Qualification Frameworks and Field-specific Approaches to Quality Assurance

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-57
Author(s):  
Giuliano Augusti ◽  
Sebastião Feyo de Azevedo
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
Degree Structure

“General” and “field-specific” Quality Assurance procedures, although sharing many “technical” instruments (self evaluation reports, peer reviews, benchmarks vs. reference points, etc.), have different directions. The motivations behind “field-specific” initiatives are critically presented in this paper. They are strictly correlated with Qualification Frameworks that, while preserving the autonomy of higher education institutions in defining their teaching offers, define common and transparent employability objectives for the benefit of students, graduates and all other stakeholders. However, “while learning outcomes have been generically defined for the degree structure”, it is now necessary “to further develop descriptors for subject specific knowledge, skills and competences. ... leaving still plenty of freedom for programme diversity.” (Bologna Process, 2009a). Qualification Frameworks and field-specific Quality Assurance lead naturally to “pre-professional accreditation” that can be given an international value by “European Quality Labels”.

scholarly journals Columbus’ Egg? Qualifications Frameworks, Sectoral Profiles and Degree Programme Profiles in Higher Education

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Wagenaar
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
International Mobility ◽  
Programme Design ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
Modernization Process ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Bologna Process

During the last 25 years international mobility has become paramount in higher education. International and national authorities and higher education institutions have set-up effective structures to facilitate and implement this process. It has become part of a higher education modernization process which obtained a serious push with the start and development of the Bologna Process in Europe as of 1999. However the same authorities have been far less active in finding answers on how to facilitate this process in terms of curriculum development, quality assurance and recognition. The initiative was largely left to individuals supported by their employing organizations. These have proven to be visionaries. Their efforts have led to competence and learning outcomes based descriptors for meta-qualifications frameworks and to important reference points / meta profiles for subject areas. Academics have been strongly involved in developing the latter and by doing so have offered a more sustainable basis for implementing reforms based on the student-centred approach, which is so relevant for today’s world in terms of employability and citizenship. The most recent development has been the development of Tuning sectoral qualifications frameworks which allow for bridging the two European meta-frameworks, the EQF for Lifelong Learning and the QF for the European Higher Education Area, with sectoral and degree profiles. This can be seen as a breakthrough initiative because it offers us a transparent model which is developed and owned by academics and can easily be used by all involved in programme design and development, quality enhancement and assurance and recognition of (periods of) studies.

Standardization and modernization of Kazakhstan Higher education

2021 ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
Yu.N. Pak ◽  
◽  
Zh.S. Nuguzhinov ◽  
D.Yu. Pak
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Educational Programs ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Educational Standards ◽  
The Republic ◽  
State Educational

Worked out is the analyzes of development of the Kazakhstan system of standardization of higher education on the example of several generations of state educational standards. Their features are examined in structural terms, as well as in terms of the requirements for the compulsory minimum of the educational content, the level of preparedness of graduates and learning outcomes. The dynamics of transformations in the context of expansion of universities academic freedoms, the ratio of compulsory and university components of educational programs is shown. The role of educational and methodological associations of universities of the Republic of Kazakhstan in the development of the regulatory and legal support of the educational process is emphasized. The relevance of introducing the competence-based approach in higher education on the basis of combining educational and professional standards is noted. It is shown that inconsistent and hasty reforms, uncompetitive level of teachers’ remuneration, expanding bureaucratization, underdeveloped quality assurance culture do not contribute to the successful modernization of higher education.

scholarly journals Quality assurance agencies: Creating a conducive environment for academic integrity

2019 ◽  
Vol 115 (11/12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Garwe
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Academic Integrity ◽  
Ecosystem Approach ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Academic Quality ◽  
Quality Assurance Agency ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Study Methodology ◽  
Conducive Environment

Academic integrity is a key measure of the quality, efficiency and competitiveness of higher education systems. This article explores how a quality assurance agency can foster a conducive environment for academic quality and integrity. A self-study methodology was used, with a focus on the insights and experiences of the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education over a 10-year period. The findings show that by assuming an innovative and transformational leadership role in instilling a culture of self-evaluation, as well as maintaining its own integrity, an external quality assurance agency can improve academic integrity. The article adds value to the existing knowledge by advancing the higher education ecosystem approach as an integrity-based panacea and conducive way to induce integrity to flow from all players as opposed to the use of heavy-handed regulatory approaches.

scholarly journals Improving the Vietnamese Accreditation in Light of the SACSCOC’s Institutional Effectiveness Standards

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pham Thi Tuyet Nhung
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Strategic Planning ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Outcomes Assessment ◽  
Institutional Effectiveness ◽  
Conference Proceeding ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Vietnamese Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance Standards

The purpose of this study was to explore Vietnamese educators’ perspectives regarding the feasibility of implementing a U.S. Regional Accreditation standard (“Institutional Effectiveness”) in the current Vietnamese higher education accreditation standards. An Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Process (Strategic Planning-Planning and Assessment- Operational Planning) and Assessment Cycle (Program Learning Outcomes-Curriculum Map-Assessment Methods-Data Collection-Actions for Improvement) served as the conceptual framework for this study. The qualitative research design involved interviews with seven Vietnamese educators who work in centers for accreditation and offices of quality assurance in Vietnamese universities. Findings indicated that all participants supported the implementation of an IE standard and Assessment Cycle in Vietnamese higher education accreditation. Findings also stated that currently the IE Process and Assessment Cycle are not fully implemented in Vietnam higher education accreditation. The Vietnamese higher education institutions (HEIs) did not have a supportive culture of strategic planning due to centralized management by the Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). Moreover, most universities were only familiar with the first two steps in the Assessment Cycle. Based on the research findings, recommendations for the implementation of IE process and Assessment Cycle are made for MOET, Centers for Accreditation and Vietnamese HEIs. Keywords Vietnamese Higher Education Accreditation, Institutional Effectiveness, U.S. Regional Accreditation, outcome assessment, accountability and transparency References [1] Hayden M & Lam Q T (2010). Vietnam’s higher Education System. Reforming higher education in Vietnam: Challenges and Priorities. 15-31.[2] Pham, Duy. (2014). Vietnam: New legislation and future possibilities. International Higher Education. 74. 27-28.[3] Nguyen, Kim. D, 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 (1). 123-134.[4] Nguyen, Thi Khanh Trinh (2013). The strengths of Vietnam Higher Education accreditation standards. Conference proceeding on Quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam: Implementation issues and solutions. 48-56[5] Nguyen, Huu Cuong, Evers, C & Marshall, C (2017). Accreditation of Viet Nam’s Higher Education: Achievements and Challenges after a Dozen Years of Development. Quality Assurance in Education. 25 (4), 475-488. [6] Center of Educational Accreditation (2014). [The establishment of center of accreditation in VNU-HCM]. Retrieved from http://cea.vnuhcm.edu.vn/quyet-dinh-thanh-lap-trung-tam-kdclgd-dhqg-hcm_p1_1-1_2-1_3-617_4-76_9-2_11-10_12-1_13-11.html[7] Nguyen, Duc Chinh. (2013). The Vietnamese set of quality assurance standards for higher education: Issues and Solutions. Conference proceeding on Quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam: Implementation issues and solutions. 91-97. [8] Do, Huong Lan (2013). Mot so de xuat nham hoan thien cac tieu chuan danh gia chat luong giao duc cua truong Dai Hoc Viet Nam tren co so nghien cuu so sanh bo tieu chuan danh gia cua Viet Nam va Lien Bang Nga. Conference proceeding on Quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam: Implementation issues and solutions. MOET project. Code: B2012-08-12], 165-178[9] Le, Duc Ngoc & Sai, Cong Hong (2013). Assessing the inappropriateness of the set of quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam and the reasons. Conference proceeding on Quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam: Implementation issues and solutions. 143-157. [10] Vo, Sy Manh (2013). Some shortcomings in the Vietnam set of quality assurance standards. Conference proceeding on Quality assurance standards for higher education in Vietnam: Implementation issues and solutions. 158-164.[11] Suskie, L. (2009). Assessing student learning. A common sense guide (2nd Ed.). Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Imprint. [12] Eaton, J. (2007). Institutions, accreditors, and the federal government, redefining their “appropriate relationship.” Change, 39(5), 16-23.[13] Suskie, L. (2015). Five dimensions of quality: A common sense guide to accreditation and accountability. Jossey-Bass: A Wiley Brand [14] Gaston, P.L. (2014). Higher education accreditation: How it’s changing, why it must. Sterling, VA: Stylus.[15] Banta, T. W. (2004). Hallmarks of effective outcomes assessment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.[16] Anderson, H. M., Moore, D. L., Anaya, G., & Bird, E. (2005). Student learning outcomes assessment: A component of program assessment. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69(2), 256-268[17] Ewell, P. T. (2009, November). Assessment, accountability, and improvement: Revisiting the tension (NILOA Occasional Paper No.1). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment.[18] Prochnow, M. E. (2011). On reaching proficiency: A case study of outcomes assessment success at a California community college. (Dissertations). California State University, Fresno. (Order No. 3473418). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/895096456?accountid=7098. (895096456). [19] Hoefer, M.T. (2015, July). The ABCs of institutional effectiveness. Pre-conference workshop at SACSCOC Summer Institute, Orlando, Florida. [20] Allen, M (2004). Assessing academic programs in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, INC.[21] Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An Introduction (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon[22] Merriam, S (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.[23] Grbich, C. (2013). Qualitative data analysis an introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications VNU-HN- College of Economics, 2017[24] Middaugh, M. F. (2007). Creating a culture of evidence: Academic accountability at the institutional level. New Directions for Higher Education, (140), 15-28. doi:10.1002/he.277[25] Voluntary System of Accountability (VSA). About the VSA. Retrieved from http://www.voluntarysystem.org/[26] Silver, K. (2018). Getting Started with Strategic Planning. HLC Annual Conference. Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved at http://download.hlcommission.org/annualconference/2018/AC18_ProgramBook_INF.pdf[27] Powell, B. and Tedder, W. (2018). Linking Assessment, Planning and Budgeting for Resource Allocation Decisions. HLC Annual Conference. Chicago, Illinois. Retrieved at http://download.hlcommission.org/annualconference/2018/AC18_ProgramBook_INF.pdf    

scholarly journals Accreditation of educational activities in the aspect of international quality assurance standards

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 04005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timur Tabishev
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Educational Activities ◽  
Russian State ◽  
European Standards ◽  
State Accreditation ◽  
State Educational

The article considers the peculiarities of the Russian national educational space and legislation in the aspect of international (European) standards of quality assurance of higher education ESG (European Standards and Guidelines). The official materials and statistical data of the Executive Agency for Educational and Cultural Programs of the European Commission, given in the final report on the realization and implementation of the principles of the Bologna Process “The European Higher Education Area in 2018”, are analyzed. The main points where the procedures of the Russian state accreditation of educational activities in accordance with the requirements of the Federal State Educational Standards of Higher Education (FSES HE) and the European international (professional-public) accreditation of standards and recommendations for quality assurance of higher education in the European space ESG are reflected and their main distinguishing features are indicated.

Quality Assurance on the Road: Finland and Austria in Comparison

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 583-594 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Bernhard
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
The Road ◽  
Assurance System ◽  
National Quality ◽  
Education Market ◽  
On The Road ◽  
Higher Education Market

The ongoing necessity for quality and quality assurance in the entire Bologna process remains one of the main issues for European policy makers. The aims of creating comparable systems and of guaranteeing quality within higher education systems are the reasons for national developments and the eagerness to reform. The situation in two relatively small European countries, Austria and Finland, is at the centre of this research and exemplifies different ways of coping with international developments and the need to establish a comprehensive quality assurance system. How do these countries cope with the pressure to compete in the global higher education market? Is their system of quality assurance in line with the European aim to create a European higher education area? The purpose of this study is to provide an overview on two national quality assurance systems and to figure out similarities and differences between these two countries, providing a clear picture of what has been done in the field of quality assurance, where the challenges to transform are and how to improve quality assurance systems.

scholarly journals Improving Quality Assurance with CDIO Self-Evaluation

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juha Kontio ◽  
Janne Roslöf ◽  
Kristina Edström ◽  
Sara Naumann ◽  
Peter Munkebo Hussmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Evaluation Model ◽  
Evaluation Process ◽  
The Self ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Main Development ◽  
New Ideas ◽  
Definition Of

The main goal of the Nordic project Quality Assurance in Higher Education was to develop and implement a self-evaluation model in the participating Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) to support their quality assurance work and continuous curriculum development. Furthermore, the project aimed at strengthening the cooperation of HEIs in quality assurance (QA) and disseminating good practices of QA. The framework of development is based on the CDIO approach and the CDIO self-evaluation process. The main results are a detailed definition of the self-evaluation process, well-documented self-evaluations of the participating degree programmes, and the identification of the main development areas and actions in each participating degree programme. Furthermore, the project has increased the partners’ understanding of other partners and their challenges. Finally, quality assurance has been enhanced in each participating programme and new ideas and support for quality assurance work in other higher education institutes have been produced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document