1. Development of Internal Quality Assurance and its Challenges in Taiwan Higher Education from University and Students’ Perspectives
Angela Yung Chi Hou
Executive Director,
Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan
Professor, National Cheng Chi University
Jackson Chun- Chi Chih
Associate Researcher,
Ping Chuan Hsu, WENHSING KUO, Chia Yi Lin, LIAO,YU-RONG
Research Coordinator, Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan

2. Introduction
Quality assurance is ‘a process of establishing stakeholder confidence that higher education provision (input, process and outcomes) fulfills expectations or measures up to threshold minimum requirements’ (INQAAHE, 2018).
It consists of two major parts, internal quality assurance and external quality assurance
Internal quality assurance is considered as the part of the external process that an institution undertakes in preparation for an external quality assurance.

3. Internal evaluation (review)
Internal evaluation a ‘process of quality review undertaken within an institution for its own ends’
development and management of internal quality assurance system is ‘at the discretion of the higher education institution, which usually carries out this mandate in the context of available institutional resources and capacities’ (Paintsil, 2016, p. 4)

4. The Council for Higher Education Accreditation’s (CHEA) Principle One
achieving quality in higher education is the primary responsibility of higher education providers and their staff’ (Hou, 2016, p. 7).

5. Taiwan Context
Without Qualification Framework but having a well-structured qualification system from elementary school to post secondary
National QA system was established in 2005
Higher education Evaluation & Accreditation Council (HEEACT) was founded by MOE and all universities and colleges
Undertake mandatory institutional and program accreditations
Recognition of local and international accreditors
Self accreditation policy launched in 2012
4 self-funded professional accreditors
Serve INQAAHE board members and APQN board members

6. Institutional accreditation
Started in 2011 and second cycle was implemented from 2016 to 2018
over 85 universities and several religious institutions and Police and Military academies
Number of panel from 6 to 15
417 (1096)
Academics, employers , international reviewers

7. Institutional Accreditation Standards12
Institutional Accreditation Standards
Institutional self identification
Institutional governance and management
Teaching and learning resources
Accountability and social responsibility
Self-enhancement and quality assurance mechanism
1st Cycle
Institutional Accreditation
(competency based )
Governance and Management
Resources and Support Systems
Institutional Effectiveness
Self-Improvement and Sustainability
2nd Cycle
(institutional research)
© 2017 Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan, HEEACT

8. Research Questions
How were internal quality assurance mechanisms established by Taiwan higher education institutions?
What roles of the quality assurance office or unit of institutions carry out internal quality assurance?
How did students perceive the quality assurance process and impact of quality assurance on universities?

9. Research Design
Meta evaluation over the 2nd cycle of institutional accreditation
targeting the administrators, faculty members and staff, and students for their perception toward
the roles of internal quality assurance office
internal quality assurance implementation and effectiveness
the impact on institutional governance on campus
A total of 787 questionnaires from 33 universities from the first cycle of institutional accreditation were distributed
715 returned, a response rate of 90.9%

10. Results
1. Perception of university’s representatives over internal quality assurance mechanism
2. Students’ attitude toward appropriateness of external review process

11. Part I: Perception of university’s representatives over internal quality assurance mechanism
most universities developed a clear IQA mechanism and related regulations with a highest score of 4.32 on average
the QA units did support the academic units to implement IQA mechanism and preparation of internal review.
Faculty members did not think that universities gave sufficient financial support and human resources to university QA office

12. Table 1: Establishment of IQA
Items/Categories
Average score
Standard
deviation
Sources of Highest and Lowest scores
1. The university develops a clear IQA mechanism and related regulations
4.32
0.80
4.53(0.56)
Top administrators
2. The organizational structure, level and amount of staff in the QA office is appropriate in your university.
4.00
0.96
N/ A
3.The top administrators gives enough financial support and human resources to QA office in your university.
3.91
1.00
3.80 (1.10)
Faculty members
4. The QA office supports colleges and programs to implement IQA mechanism, such as developing standards, indicators, procedures, etc.
4.26
0.81
5.The communication between academic units and QA office is not difficult in your university.
4.21
0.90

13. Part I. IQA implementation in process and procedures
95 % of the respondents agreed that the process and procedure of on-site visit in the internal review was adequate and appropriate with a highest score of 4.49.
top administrators had the highest level of satisfaction.
self-assessment report writing,
around 20% of the staff thought that the workloads were not equal and teammates needed to improve

14. Table 2: Process and procedures of IQA
Items/Categories
Average score
Standard
deviation
Sources of Highest and Lowest scores
1. The opinions of varying stakeholders are collected, including management team, administration office, academic units, faculty members, staff, students, alumni, etc. in the process of IQA.
4.22
0.87
N/ A
2. The self-assessment report is written collectively and collaboratively
4.14
0.86
4.08 (0.93)
Staff
3. The self-assessment report is evidence-based and integrates the analysis result of institutional research.
4.15
0.91
4. The external reviewers of internal quality assurance mechanism are qualified and knowledgeable in QA.
4.45
0.82
5. The process of on-site visit in the internal quality assurance is adequate and appropriate.
4.49
0.80
4.68 (0.47)Top administrators
6. The documents, reports and evidence on the dates of on -site visit process in the internal quality assurance are well presented, sufficient and appropriate.
4.41
0.90

15. Part I: Impact of IQA
Overall, the respondents indicated that IQA would facilitate effectiveness of external review
The respondents were worried that quality culture was not embedded on campus completely

16. Table 3: The Impact of IQA
Items/Categories
Average score
Standard
deviation
Sources of Highest and Lowest scores
1. Internal quality assurance facilitates the integration and effective use of institutional resources.
4.20
0.86
N/ A
2. The implementation of internal quality assurance facilitates faculty and staff engagement in institutional development and planning
4.10
0.95
3. Self-assessment facilitates the actual examination of institutional accountability and features
4.21
0.89
4. Self-assessment process and results are objective with integrity
4.22
0.83
5. The follow up mechanism is implemented after the internal review
4.19
6. The implementation of Internal review facilitates the preparation of external review
4.31
0.81
4.50 (0.62) top administrators/
4.60(0.55)faculty members
7. Internal quality assurance facilitate the establishment of quality culture on campus
4.07
0.88
3.99(0.96)/ staff

17. Part II: Students’ attitude toward appropriateness of external review process
student respondents strongly agreed on the method of individual interview during HEEACT on-site visit is adequate.
University did not informed students about HEEACT institutional review and promoted the value to all stakeholders
communication between university and students in the preparation of HEEACT institutional review still needed to improve,
Students do not know clearly about student learning outcome as the focus of HEEACT institutional review
students had access to University’ institutional review results
University official website and teachers, staff or classmates

18. Table 5: Percentage of varying accessibility to institutional review results
Access to University’s institutional review result
Number / %
1. University announcement on official website
106 (53.3%)
2. HEEACT website
21 (10.6%)
3. Mass media
5 (2.5%)
4. Faculty members, staff and friends
55 (27.6%)
5. Others
12 (6.0%)
In total
199 (100.0%)

19. Discussions IQA system has been established on campus
Writing the assessment report is a burden to all universities, particularly staff
Students have access to the QA information but not participate in institutional QA committees
Promotion of QA goals, process and procedures and communication among stakeholders should be strengthened

20. Conclusion (1)
The internal review / evaluation is used as a reference for the establishment of institutional favorable governance
university's overall resource allocation, development of long-term institutional development plans, and organizational reforms on administrative units and academic programs
internal quality assurance is a means to the success of external review by HEEACT
particularly preparation of on-site visit
Students either act as one of the panel or takes part in the governance of the board of accreditors in some Asian nations, but not in Taiwan

21. Conclusion (2)
It remains a very challenging job for universities to implement them collaboratively on campus
self-assessment report writing and student engagement
The process of instilling and embedding a quality culture remain problematic and time consuming Taiwan higher education institutions.

22. Thank you for your attention Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan National Chengchi University