Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
UCET Northern Ireland 2011 Teaching Scotlands Future TEACHING SCOTLANDS FUTURE Graham Donaldson CB.
Advertisements

Official BFUG Bologna Seminar ENHANCING EUROPEAN EMPLOYABILITY July 2006 University of Wales Swansea.
The role of Agency for Science and Higher Education Prof.dr.sc. Jasmina Havranek.
The CHE’s Accreditation Criteria QA Forum: Professional bodies February 2012.
1 Improving School Leadership - Guidelines for Country Background Reports - Education and Training Policy Division Directorate of Education.
Quality and the Bologna Process Andrée Sursock Deputy Secretary General European University Association (EUA) EPC Annual Congress, March 2005, Brighton.
THE DIVERGENT BUT COMPLEMENTARY PATHS OF COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT A Case Study Presentation At the 2004 AAHE.
April 6, 2011 DRAFT Educator Evaluation Project. Teacher Education and Licensure DRAFT The ultimate goal of all educator evaluation should be… TO IMPROVE.
Quality assurance issues of common interest and concern Statutory Professional Bodies Forum Council on Higher Education Ahmed Essop, Chief Executive Officer.
Special Meeting on ICT Education in Tertiary Institutions Towards a Regional Perspective on Quality and Academic Standards in ICT Education and Training.
Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Private Providers QA Forum Wits School of Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 1 September.
Professional Bodies Forum Murisi Auditorium CHE 28 February 2012.
HEQC Accreditation Process & Role of Professional Bodies (PB) CHE & Professional Bodies Forum 12 September 2012.
Estándares claves para líderes educativos publicados por
The QCTO in an improved NQF landscape
What’s driving the need for flexible curricula? How are our learners changing and what are their needs/expectations for flexible curricula? QAA Enhancement.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Partnership between the NYCI, the Health Service Executive and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs National Youth Health Programme Kevin O’ Hagan.
QCTO Update Presentation to HET Portfolio Committee 23 February 2011 QCTO Update to Portfolio Committee 1.
Accreditation: An Opportunity to Promote Information Technology Fluency NLII Annual Meeting San Diego, CA January 26, 2004 Joan K. Lippincott CNI.
Outcomes Understand the way in which the Australian Curriculum has been structured in these learning areas Spend time familiarising themselves with the.
The evaluation of research units at HCERES
Meeting SB 290 District Evaluation Requirements
Franklin University Dr. Lewis Chongwony, Instructional Designer
Department of Physical Sciences School of Science and Technology B.S. in Chemistry Education CIP CODE: PROGRAM CODE: Program Quality Improvement.
SAR as Formative Assessment By Rev. Bro. Dr. Bancha Saenghiran February 9, 2008.
Public Providers Forum Murisi Auditorium CHE 21 February 2012.
TEMPUS UM_JEP Development of Quality Assurance System in Higher Education - QUASYS Promotion of Quality Assurance System at the University of.
Prof. György BAZSA, former president Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) CUBRIK Workshop IV Beograd, 13 March, 2012 European Standards and Guidelines.
EQARF Applying EQARF Framework and Guidelines to the Development and Testing of Eduplan.
The Structure and Role of QA Bodies at the University and faculty/department levels UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE Serbia.
City of Tshwane GDS August Reputation promise/mission The Auditor-General of South Africa has a constitutional mandate and, as the Supreme.
AN OVERVIEW MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY. MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY (1/11/07 ) MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY (1/11/07 ) pzv/09/09/08 2 Malaysian.
INTITUTIONAL AUDIT & (SELF)-ACCREDITATION Ton Vroeijenstijn.
Possible changes to the Accreditation Process Quality Assurance Forum August 2011.
Council on Higher Education: Three-year Business Plan and MTEF Budget Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training.
Nursing education and training Systemic planning implications of nursing reform NEA presentation 30 September 2009.
Quality Assurance of Malaysian Higher Education COPIA – Code of Practice for Institutional Audit COPPA – Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation.
Evidence of Student Learning Fall Faculty Seminar Office of Institutional Research and Assessment August 15, 2012.
Council on Higher Education: Annual Report Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training 10 October 2013.
© 2011 Partners Harvard Medical International Strategic Plan for Teaching, Learning and Assessment Program Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Center Strategic.
Council on Higher Education: Annual Report Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training 12 October 2010.
Pedagogy for the 21 st Century LSS Retreat, November, 2010.
CHE Business Plan Mission The mission of the CHE is to contribute to the development of a higher education system that is characterised by.
1 Joint EAIE/NAFSA Symposium Amsterdam, March 2007 John E Reilly, Director UK Socrates-Erasmus Council.
Briefing on the CHE’s Annual Report 2008/09 Presentation to the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Higher Education & Training 28 October 2009.
Student Name Student Number ePortfolio Demonstrating my achievement of the NSW Institute of Teachers Graduate Teacher Stage of the Professional Teacher.
Council on Higher Education: Three-year Business Plan and MTEF Budget Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training.
Council on Higher Education: Three-year Business Plan and MTEF Budget Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Higher Education and Training.
Quality Assurance System in Higher Education Institutions(HEIs) Professor Dr Mesbahuddin Ahmed Head of Quality Assurance Unit UGC, Bangladesh.
Business Plan and Budget for the Council on Higher Education (CHE) 2009/10 Presentation to a Joint Meeting of the Portfolio Committees on Basic Education.
Advisory Forum, July 2005 Outcome of the first retreat of ECDC Management Team (EXC) 4-5 July 2005 Krägga Herrgård Zsuzsanna Jakab Director ECDC.
ENHANCING STUDENT SUCCESS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: THE FACILITATIVE ROLE OF STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONALS Presented at the NASDEV Conference Riverside Hotel,
February, MansourahProf. Nadia Badrawi Implementation of National Academic Reference Standards Prof. Nadia Badrawi Senior Member and former chairperson.
30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 1 Student Assessment: A Mandatory Requirement For Accreditation Dr. Salwa El-Magoli Chair-Person National Quality.
1 Challenges of Initial Teacher Training in Chile Centro de Perfeccionamiento, Experimentación e Investigaciones Pedagógicas, CPEIP October 2008.
PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE MEETING PRESENTATION ON THE APP AND BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR THE YEAR 2016/ th APRIL 2016.
Directorate of Quality Promotion QP_DN Dhaya Naidoo Director: Quality Promotion The HEQC Audit 23 January 2006.
Higher Education and Training Awards Council
Principles of Good Governance
Phyllis Lynch, PhD Director, Instruction, Assessment and Curriculum
Faculty of Science Review Staff Orientation Workshop
Programme Review Dhaya Naidoo Director: Quality Promotion
The Challenges for Governance
TEACHING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FRAMEWORK
Senior project leader at CIEP Former President of ENQA
Taking the STANDARDS Seriously
Professional Bodies Forum
Quality Enhancement Cell
The Perspective of a Professional Body (HPCSA) on National Standards & Reviews. the SAAIR CONFERENCE at UJ Prof K Mfenyana 03 July 2019.
Presentation transcript:

Second Cycle of Quality Assurance: 2012−2017 Public Providers QA Forum Council on Higher Education Dr Mark Hay Executive Director: Quality Assurance 23 August 2011

Outline  Implications of legislative changes  Developments in international QA  Challenges confronting the CHE  Collaboration with professional bodies  Second cycle of quality assurance

Legislative changes  The NQF Act No 67 of 2008 established the CHE as a quality council.  HE Act 101 (as amended) Performs its functions in relation to qualifications, quality assurance and quality promotion (S.7(1)) Responsible for the implementation of the HEQF (S. 7 (2)) The HEQC, in concurrence of the CHE, establish committees to assist it to perform its functions (S. 7(4))  CHE received legal opinion that the HEQC cannot delegate its quality assurance decision-making functions.

Developments in QA internationally  Greater regulation of providers Greater focus on accountability Making public QA outcomes as part of accountability and transparency Threat to institutional autonomy and academic freedom  Greater focus on academic standards Qualification standards Programme standards Achievement standards Information standards (transparency)  Implications for our national system?

Some challenges confronting the CHE/HEQC – 1  Credibility of our national QA system (national and international)  Reputation Decisions and processes (e.g. UKZN) Operationally: effective, efficient and timely  Balancing QA accountability and quality promotion  Supporting institutional autonomy and academic freedom  Steering the system to greater self-regulation, while supporting struggling HEIs

Some challenges confronting the CHE/HEQC – 2  Collaborating with DHET, eg integrating the three steering instruments SAQA Umalusi QCTO Professional bodies  Strengthening the monitoring and evaluation function  Implementing HEQF alignment in a constructive way  Conceptualising and implementing the standards development function

 The HEQC, professional bodies and HE providers play different roles. As they all have an interest in the academic programmes, their responsibilities are separate but complementary. An example One system: different parts HEIs Professional Bodies HEQC How do they each do their parts which they do well and are good at and are interested in? As they all have an interest in the academic programmes, their responsibilities are separate but complementary

Complementary, but separate – 1  To function optimally and at the highest possible quality of education and intellectual development, the three interested institutions must recognise that their roles and responsibilities are  complementary, in the sense that they determine together the objectives towards which they work in the public interest, for example, in determining of attributes of graduates entering a profession;  separate, in that they have separate functions, objectives and competencies.

Complementary, but separate – 2  In achieving the shared objective of an excellent quality higher education system, it is essential that the three interested institutions recognise, acknowledge and respect each other’s responsibility and competence. Indeed, it is here that democratic process is best served in the way that different structures of society engage on issues of shared interest.

HEIs – 1  While it is an important feature of what they do, the purpose of an HEI is more than producing graduates who are skilled and ready for the workplace.  The discussion between a professional body and an HEI is principally about the competence and attributes of graduates as they leave the HEI and enter the professional training programme as determined by the professional body.  It is important to recognise that the attributes of a graduate are not only developed in the classroom or other formal aspects of the curriculum. Students draw much of their learning from the institutional culture of the HEI – the so-called “second curriculum”.

HEIs – 2  The competence and attributes of graduates at the exit level from a qualification programme at an HEI is an integration of the admissions policy, the curriculum structure, the pedagogy used to support the curriculum and the exit “standards” expected by the lecturing staff. Each of these aspects lie in the competence of the HEI and, while professional bodies have an interest in each of these areas, their influence can, at most, be advisory.

Professional body – 1  The professional body is obliged to develop a well articulated conception of the outcome competencies of graduates at the point of entry into the profession, and must retain the duty to withhold accreditation from an HEI that is considered not to achieve these outcomes – in the normal course of these processes as determined by the prof body.  In its turn, the professional body can only structure the professional training programme for entering graduates if it has confidence that the agreed level and extent of education and training at the exit level from the HEI has indeed been achieved.

Professional body – 2  Nevertheless, the professional body also recognises that there is a wide range of teaching and learning paths by which the outcomes can be achieved.  The right of the HEI to choose the teaching and learning path must not only be protected but also defended by the HEQC and the professional bodies.  Upon entry into the profession, the preparation of graduates for the demands of professional practice is primarily in the competence of professional bodies. There are occasions when exposure to professional practice is required during undergraduate studies at the HEI, for example, in the health sciences and teacher education programmes.

Professional body – 3  The prof body is obliged to develop a well articulated conception of the outcome competencies of graduates at the point of entry into the profession, and must retain the duty to withhold accreditation from an HEI that is considered not to achieve these outcomes – in the normal course of these processes as determined by the prof body.  Nevertheless, the professional body also recognises that there is a wide range of teaching and learning paths by which the outcomes can be achieved.  The right of the HEI to choose the teaching and learning path must not only be protected but also defended by the HEQC and the professional bodies.

HEQC  At the formal level the HEQC (as the quality assurance arm of the CHE) has an interest and mandate over the process of developing graduates in HEI’s that goes beyond the interest of the professional bodies. As examples: the HEQC must turn its gaze to the full range of qualifications from a professional department at an HEI, whereas the professional body is primarily concerned with the qualification that gives graduates entry into the profession; the HEQC must pay far more attention to institutional culture issues that would be of interest to the professional body.

Critically engaged  While the three institutions (HEIs, HEQC and professional bodies) have separate but complementary interests and mandates with respect to the nature and quality of graduates that emerge from an HEI, there are principles with which all three must be both critically engaged and united in defence.  Examples: the international comparability of our qualifications the importance of developing graduates who are to be engaged citizens within their disciplines equitable race, class and gender diversity of our graduates and professionals protecting institutional autonomy and academic freedom; and the highest standards of ethics in professional practice.

Collaboration with professional bodies The CHE/HEQC and professional bodies could collaborate in  Training evaluators and their use in accreditation and reviews  Information sharing on programmes and providers (the nature and level of information sharing to be decided)  Dealing with programmes that are problematic and require intervention  Development of qualification standards with professional councils in their respective disciplines.

Constraints  It is time-consuming as there are jurisdictional challenges  Difficulty of scheduling visits as each council has its own schedule  Unevenness of accreditation practices and their rigour  Cost implications for HEIs  Burden on the providers  Dual accreditation systems  Effective collaboration with a range of government ministries.

Second cycle of quality assurance  Finalising the Second Cycle Framework Document Accreditation National reviews Institutional reviews Self-accreditation status Quality promotion Capacity development

Institutional reviews - 1  Portfolio: three chapters  Chapter 1 Profile of the institution Changes to QA system since 1 st cycle Impact of and update from 1 st cycle recommendations  Chapter 2 – Cohort analysis (at least at the faculty level)  Chapter 3 – thematic reflective questions Evaluative questions (on the basis of the teaching and learning chapter in the cycle one institutional audit, engage with the evaluative questions as in the draft Framework document)

Institutional reviews - 2  Complexity of the educational process  Knowledge of students  Content and process of teaching and learning  Teaching renewal  Engagement with institutional identity and national priorities  The discourse on efficiency and compliance Add:  Assessment  One theme selected by the institution in negotiation with the CHE (e.g. teaching and research nexus, institutional culture, student learning, benchmarking, managing academic risks, first year experience…)

Reminders  HELTASA - CHE/HEQC National Teaching and Learning Awards – closed 22 August.  NRF Research Chairs Initiative – in teaching and learning.

Conclusion