Systems Theory principles

Theoretical Framework

T

T

TR

R

R

A system S=(Tl R)

(things)

(relations)

Systems Theory: a general formula of a systems theory (Klir, 1991)

System

T= elementR= relationship

Methods

Qualitative case study: Maldives from July to September 2011 Maldives: a small state, representative of Small States Generalisability to other Small Sates Explored possible linkages, similarities, challenges, issues and QA options relevant

Methods

Data collection: interviews & documents 17 interviews & 10 documents 4 stakeholder groups: Ministry of Education, the Maldives Qualifications Authority, leading higher education institutions and the industry associations Data analysis: a comparative perspective against global principles, concepts, and models in QA in higher education

Results

Key findings: Regulatory mechanisms: weak regulatory

mechanisms, absence of legislation, gov interference, independence

Management structure: conflict of interest in the regulatory board

Standards: lack of guidelines, Transparency issues Service delivery: more energy used on processes

other than QA, slow speed in implementing audit & accreditation

Regulatory Framework

Clear national policies

DISCUSSIONS

Needed for the development of the whole system

Regulatory Framework

Legislation

DISCUSSIONS

Without legislation the system suffers from slow speed of development

Regulatory Framework

One-tier system

DISCUSSIONS

More suited for Small States

Regulatory Framework

Independence

DISCUSSIONS

Critical for a strong national QA body

StandardsGuidelines needed to steer the QA process

DISCUSSIONS

Small States often struggle to develop necessary standards and guidelines

Service DeliveryAcademic audit

DISCUSSIONS

Four stages: (1) a self-study (2) the appointment of a peer

group or external experts (3) site visits by the external

experts and (4) a public report or the

publication of the decision or recommendation of the agency (Lewis, 2009)

Service Delivery

Accreditation

DISCUSSIONS

Evaluates a higher education institution as a whole or a specific academic program against a pre-determined minimum criteria or standards (Vlăsceanu, et al., 2007)

Service Delivery

Collaboration

DISCUSSIONS

Help speedy development Create ownership among stakeholders

Service DeliveryDISCUSSIONS

Transparency

Conclusions A holistic quality assurance model for

higher education could include the following main elements: Regulatory Framework Standards Service delivery

ConclusionsA tentative QA model for higher education

HE QA System

StandardsLegislative Framework

Service Delivery

policies

legislation

one-tier system

academic audit

accreditation

Minimum requirements guidelines

Qualifications frameworks

independence

Recommendations Develop HE QA systems for specific context of Small States Legislative framework that stipulates clear functions, roles and responsibilities

Impact / outcomes of the study

Significant

A model for Small States

Useful reference for policy makers,

practitioners & professionals

Systems approach for HE

QA

Impact / outcomes of the study

Bibliographical entriesCommonwealth Consultative Group (1997). A future for small states: Overcoming vulnarability. London: Commonwealth Secratariat.Houston, D., & Maniku, A. A. (2005). Systems perspectives on external quality assurance: Implications for micro states [Article]. Quality in Higher Education, 11(3), 213-226. from the database.Klir, G. (1991). Facts of systems science. New York: Plenum.Lewis, R. (2009). Quality assurance in higher education – its global future Higher Education to 2030 (Vol. 2, pp. 323-352): OECD.Vlăsceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES

THANK YOU!