Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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 [email protected]
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 [email protected]
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
T
R
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
Standards
Guidelines needed to steer the QA process
DISCUSSIONS
Small States often struggle to develop necessary standards and guidelines
Service Delivery
Academic 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 Delivery
DISCUSSIONS
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!
