Index – External Quality Audit

Index

A

academic audit See institutional audits
academic infrastructure, 122
academic management, 215–16
academic programmes, 104–5, 137
academic restructuring, 73
academic staff, 41–4, 46, 75, 106–7
academic standards, 125
academic support services, 76
accountability, 39, 45–7, 122, 204–5
accreditation, 105–6, 136–8
academic programmes, 104–5
cycles, 212–13
EAC (Malaysia), 112
institutional, 211–12
affirmations, 84, 86–90, 96
All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE), 137–8
appointment of senior staff, 26
Asia Pacific Quality Network, 145
assessment, moderation of, 29
Assessment of Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO), 192
assessment performance, 30
assessment policy, 185–6
Association of African Universities (AAU), 102
Association of Indian Universities (AIU), 136–7
Association of Italian University Rectors (CRUI), 171–2
audit fatigue, 58
audit manual, 188, 190
auditors, 110, 119–20, 125
audits, 270–3
academic, 40–3
approaches, 20, 25–6
data and methods, 198–9
documents, 43–5
educational outcomes and, 190–1
external quality See external quality audits
financial accounting, 36–7
impacts, 183, 189, 191–2
institutional See institutional audits
internal quality, 106
methodology, 25–7
process view on, 197–8
quality assurance, 183–93
reports, 42–3
Australia, 20, 22–4, 77, 221–40
Australian Learning and Teaching Council (ALTC), 4–5
Australian Qualifications Framework, 24
Australian Quality Training Framework (AQTF), 24–5, 27, 30–1
Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), 13, 31, 69
approach, 232
audit panel, 5–6
auditors, 25
audits, 23–7, 100, 240
establishment, 222, 226
overview, 1–3
responsibilities, 231
autonomy, 256

B

benchmarking, 29, 44, 69, 77, 271
Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM), 104–5

C

campus directors, University of the South Pacific, 78
Centre for Flexible and Distance Learning (CFDL), 74
Chile, higher education, 209–18
Chinese University of HK (CUHK), 85
code of practice for institutional audit (COPIA), 106
code of practice for programme accreditation (COPPA), 106–7
commendations, 84, 86–90, 96
Committee for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (CQAHE), 229–31
Committee on University Academic Programmes (CUAP), 36, 39, 54
Commonwealth of Australia, 24–5
Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission (CTEC), 226–7
communication, institutional audit, 157
competing commitments, 261
complementarity, 253
compliance, 248, 260
structural and cultural impacts, 261–3
‘compliance cup’, 28–9
Council on Higher Education (CHE), 22
course evaluation questionnaire (CEQ), 4
course experience questionnaire (CEQ), 23, 228
criteria for selecting institutions, 212–13
critical agenda projects (CAP), 103–4
cultural changes, 155
curriculum, 94
Hong Kong, 83

D

de minimis compliance, 260
decentralization, 214–15
defensive routines, 258
Department of Education, Employment and Training (DEET), 226
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 15–16
determinism, 253
discipline reviews, 227
dissemination of information, 112

E

education
management and control, 7
marketing, 15
measuring quality, 3–7
reforms, 7–9
websites, 16
Education White Paper 3, 151–2
educational key performance indicators (EKPIs), 30
educational outcomes, 190–1
effortless structure, 253
Engineering Accreditation Council (EAC), 105–6, 108, 112
engineering faculties, 105–6
Engineering Program Accreditation Manual, 105
engineering programmes, 105–6, 112
enhancement-led quality evaluation, 124–6
epistemology, 249, 251
European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA), 173, 217
European University Association (EUA), 174
evaluation of teaching, 94
evaluations and investigations programme (EIP), 226–7
excellence in research for Australia initiative (ERA), 234–5
external advisers, of University of the South Pacific, 75
external audit exercise, 109–10
external audit panel, 199–201
external audits See also external quality audits
functioning and effects of, 199–204
future challenges, 204
results and follow-up, 201–4
of USP, 69–70
external quality agencies (EQAs), of Indian universities, 131–45
external quality assurance, 67
agency, 196–7
development, 209–12
effects of, 138–42
external factors, 155
in South Africa, 148–52
internal contexts, 155
overview, 147–8
external quality audits, 19–20, 39–40, 42, 69–70, 73, 100–2
appointment of senior staff for, 26
assessment moderation, 29
benchmarking, 29
effectiveness of, 20–3, 26–30
five yearly, 55–6
for government policy, 102–4, 185–6
from compliance to improvement, 30
genuine self-review, 26–7
in Hong Kong, 83–5
in Norway, 195–5
in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 105–6, 113–14
impact at institutional and national level, 60–2
impact on standards, outcomes and student learning experience, 59–60
impact on systems and process, 57–8
impacts of, 20
improvements, 28
international trends in practice, 60–1
of private providers, 24–5
of USP, 73
performance assessment, 30
quality framework, 28
shortcomings, 195–205
staff and student engagement, 28–9
stakeholder feedback, 29
strengthening the governance of quality, 27
strengths, 195–205
external review, 26–7, 233–41

F

‘face’, Chinese concept, 84–5
faculty’s academic programmes, 108–10
field, institutional learning, 254
financial management, 215
financial performance, 234
Finland universities, 183–93
Finnish Higher Education Evaluation Council (FINHEEC), 186, 189–90
role, 186–9
‘fitness of purpose’, 20, 24
Framework for Institutional Audits, 156
funding
government, 4–5, 8
performance, 235–7
private, 8

G

government agencies, 39
government funds, 3–4
government measures for quality teaching, 3
government policy, 185–6
international context, 56–7
national content, 55–6
on external quality audits, 102–4
government representatives, 42, 46
governmentality, 258, 260
graduate destination survey (GDS), 4, 76, 229
Guidelines of Good Practice, 57

H

habitus, institutional learning, 254
higher education
European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA), 173
evaluation, 186
in Chile, 209–18
in Finland, 184, 190–3
in Italy, 169–79
in Norway, 195–205
objective, 133
quality assurance, 99–114
quality audit, 100–2
Higher Education Funding Act (Australia), 228
Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), 118, 123
higher education institutions (HEIs), 100–4, 117, 123–4, 188, 190–1, 210–18
future challenges for quality assurance, 111–13
India, 139–42
Malaysia, 103–7, 110–12
Norway, 199–204
practitioner’s point of view, 110–11
private, 102–3
public, 102
South Africa, 147–8
Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC)
functions, 152
impact research, 158
institutional audit, 152–3
overview, 149–51
sources of evidence, 155
Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC), 118
homo economicus, 258–9
Hong Kong, 81–96
human resource (HR), 75–6

I

Iberoamerican Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (RIACES), 218
Indian universities
context, 131–4
effect of external quality agencies, 131–45
scenario, 134–8
individual perspectives, 40–3
information management, 215
institutional accreditation, 211–12
institutional audits, 40–3, 100, 106, 148
accountability, 122
consequences, 121
criteria, 153
data interpretation, 159
effects, 121–3
five yearly, 55–6
focus and criteria, 120
impact at institutional and national level, 60–2
impact on standards, outcomes and student learning experience, 59–60
impact on systems and process, 57–8
improvements, 123, 160
international trends in practice, 60–1
outcomes and impact, 154–6
overview, 118–19
preparation and site visit, 156–60
principles and approaches, 152–3
procedures and methods, 120–1
purposes, 119
recommendation impacts, 160–3
report, 121
systems and procedures, 153–4
institutional data, 159
institutional differentiation, 178–9
Institutional Evaluation Programme (Italy), 174
institutional evaluations, 187
institutional learning, 247, 250
as paradox, 252–3
challenges in, 250, 259
compliance, 260–1
dependent factors, 253–4
framework for building, 257
limitations, 258–9
nature of, 251
process, 250
self-generating, 252
structural and cultural impacts, 261–3
institutional management and quality audit, 209–18
first stage, 213–14, 216–17
second stage, 214–17
institutional planning, 215
institutional quality enhancement plans, 124
institutional standardisation, 178–9
internal quality assurance, 67
internal quality audit, 106
internal self-review, 26–7, 41–2
International Engineering Alliance website, 105
International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE), 56–7, 145, 218
Italian Committee for the Assessment of Research (CIVR), 172–5, 178
Italian universities, 169–79
evaluation, 170–9
trade-off between differentiation and standardisation, 178–9

J

James Cook University (Australia), 9–12

K

key performance indicators (KPIs), 72, 77

L

language, institutional learning, 253–4
leadership, 113
Learning and Teaching Performance Fund (LTPF), 3–4, 235
learning and teaching policy, 73–4
learning environment, 85, 92–5
learning, environment, processes, outcomes (LEPO), 85, 92–5
learning opportunities, 125
learning outcomes, 85, 92–5
learning process, 85, 92–5
‘light touch’ mechanism, 124, 126
Linke report, 228, 234

M

Malaysia, higher education in, 99–114
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), 104–7, 111–12
Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF), 99, 104, 113
Malaysian universities, 99, 102
management
learning, 157–8
of University of the South Pacific, 72
memorandum of agreement (MOA), 69
minimaxing, 260–1
Ministry of Higher Education (MOHE) (Malaysia), 102–4, 113

N

National Agency for the Evaluation of the University and Research (ANVUR), 176–8
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), 131, 135–6, 139, 141–2, 144–5
National Board for Employment, Education and Training (NBEET), 227–31
National Board of Accreditation (NBA), 137–9
National Committee for the Evaluation of the University System (CNVSU), 172–5, 178
National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP), phases, 103–4
new public management (NPM)
policies, 38
reforms, 38–9
theory, 119
New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA), 39, 54–6
international context, 56–7
national content, 55–6
New Zealand, quality audits, 22, 35–6, 38–47
New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit (NZUAAU), 22, 36, 39–40, 42–3, 69
audits, 56–8
establishment, 54–5
future challenges, 62–3
reports, 57–8
terms of reference, 55
New Zealand Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (NZVCC), 39, 54
Nigerian University System (NUS), 101
NOKUT agency (Norway), 196–7
Non-Self Accrediting Institutions (NSAIs), 24–7, 30–1
Norway, external quality audits in, 195–205

O

Observatory for the Evaluation of the University System (OVSU), 170–2
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), 1, 38, 192
organisational
learning, 250
structure, 214
other backward classes (OBCs), 138
outcome-based education (OBE), 109–10
outcomes from institutional audit, 121, 123
outcomes-based approaches (OBAs), 82–3

P

panel of assessors (POA), 107, 111–12
peer reviews, 119–20, 125, 135–6, 250
perception, 253–4
performance
assessment, 30
funding, 235–7
indicators, 228
portfolio, 70
review, 270–1
policy
making, 260
steering, 250
post-audit process and impacts, 70–8
academic restructuring, 73
academic support services, 76
benchmarking, 77
external advisers programme, 75
governance, 71
human resource, 75–6
learning and teaching, 73–4
management, 72
regional campuses, 78
research and graduate affairs, 75
risk management, 77–8
strategic plan, 71–2
student support, 76–7
post-impacts, quality assurance, 183, 191
pre-impacts, quality assurance, 183, 191
private for-profit tertiary education, 19–31
private providers, external quality audits of, 24–5
programme accreditation, 100, 106
programme incentives, 237–8
public university, 22–4

Q

Quality and Risk Committee, 29
quality assessment, 169–72, 183, 185–6
quality assurance (QA), 20–1, 30–1, 35–6, 39, 41–2, 46–7, 138–41, 215–18, 239
audits, 183–93
Australia, 1–3
commitment to, 248–9
development, 169–70
discourses, 6–7
external, 67
future challenges of higher education, 192–3
in higher education, 99–114
improvement plans and, 228–9
influence on teaching, 12–15
internal, 67
James Cook University (Australia), 9–12
Malaysia, 99–114
management, 192
New Zealand, 56
of Nigerian University System, 101
organization, 186–9
roles, 251
schemes, 209–12
stages, 170–8
system-level, 222
university-level perspective, 43–5
of USP, 67–79
Quality Assurance Agency (United Kingdom), 118–20, 122
Quality Assurance Body, 36, 39
Quality Assurance Bureau (India), 137–8
Quality Assurance Council (QAC), Hong Kong, 81
aims, 92
findings, 92–5
focus, 83–4
report analysis, 85–92
quality assurance team (QAT), 69
quality-audit documents, 43–5
quality audit factors (QAFs), 24, 27
quality audits, 25–6, 205 See also external quality audits
accountability and, 45–7
effectiveness of
challenges in preparing for, 107–8
faculty perspectives, 106–7
impact of academic quality audit
on faculty, 108–10
impact of, 212–13
in higher education, 100–2
individual perspectives on, 40–3
institutional management and, 209–18
overview of, 36–8
university-level perspective, 43–5
quality culture, 113, 272
quality development, 200–1
quality enhancement, 125
activities, 222
quality framework, 28
quality improvement (QI), 40, 43–4, 47, 71–2, 138–40
quality indicators, 217
quality initiatives, 82–3
quality literacy, 47
quality management, 189–91, 271
framework, 69
students’ role, 191
quality monitoring, 21–2
quality processes, 58
quality, relevance and sustainability, 72
quality strategy, of USP, 68–9

R

recommendations, 84, 86–90, 96
reduction of bureaucracy, 112
regional campuses, of University of the South Pacific, 78
reporting strategies, 233–5
research and graduate affairs, 75
research assessment exercise (RAE) (England), 173
review report, 123
risk management, of University of the South Pacific, 77–8

S

self-assessment, 59–60, 70, 75, 135–6, 199–200, 217
self-assessment report, 160
self-evaluation, 123
self-regulation, 124, 126
self-review, 26–8, 70, 106, 230, 238
internal, 41–2
portfolios, 42–3
sensemaking model, 252, 254
Shanghai Jiao Tong Index, 3
South Africa, 22, 147–66
staff and student engagement, 28–9
staff development strategy, 76
staff learning, 158–9
stakeholder feedback, 29
State governments’ registration and accreditation, 24–5, 27
state grants, 228
stochastic proposition, 251–2
strategic plan, of USP, 69, 71–2, 76
strengthening the governance of quality, 27
student evaluation of teaching (STE), 12
student experience, 59–60, 76–7, 163–4, 222–31, 240
student feedback, 29
scales, 3–4, 12–13
student support, 76–7
student surveys, 76–7
student voice, 240, 270
study-field evaluations, 187
Sweden, 21–2
system-level quality strategies, 233–41
system performance, 3

T

talent development and management strategy, 76
Te Whanga Ttari, 54–5
teaching See also education
in Australia, 2
quality measures, 3
tertiary education, 25–6, 35–6, 38
Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), 15, 25, 31, 232–3, 272
transformation, 124
transnational education, 142–4
transparency, institutional audit, 157

U

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), 104–10
effectiveness of quality audits, 106–10
challenges in preparing for, 107–8
faculty perspectives, 106–7
impact of academic quality audit
on the faculty, 108–10
external quality audits, 105–6, 113–14
Universities New Zealand, 53 See also New Zealand Universities Academic Audit Unit
University Grants Commission (UGC), 134–6
University of the South Pacific (USP), 67–79
external audits, 69–70
external quality audits, 73
governance of, 71, 78
post-audit process and impacts, 70–8
quality strategy, 68–9
self-assessment, 70
vision for the year 2020, 68

V

vision for the year 2020, of USP, 68

W

Washington Accord (WA), 105