May, 2007 CINDA 1

Self-assessment and Self-assessment and Strategic PlanningStrategic Planning

CINDA

Workshop for TEIs

Ramallah, May 2007

May, 2007 CINDA 2

Terminology – so often gets in Terminology – so often gets in the waythe way

Quality Assurance Quality assurance is an all-embracing term covering all the policies,

processes, and actions through which the quality of higher education is maintained and developed. (Campbell & Rozsnyai, UNESCO publication)

Quality Assessment Quality Assessment covers both the means by which a judgement is made

about the quality and standards of an institution or a programme and the judgement itself. (Vlãscanu, Grünberg and Pârlea, UNESCO publication)

Accreditation Accreditation is a form of quality assessment where the outcome is a binary

(yes/no) decision that usually involves the granting of special status to an institution or programme. (CHEA 2001).

May, 2007 CINDA 3

QA for Accountability and QA for Accountability and EnhancementEnhancement

Accountability is concerned with the institution being able to demonstrate that it is operating at or above the basic minimum standard, while quality enhancement is concerned with the continuous process of quality improvement.

Both are important

May, 2007 CINDA 4

Internal and external quality Internal and external quality assurance in HEassurance in HE

Internal quality assurance is as old as HE itself but for many centuries mainly (or probably exclusively) based on the quality of the teaching staff. External quality assurance (which has had a considerable impact on Internal QA) a far more recent phenomenon; worldwide acceptance over the last 20 years.

May, 2007 CINDA 5

Difference between internal and Difference between internal and external quality assuranceexternal quality assurance

Internal QA may (and in many instances should) include people who are external to the institution or programme being reviewed.

The key distinguishing features Who organises the event and, more importantly, Who makes the decisions

May, 2007 CINDA 6

Global spread of quality assuranceGlobal spread of quality assurance

The increase can be best observed by examining of the membership of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).

INQAAHE, or the Network, was established in 1991. Its core membership are the regional and national quality assurance and accreditation agencies.

When it was founded INQAAHE had members from only 11 countries which represented all the countries that had at that time systems, in some cases partial systems, of external quality assurance in higher education. It now has well over 100 full members from over 60 countries but there are a number of countries not in membership and it is likely that about 70 countries either have, or will soon have, a national system of quality assurance in place.

May, 2007 CINDA 7

Factors contributing to the growth of external quality assurance (1)

The recognition in many countries of the need for greater accountability for the use of scarce national resources.

The growth in higher education that has occurred in many countries.

The increased diversity in HE provision including the establishment of binary systems, and the growth in distance learning.

In some countries there was a trade off between the reduction of direct governmental control of higher educational institutions and the introduction of external quality assurance arrangements

May, 2007 CINDA 8

Factors contributing to the growth Factors contributing to the growth of external quality assuranceof external quality assurance (2)

The increase in some countries in the number of private, including “for profit”, providers.

Regional developments, for example in Europe and South America, aimed at creating a higher education space which encourages student mobility and the mutual recognition of qualifications.

The ever increasing internationalisation of higher education including the growth in cross -border providers and the need for the mutual recognition of qualifications and higher education credits

May, 2007 CINDA 9

Question for discussionQuestion for discussion

How relevant and important are external and internal quality assurance to the Palestinian situation?

May, 2007 CINDA 10

QA in HE is “different”QA in HE is “different”

From quality assurance (quality control) in other “industries” or other sectors of education.

Key distinguishing featuresReviews undertaken by “peers”Most systems strive, or claim to strive, to avoid an inspectorial approach.

May, 2007 CINDA 11

The “traditional external QA The “traditional external QA model”model”

Is found in almost all countries that have introduced external QA:

Sets of regulations and guidelines A self evaluation prepared by the institution The appointment of a peer group whose review of the

institution or programme would start with a review of the self evaluation

Site visits by the peer group. The publication of a report or, in some cases, only the

decision. But there are significant differences in the ways that the

model is applied.

May, 2007 CINDA 12

Differences in the way that the Differences in the way that the model is appliedmodel is applied

Perhaps the most significant difference is in the freedom institutions have in completing their self studies. In some systems institutions are given considerable freedom in the way in which they can tell their story, while in other systems the self study essentially consists of a form consisting mainly of closed questions many of which are of a quantitative nature.

Another difference is the relationship between the academic reviewers and those whose programme or institution is being reviewed. At one extreme the reviewers act very much as inspectors exercising a degree of authority while at the other extreme the reviewers and the reviewed act more like equals, without entirely ignoring the fact that it is the reviewers who will report their findings.

In general the more inspectorial approach will be used by agencies who require the more structured self study reports.

In some countries the institution or programme is graded by the external QA body

May, 2007 CINDA 13

A culture to avoid – Compliance A culture to avoid – Compliance CultureCulture

The danger is that institutions (or departments) will adopt a “compliance culture” when the all the effort is put into attempting to obtain a positive accreditation decision, or a good evaluation report from the external quality assurance body, rather than actually improve the quality of what is being done.

In such a situation departments (institutions) are encouraged to hide weaknesses rather than to demonstrate that they have identified them and are taking steps to overcome them

May, 2007 CINDA 14

A culture to adopt - The A culture to adopt - The Quality CultureQuality Culture

Occurs when

Quality assurance is built into the everyday life of the institution and is seen to be a shared responsibility of all members of the academic community, staff, both academic and administrative, and students

May, 2007 CINDA 15

Responsibility for qualityResponsibility for quality

In an ideal world.

No one should be responsible for quality

Everybody should be responsible for quality

May, 2007 CINDA 16

But who should be responsible But who should be responsible for quality assurance?for quality assurance?

Possible configuration Senior academic to take oversight of the

whole process Committee of academics to propose and

review policies Quality Assurance Unit to assist in internal

and (where appropriate) external reviews.

May, 2007 CINDA 17

Internal QA – the structureInternal QA – the structure

Initial approval of programmes

Annual review of programmes (monitoring)

Regular, more fundamental, reviews of programmes

Thematic reviews

May, 2007 CINDA 18

Ways of gathering student Ways of gathering student feedbackfeedback

Questionnaires

The appointment of student representatives

Establishment of staff/student liaison committees

Discussion (focus) groups

Immediate feedback in lectures and classes

Informal means

Above are programme related, at intuitional level

Student representatives on university committees

May, 2007 CINDA 19

Internal Quality Assurance – Internal Quality Assurance – the stakeholdersthe stakeholders

The internal people Staff – both academic (also acting on behalf of the

“subject discipline) and non-academic Students

The institution, acting on behalf of the wider community

Outsiders Employers Professional and licensing bodies

May, 2007 CINDA 20

QuestionsQuestions

What are the most effective ways of involving students graduates employers

in internal quality assurance?

May, 2007 CINDA 21

How to approach a self assessment process?How to approach a self assessment process?

Present situation: Where are we now?

Strategies: How do we get from here to there?

Desired situation: Where do we want

to be?

Questions that should be asked:

Present situation

How is the institution/programme doing with regard to its purposes and goals?

Are the available resources adequate?

Is the institution/programme able to fulfil its promises to students and other stakeholders?

What are the main strengths of the institution/programme?

What are its main weaknesses?

Desired situation

What are the institution’s purposes and goals?

How do they translate into an expected state in five more years?

What does the academic community think of this vision?

How much do you know about conditions in the environment that could affect viability of the vision?

Is it possible to improve the links between stakeholder needs and the proposed vision?

Strategies

What would be necessary to go in the desired direction (are the resources sufficient? What changes should be made? What restrictions are in place?)

What are the possible alternatives for action?

What is needed to implement the different alternatives for action?

How do we choose among them?

How will the institution implement those strategies?

Information

Elements needed to provide answers:

Knowledge

Data

May, 2007 CINDA 27

Data

Data are the raw material for information.

They don’t have meaning on their own, they need a conceptual structure where they acquire meaning.

Should never be confused with information.

May, 2007 CINDA 28

Information

Information is always a message on the status of something

Data provide the language for those messages

Information in itself is not quantitative or qualitative, it is organized in either way

Data Processing Information

May, 2007 CINDA 29

Information Analysis Relevant knowledge

KnowledgeKnowledge

• Information proceeds by selecting data and processing them in terms of identified needs

• Thus, information is selected in relation to goals and objectives

• Analysis of relevant information produces knowledge

May, 2007 CINDA 30

Conceptual framework for analysis of a Conceptual framework for analysis of a college / universitycollege / university

INPUTS PROCESS OUTPUTS

Students Institutional Mission GraduatesFaculty Academic Programs Value-Added OutcomesStaff and Services Cognitive OutcomesFacilities ------------> Support Programs ------------> Indicators of QualityQuality factors Teaching and Research Advancing KnowledgeFinancial Resources Completions/Attrition - Research

- Students - Service - StaffIndicators of qualityGeneral Planning

Government/Regulatory Concerns

External Environment Fiscal/Economic Conditions

Market Considerations

Conceptual framework for Conceptual framework for analysis of a college / university*analysis of a college / university*

* Source: M.Middaugh, 2000* Source: M.Middaugh, 2000

May, 2007 CINDA 32

Some questions for discussionSome questions for discussion

• What basic information is available in your institution?

• What would you have to do to collect other information, necessary but currently unavailable?

• With the information now available, could you carry out a reasonable self assessment exercise?