Capacity Building in Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Asia-Pacific Region Dr. Antony Stella Adviser, NAAC

Asia-Pacific Region Complex and diverse Linguistic, political, economic and cultural diversities

Quality Assurance Mechanisms About 22 major national level efforts Operating in 15 countries Relatively recent origins Two-thirds of them established in the last decade Variance in practices Differing developmental stages

Varying Policies on Agency role in assessment Nature of the assessment process Focus of assessment Unit of assessment Assessment outcome Policy on disclosure of outcome Linking outcome to funding Period of validity of outcome

Agreement on the Essentials Autonomy of QAAs Pre-determined criteria Transparent process Combination of self-study and peer review Public disclosure of the outcome Validity of the outcome for a specific period

Fertile Ground for Experimentation on debatable issues Pooling the expertise developed in these systems Facilitating the sharing of the lessons learnt Addressing the emerging issues of concern collectively

Scope for Capacity Building Variance in developmental stages Rethinking QA strategies Transnational education Potential for mutual recognitions

Variance in the Developmental Stages of QA Japan and Philippines – relatively long history China – decentralized and exercised by many agencies India – over and above the built-in quality control systems Sri Lanka, Cambodia and Vietnam – evolving systems

Rethinking QA Strategies NAAC – re-accreditation and impact of first assessment on policy making AUQA – reflecting on mandates other than audit JUAA – international competitiveness of HEIs LAN – including public institutions HKCAA – on the verge of a major reorganization

Developments in Transnational Education Quality assurance of the export – Australia, India, Malaysia and New Zealand Quality assurance of the import – Australia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, New Zealand and Philippines Role of QAAs - ??? Ambiguity in national policy frameworks

Mutual Recognition (MR) among QAAs Comparability has to be ensured in Criteria Policies Procedures Quality assurance outcomes of QAAs Mutual monitoring and information exchange Participation in each others quality assurance activities Pilot projects

Potential for MR Agreements Initial interest by AUQA (Australia), AAU (New Zealand), BAN (Indonesia), LAN (Malaysia) and NAAC (India) Bottleneck – involving the policy makers and finding resources for the implementation

Ongoing Capacity Building Activities Three major approaches: Capacity building activities of the well established QA systems Capacity building of the emerging QA systems Capacity building activities of the networks and regional efforts

Type 1: In-Country Capacity Building Exercises of the QAAs Skill enhancement or professional development approach for the personnel who would be involved in quality assurance activities Training programmes and orientations for the auditors/assessors/peers Workshops for HEIs on preparing the self- study report Case studies, role-plays and panel discussions Varies from brief discussions to rigorous residential programmes ….contd

Type 1: In-Country Capacity Building Exercises of the QAAs Focus: to ensure a thorough understanding of the quality assurance framework and orient the HEIs Not much scope for learning from each other New developments in QA are not addressed Resources come from the QAAs and the participants Expertise is within the system Done periodically

Type 2: Capacity Building of the Emerging QAAs Study visits and professional visits to other QAAs Participation in international conferences and workshops Ample scope for learning from each other Emerging areas of concern are discussed Need to go beyond national bodies Supported by inter-governmental bodies Support for such efforts - limited and un- coordinated

Type 3: Regional Network Efforts Asia Pacific Quality Network (AQPN) Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) ASEAN University Network (AUN) UNESCO OECD World Bank

Need for Capacity Building Activities at Three Levels National level Regional level Trans-regional level

National Level Emerging quality assurance systems Involving various stakeholders of the nation Policy makers HEIs Academia Students The public Bringing experienced staff of QAAs from other systems Providing a platform for sharing of experiences Facilitating reflection on lessons learnt

Regional Level Cross-border education Those in key positions Policy makers Educational administrators Mentoring activities Collaborative research and training Requires funding

Cross-border education Policy framework on emerging areas of concern Clearinghouse functions Portals or databases of quality institutions Requires a forum for coordination Trans-Regional Level

Priorities in Capacity Building Ensuring that quality assurance becomes an integral part of reforms in countries where the higher education system is being restructured Harnessing the support of governments for national quality assurance mechanisms where quality assurance is yet to be given a due place Promoting the capacity of various stakeholders, especially the governments and students, to make informed decisions using the outcomes related to quality assurance ….contd

Priorities in Capacity Building Supporting mentoring programmes for the staff of emerging quality assurance systems Facilitating transparency and openness in the fairly stabilized quality assurance systems by supporting the presence of international members in national quality assurance exercises Conducting training programmes and workshops for quality assurance personnel at the regional level Facilitating Mutual Recognition arrangements between QAAs through pilot studies ….contd

Priorities in Capacity Building Supporting joint research and publication programmes on QA issues such as indicators of quality, best practices of QAAs, etc. Supporting more discussions on the policy frameworks and quality assurance of cross-border education Strengthening the role of the existing networks in contributing to the above-mentioned activities Strengthening a regional forum that can act as a clearinghouse for information, nodal point for research and development, registry for regional expertise, gateway for trainees, negotiating table for issues of contention and an advisory body for making informed choices