Academic and Policies Surrounding Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education

Abdisalam Issa-Salwe
abdisalamm@eau.edu.so
Abstract

This paper examines the current trend of academic and policy literature of quality assurance in
tertiary education. It provides a typology of existing national and international quality assurance
mechanisms and presents the advantages and disadvantages of different quality assurance
systems. Finally, it gives an account of the current empirical evidence on the effects of quality
assurance mechanisms.

Quality assurance of teaching and learning is the trend towards mass higher education, rising
diversity of educational offerings, internationalization of higher education, and the rise of private
higher education institutions and online learning which have sparked interest in higher education
quality assurance measures. Another issue has been the increasing pressure on governments to
cut public spending in many countries and focus on education. Furthermore, amid the move to
technology-based economies, directing student demand toward crucial subjects for economic
development is a critical issue.

Introduction

The phrase quality assurance in higher education is increasingly being used to refer to the
techniques that are utilized to maintain and improve academic standards, i.e. the level of
academic achievement obtained by higher education graduates. This definition of academic
quality as being equivalent to academic standards aligns with the growing emphasis in higher
education policies on student learning outcomes, or the specific levels of knowledge, skills, and
abilities that students attain as a result of their participation in a particular educational program.
Internal and external academic quality assurance are useful distinctions to make. Internal quality
assurance refers to policies and practices that academic institutions use to monitor and enhance
the quality of their education, whereas external quality assurance refers to policies and practices
that the government uses to monitor and improve the quality of education.

The present trend in academic and policy literature on quality assurance in tertiary education is
examined in this paper. It covers the typology of current national and international quality
assurance processes, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of various quality assurance systems.
Finally, the present empirical evidence on the effects of quality assurance techniques is
discussed.

On the other hand, quality assurance of teaching and learning is a comparatively new concept.
However, the rise of private higher education institutions and online learning has sparked interest
in higher education quality assurance measures, as has the trend toward mass higher education,
increasing diversity of educational offerings, internationalization of higher education, and the
rise of private higher education institutions (El- Khawas et al., 1998). Another concern has been
the growing demand on governments to reduce government spending.

This report does have one flaw: it focuses mainly on quality assurance systems that evaluate the
quality of teaching and learning rather than the quality of research. One explanation for this is
that the literature on quality assurance systems focuses more on teaching and learning quality
issues than research. For example, according to Vroeijenstijn (1995a), emphasizing the quality of
teaching and learning may be justifiable because it generates more concerns than the quality of
research. 

Quality assurance of teaching and learning, on the other hand, is a relatively recent development.
However, the trend toward mass higher education, rising diversity of educational offerings,
internationalization of higher education, and the rise of private higher education institutions and
online learning have sparked interest in higher education quality assurance measures (El-
Khawas et al., 1998). Another issue has been the increasing pressure on governments to cut
public spending in many countries. Furthermore, amid the move to technology-based economies,
directing student demand toward crucial subjects for economic development is a critical issue
(Van Vught and Westerheijden, 1994).

Definitions for Quality in Higher Education

Quality assurance is systematic, structured, and continuing attention to quality in terms of quality
maintenance and enhancement (Vroeijenstijn, 1995a). According to Watty (2003), an
examination of the literature on change in higher education reveals two schools of thought: The
first establishes a link between quality and a context, and as a result, quality acquires new
significance (Baird, 1988; Fry, 1995; Nordvall and Braxton, 1996). To name a few subjects,
assessment quality, student intake, academic programs, teaching and learning, the student
experience, and program designs are all frequently highlighted. Unfortunately, attempts to define
or explain the term are mostly ignored, causing one to imagine it refers to 'high' quality rather
than a 'excellent' or 'bad' rate.

A second way to think about quality is from the perspective of a certain stakeholder. In this
context, numerous stakeholders with an interest in higher education discuss quality. Each of
them is capable of considering quality in a variety of ways. Early publications by Vroeijenstijn
(1992) and Middlehurst (1992) in particular emphasize the importance and value of analyzing
quality from several stakeholder perspectives.

Five quality categories or thinking methods are defined by Harvey and Green (1993). According
to Watty (2003), key components of each of these categories can be summarized as follows:

Exceptional: distinct, exemplifies quality, and meets a set of fundamental criteria. Perfection
entails having no flaws and doing things correctly the first time (focusing on process instead of
inputs and outputs). A provider-defined goal is tied to quality.

Value for money, in the eyes of the average person, focuses on efficiency and effectiveness,
comparing outcomes to inputs—quality (government).
Because education is more about doing something for the student than for the consumer, change
is a qualitative shift. As a result, they improve ideas and process democratization rather than just
the outcomes.

Because higher education does not attempt to generate defect-free graduates, Watty (2003)
believes that the dimension of quality as perfection may be discarded. Based on a small-scale
study with a sample of senior managers at higher education institutions, Lomas (2001) claims
that the two most applicable quality criteria are purpose and transformation.

Quality Assurance Methodologies

The various approaches to quality that quality assurance systems can take are discussed in this
section. Quality assurance agencies can use one or more of these, depending on different
educational systems and traditions (Woodhouse, 1999).

The three primary approaches to quality are accreditation, assessment, and audit. Accreditation
and evaluation (which includes assessment and audit) are, however, two distinct things.
Accreditation and evaluation, for example, both focus on the quality of teaching and learning,
whereas audit investigates internal systems in order to achieve its objectives.

Accreditation

Accreditation is the process of determining whether or not an institution or program meets a set
of criteria and thereby qualifies for a particular status. The HEI (e.g., permission to operate) and
its students (e.g., grant eligibility) may be affected by accreditation (Woodhouse, 1999).
Furthermore, accreditation evaluates the mission, resources, and procedures of a higher
education institution or program in depth (Dill, 2000). Accreditation yields a yes/no answer.
Graduations, on the other hand, are also accessible (Woodhouse, 1999).

Accreditation is a common method of quality assurance in OECD countries. Accreditation of

both programs and institutions is the principal method of quality assurance in the United States
(Eaton, 2004). Program accreditation is used by many European quality assurance organizations
on a regular basis. In German-speaking countries, neighboring countries, the Netherlands, and
Nordic and southern agencies, this method is extensively used. 22 percent of European agencies,
such as German and Austrian agencies, and several in linked nations, routinely certify
institutions. Accreditation procedures can also be focused on characteristics and relatedQAAs;
the German Akkreditierungsrat, for example, is in charge of certifying other organizations
(ENQA, 2003). In the United States, accrediting organizations are also subjected to a periodic
external examination based on certain conditions, known as recognition (Eaton, 2004).

Assessment

Instead of certification, which is a binary judgment, assessment is a sort of evaluation that

focuses on grade judgments of quality (Dill, 2000). "How good are your outputs?" inquires the
evaluation. An assessment yields a quantitative evaluation, such as a grade (whether numeric,
literal, or descriptive) (Woodhouse, 1999).

The program and institutional assessments are often used by European QAAs. Program
evaluation is one of the most commonly used methodologies. Some European authorities carry it
out on a regular basis, notably in the Nordic, Dutch, and English-speaking regions. Focusing on
programs is particularly frequent in the non-university sector. Institutional evaluation is less
prevalent, with only 22% of European agencies performing it on a regular basis (ENQA, 2003).
Audit

A quality audit assesses whether an organization's explicit or implicit objectives are met. "ISO
(Standards New Zealand, 1994) defines quality audit as a three-part process, examining 1) the
suitability of planned quality procedures in relation to stated objectives; 2) the conformity of
actual quality activities with the plans, and 3) the effectiveness of the activities in achieving the
stated objectives," writes Woodhouse (1999).

Academic audits are carried out at the institution level. Audits, unlike accreditation or evaluation,
do not seek to conduct a comprehensive examination of a HEI's or program's resources and
activities, nor do they assess teaching or learning quality. Instead, audits focus on higher
education institutions' procedures for ensuring and improving the quality of teaching and
learning (Dill, 2000).

Institutional audits are used by 28% of quality assurance firms in Europe on a regular basis. It is
widely used in Ireland and the United Kingdom, as well as by a few Nordic and associated
organizations. Program audits, on the other hand, are not extensively employed (ENQA, 2003).

Review on the quality level

The practices of Western European countries are diverse. In Denmark, the Netherlands, and
Portugal, for example, educational programs are assessed; institutional reviews are undertaken in
select German HEIs; and combined institutional and program evaluations are conducted in
France, the United Kingdom, and Ireland. Many countries outside of Europe have started
institutional assessments, but as their systems have evolved in professional fields of study, there
has been a shift toward program-wide approaches (El-Khawas et al., 1998).

The evaluation's scope

The scope of QAAs varies a lot between and within countries' educational systems. For
categorization, the geographical level might be utilized as a starting point. In countries where
regional authorities are responsible for education, agencies may conduct HEI evaluations in a
specific region (Canada, United States, Belgium, Germany, Spain etc.). National QAAs operate
across the country in other countries.

The type of HEI provides the basis for a second classification. Agencies are in charge of
university and non-university HEIs in some countries (Germany, Iceland, the United Kingdom,
the Nordic Countries except Sweden, Portugal, and others). In the university and non-university
sectors, separate agencies are in charge of quality assurance. A distinction between public and
private HEIs can be made in both cases .

Key agencies and organizations involved in quality assurance

The literature looks at who the important stakeholders are in higher education and how their
interests might be used to improve quality assurance. The first question is whether stakeholders
should be actively involved in quality assurance processes, or if only quality assurance
organizations and academics should be consulted. What organizational repercussions might this
have if stakeholders are expected to have a more active part in quality assurance systems? 1998,
Thune et al.

Government authorities have a critical role in regularly ensuring the quality of higher education.
For example, in the United States, the United States Department of Education is one of two
entities in responsibility of accrediting agency certification (Eaton, 2004).

A quality assurance organization oversees the procedure in almost every European country.
External quality certification bodies are regularly established by national or regional
governments, as well as by higher education institutions themselves, in response to government
requests. Institutions and the government, on the other hand, may be represented on the board of
directors of the quality assurance agency or contribute to its funding or evaluations (QAANZ,
1999).

In Europe, governments are the main source of funding for quality assurance in higher education.
HEIs, on the other hand, are a source of finance in one-third of the cases (ENQA, 2003). In
Denmark, for example, the assessment system is controlled by the government, but the Dutch
system has both a government-owned and university-owned level (Thune, 1996). As a result, the
QAAs that the government does not finance are virtually invariably funded by the assessed
higher education institutions.

According to the ENQA report, alternative sources of funding include the National Assembly
(France), donations (Akkreditierungsrat in Germany), and joint funding by the federal
government, national higher education funding councils, HEIs, and students (2003).

Criteria and standards

According to Vroeijenstijn (1995a) it is possible to define standards, or minimum requirements,

for each academic program. Standards are "a statement in broad or specific terms of the
knowledge, understanding, abilities, and attitude that successful graduates must display.

A quality assurance agency, a government entity, an expert group, or a professional organization

can develop evaluation criteria, but several stakeholders frequently develop them collaboratively
(ENQA, 2003). In the United States, for example, recognizing institutions (CHEA – independent
institution and USDE – federal agency) specify requirements for recognition of accrediting
organizations (i.e. standards for accreditation of agencies) (Eaton, 2004). The "Standards for
University Establishment," a ministerial ordinance in Japan, specifies the requirements for
establishing a new institution (Kimura et al., 2004). 

Methods used for quality review

The three basic quality evaluation procedures used by most EQA agencies are self-review, peer
review, and external review. Overall, the methodological features appear to be unaffected by the
quality approach (accreditation, assessment, or audit).
Self-review is an important part of most evaluation systems. As a result, "it aids the HEI in
identifying how well it is meeting its strategic objectives and goals, as well as developing an
action plan for future development" (Thune, 1998). Self-reviews are conducted by many HEIs,
however the content of these reports varies substantially (Brennan and Shah, 2000). In the United
States, self-reviews (also known as self-study) have a long history in accrediting systems. For
such systems, HEIs frequently have a large capacity for data collection, analysis, and
interpretation (Brennan, 1997). A self-evaluation is a process of evaluating oneself.

To conduct self-reviews, practically all European QAAs provide guidance or manuals, though
only a minority of them allows for training (Thune, 1998).

Peer-review. A peer review is an assessment made by another academic or group of academics,

usually from the same discipline (Frederiks et al., 1994). Peer reviews, which are already
common in research evaluation, are becoming more common in the assessment of teaching and
learning. However, different quality assurance systems deemed a peer differs (Brennan and
Shah, 2000). Peer reviews are used in US accreditation procedures to examine the self-study and
conduct site visits, and they involve faculty and administrative peers in the profession (Eaton,
2004).

In addition to peers, quality review panels increase, including non-academic members and
persons from other nations (Woodhouse, 1999). In the United States, for example, the review
panel may include non-academic members of the public with interest in higher education (Eaton,
2004). In addition, there are permanent, salaried external examiners in the Danish quality
assurance system, and the review panel includes professional or academic specialists and
employer representatives (Thune, 1998).

Follow-up procedures 

According to Woodhouse (1999). the amount of effort spent on quality assurance systems will be
squandered unless they have a positive impact. However, as Woodhouse (1999) points out, few
external quality assurance agencies have comprehensive formal follow-up procedures, and many
either do nothing or inquire about the HEI's actions. Furthermore, many QAAs are split on
whether or not to use sanctions in follow-up procedures, believing on the one hand that the threat
of police action is unlikely to improve quality while acknowledging on the other hand that some
HEIs are so weak that they are unwilling to improve unless the QAA can provide advice and
action.

A government entity, a QAA, or the HEI itself may be in charge of follow-up procedures.
According to an ENQA survey from 2003, the QAA is responsible for the follow-up on
evaluations in 39% of instances in Europe, the central or regional government in 46% of cases,
and the evaluated HEI in 76% of cases (in many cases, there are several possible agents).
According to Thune (1998), the evaluation report in France and Denmark is required to advise
the Ministry on the specific suggestions in the study. However, it is stated that starting a
continuous quality assurance process is primarily the HEI and the academic program; thus, the
HEIs must commit to the follow-up.
Linking evaluation to funding. 

The question of whether public money for HEIs should be allocated entirely or partially based on
the findings of evaluation systems is a hotly debated topic (Thune, 1998). According to
Woodhouse (1999), research quality reviews are frequently tied to funding decisions. However,
it is suggested that there is a widespread belief inside academia that basing teaching financing
entirely on assessment results will result in more problems being concealed rather than
corrected. 

The Cost of Evaluation

According to Campbell and Rozsnyai (2002), assessment expenses comprise, on the one hand,
the costs of establishing the agency and running the external procedure. On the other hand, the
following factors have immediate financial consequences:

 The national system's number and types of higher education institutions.

 Whether the quality review is focused on higher education institutions, academic programs,
or broader groups of subjects/disciplines. The cost of quality assurance procedures centred on
programs could be significant.
 The frequency of evaluations – whether they are conducted as part of a regular monitoring
program or on an ad hoc/as-needed basis.
 Expert compensation is a term used to describe the amount of money paid to experts. In some
systems, external experts are hired on a 'voluntary' basis and are reimbursed for expenses
connected to QA operations; in others, the external experts may be given an honorarium.

There are also 'hidden costs' associated with quality assurance and these prices. These factors,
which include staff time spent preparing for external monitoring and gathering data for the self-
review, must be considered when establishing the type and amount of data submitted by HEIs to
external QAAs (Campbell and Rozsnyai, 2002).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Quality Assurance Mechanisms in Tertiary Education

This section discusses four features of quality assurance systems that are up for discussion. The
first concerns the objective of quality assurance, namely whether it should be used for
accountability or improvement, and whether the two may be combined. The second debate
concerns the benefits and drawbacks of various methods and data collection tools used in quality
assurance systems. The final concern is whether teaching and learning quality should be
considered separately from research quality. Finally, the reasons in favor of and against linking
quality monitoring findings to funding will be discussed.

Purpose of Quality Assurance: Accountability VS. Improvement

A large amount of literature examines the relationship between the two aims of quality
assurance, determining whether they are mutually exclusive or whether and how a balance may
be achieved. According to Thune (1996), it is frequently maintained that responsibility and
improvement are mutually exclusive due to a methodological contradiction. However, it is
suggested that accountability and quality improvement can be coupled in a balanced plan
(Thune, 1996).

Middlehurst and Woodhouse (1995) argue that while improvement and accountability may be
well integrated with some areas, they may be separate in others. "Areas, where they may be
linked, include guidelines that can provide advice on appropriate procedures and practice
concerning accountability requirements; performance indicators linked to benchmarking best
practice between institutions, departments, or programs; and research evidence that points to
deficiencies in practice and leads to recommendations for improvement." Pilot research and
experiments, training, and staff development are examples of areas where improvement should
be independent of responsibility, particularly in connection to public information."

HEIs are likely to conceal flaws from accountability agencies critical to the improvement goal.
Separate agencies allow each agency to have the structure and processes that are best suited to its
specific functions. There is an interactive process between the two goals, rather than a simplistic
cause-and-effect model separated by accountability and improvement efforts.

According to a number of observers, the goal of responsibility is irreconcilable with the goal of
progress. According to Vroeijenstijn (1995b), external quality assurance can't serve two masters
simultaneously: it can't work for HEIs doing improvement and the outside world helping
accountability at the same time. However, it is maintained that the governmental goals of EQA
and the goals of HEIs can be reconciled. The two goals are sometimes irreconcilable, as the
transparency required for improvement will be lacking if the quality procedure's goal is
accountability (Woodhouse, 1999). As a result, it's common to hear the suggestion that having
different agencies is necessary since HEIs are likely to withhold information critical for
achieving quality improvement from an accountability agency (Middlehurst and Woodhouse,
1995).

According to Harvey (1997), while accountability can improve teaching and learning, it can also
harm learning by diverting academic staff's attention away from learning improvement,
bureaucratic compliance, and attempts to improve performance on indicators that are, at best,
poor operations of learning quality. It has been suggested that accountability systems are
motivated by a desire to make higher education more cost-effective than a desire to improve
quality.

Arguments opposing the establishment of separate agencies – complementarities between

purposes

Accountability and improvement are inextricably related, and they cannot be separated. Many
observers doubt the practicality and efficiency of separately handling the accountability and
improvement goals. The 'accountability vs. improvement' debate, according to Stensaker (2003),
has contributed to a simplified perspective of how change occurs in higher education. This
debate, it is argued, has contributed to the development of a simple cause-effect model, implying
that internal processes are associated with improvement. In contrast, external techniques are
associated with accountability, rather than seeing change as a dynamic process involving
continuous interaction between actors and stakeholders. According to Woodhouse (1999), some
authors argue that accountability and improvement are inextricably linked since accountability
may always be re-focused on quality improvement.
"As Brown (2000) has argued, individuals who labour in higher education have, for a long time,
been answerable to students, disciplines, and professions," according to Stensaker (2003).
Accountability can be addressed internally. Furthermore, several studies show that institutional
self-evaluation processes undertaken as part of a self-evaluation process are incredibly beneficial
to higher education institutions (Saarinen, 1995). As a result, quality improvement might come
from anywhere. Furthermore, both accountability and improvement are government goals, and it
would be difficult not to mix the two. "Because governments have such a large financial and
political stake in higher education, which is critical for national well-being and progress,
governments would prefer to help poor-quality higher education institutions or courses improve
rather than penalize or close them down."

Multiple agencies would be inefficient due to duplication of effort and a dangerous scenario.
Middlehurst and Woodhouse (1995) suggest that establishing various organizations to address
different objectives independently would be inadequate. Separate external agencies are not
desirable or stable unless the multiple agencies have separated fields of responsibility (such as
evaluation of research versus evaluation of instruction) for the following reasons: To begin with,
various agencies place an undue burden on higher education institutions. Second, because the
two roles have similar requirements, there will likely be an overlap.

Third, a system with two or more agencies is insecure; one quality assurance agency will likely
capture the other. Finally, accountability agencies are more likely to serve as advisors and play a
role in reform. Financial auditors, it is believed, are increasingly proud of being advising and
directive in suggesting better methods. As a result, some improvement is almost unavoidable due
to checking. While a separate system for improvement can be established, it is impossible to
have one simply for accountability because it will inevitably overlap with quality improvement
(Middlehurst and Woodhouse, 1995).

Accountability necessitates the intervention of a third party. Therefore, according to Thune

(1996), external agents can provide responsibility in higher education. Middlehurst and
Woodhouse (1995) further contend that the role of independent bodies that conduct external
quality assurance operations is typically described as holding higher education institutions
accountable to various stakeholders.

External quality monitoring, which is akin to accreditation, maintains the integrity of higher
education, particularly international integrity. A major determinant is the setting and stage of
development of the higher education sector. For example, the growth of private higher education
institutions raises the demand for institutional certification (Harvey, 2002).

Internal improvement in higher education institutions is aided by external quality assurance.

According to a variety of observers, external help and the availability of cross-institutional data
may be beneficial to higher education institutions in their efforts to improve themselves. An
external quality assurance agency, it is argued, could help HEIs improve by being available for
advice, research, and development on demand; having general issues referred to it for
investigation by accountability and certification agencies; conducting research and promulgating
ideas on its initiative; and providing benchmarking data across the sector (Middlehurst and
Woodhouse, 1995).

External evaluation setting helps improve quality by motivating employees to do self-evaluation.

Authors commonly acknowledge the importance of self-review in achieving improvement. The
creation of the self-review reports, on the other hand, requires a significant amount of time. As a
result, HEIs seldom initiate self-review procedures independently. Instead, they must be prodded
from the outside (Rasmussen, 1997). According to Brennan (1997), while externally instigated
self-reviews pose a risk of compliance, the external implications of the review provide an
incentive to take the self-evaluation process seriously. According to Harvey (2002), this position
as a catalyst for change necessitates communication and advice as part of the monitoring process
and the re-establishment of a trusting relationship between external quality assurance bodies and
HEIs (Harvey, 2002).
Referemce

Dill, D. D. and van Vught, F. A. “National Innovation Policies: Governments as Innovation

Agents of Higher Education and Research. In L. E. Weber and J. J. Duderstadt (eds),
University Research for Innovation, 107-124. London, Paris and Geneva: Economica,
2010.