1. May, 2007CINDA 1 Self-assessment and Strategic Planning CINDA Workshop for TEIs Ramallah, May 2007

2. May, 2007 CINDA2 Terminology – so often gets in the way Quality Assurance  Quality assurance is an all-embracing term covering all the policies, processes, and actions through which the quality of higher education is maintained and developed. (Campbell & Rozsnyai, UNESCO publication) Quality Assessment  Quality Assessment covers both the means by which a judgement is made about the quality and standards of an institution or a programme and the judgement itself. (Vlãscanu, Grünberg and Pârlea, UNESCO publication) Accreditation  Accreditation is a form of quality assessment where the outcome is a binary (yes/no) decision that usually involves the granting of special status to an institution or programme. (CHEA 2001).

3. May, 2007 CINDA3 QA for Accountability and Enhancement  Accountability is concerned with the institution being able to demonstrate that it is operating at or above the basic minimum standard, while quality enhancement is concerned with the continuous process of quality improvement.  Both are important

4. May, 2007 CINDA4 Internal and external quality assurance in HE Internal quality assurance is as old as HE itself but for many centuries mainly (or probably exclusively) based on the quality of the teaching staff. External quality assurance (which has had a considerable impact on Internal QA) a far more recent phenomenon; worldwide acceptance over the last 20 years.

5. May, 2007 CINDA5 Difference between internal and external quality assurance Internal QA may (and in many instances should) include people who are external to the institution or programme being reviewed. The key distinguishing features  Who organises the event and, more importantly,  Who makes the decisions

6. May, 2007 CINDA6 Global spread of quality assurance  The increase can be best observed by examining of the membership of the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).  INQAAHE, or the Network, was established in 1991. Its core membership are the regional and national quality assurance and accreditation agencies.  When it was founded INQAAHE had members from only 11 countries which represented all the countries that had at that time systems, in some cases partial systems, of external quality assurance in higher education. It now has well over 100 full members from over 60 countries but there are a number of countries not in membership and it is likely that about 70 countries either have, or will soon have, a national system of quality assurance in place.

7. May, 2007 CINDA7 Factors contributing to the growth of external quality assurance (1)  The recognition in many countries of the need for greater accountability for the use of scarce national resources.  The growth in higher education that has occurred in many countries.  The increased diversity in HE provision including the establishment of binary systems, and the growth in distance learning.  In some countries there was a trade off between the reduction of direct governmental control of higher educational institutions and the introduction of external quality assurance arrangements

8. May, 2007 CINDA8 Factors contributing to the growth of external quality assurance Factors contributing to the growth of external quality assurance (2)  The increase in some countries in the number of private, including “for profit”, providers.  Regional developments, for example in Europe and South America, aimed at creating a higher education space which encourages student mobility and the mutual recognition of qualifications.  The ever increasing internationalisation of higher education including the growth in cross -border providers and the need for the mutual recognition of qualifications and higher education credits

9. May, 2007 CINDA9 Question for discussion How relevant and important are external and internal quality assurance to the Palestinian situation?

10. May, 2007 CINDA10 QA in HE is “different” From quality assurance (quality control) in other “industries” or other sectors of education. Key distinguishing features  Reviews undertaken by “peers”  Most systems strive, or claim to strive, to avoid an inspectorial approach.

11. May, 2007 CINDA11 The “traditional external QA model” Is found in almost all countries that have introduced external QA:  Sets of regulations and guidelines  A self evaluation prepared by the institution  The appointment of a peer group whose review of the institution or programme would start with a review of the self evaluation  Site visits by the peer group.  The publication of a report or, in some cases, only the decision.  But there are significant differences in the ways that the model is applied.

12. May, 2007 CINDA12 Differences in the way that the model is applied  Perhaps the most significant difference is in the freedom institutions have in completing their self studies. In some systems institutions are given considerable freedom in the way in which they can tell their story, while in other systems the self study essentially consists of a form consisting mainly of closed questions many of which are of a quantitative nature.  Another difference is the relationship between the academic reviewers and those whose programme or institution is being reviewed. At one extreme the reviewers act very much as inspectors exercising a degree of authority while at the other extreme the reviewers and the reviewed act more like equals, without entirely ignoring the fact that it is the reviewers who will report their findings.  In general the more inspectorial approach will be used by agencies who require the more structured self study reports.  In some countries the institution or programme is graded by the external QA body

13. May, 2007 CINDA13 A culture to avoid – Compliance Culture The danger is that institutions (or departments) will adopt a “compliance culture” when the all the effort is put into attempting to obtain a positive accreditation decision, or a good evaluation report from the external quality assurance body, rather than actually improve the quality of what is being done. In such a situation departments (institutions) are encouraged to hide weaknesses rather than to demonstrate that they have identified them and are taking steps to overcome them

14. May, 2007 CINDA14 A culture to adopt - The Quality Culture Occurs when Quality assurance is built into the everyday life of the institution and is seen to be a shared responsibility of all members of the academic community, staff, both academic and administrative, and students

15. May, 2007 CINDA15 Responsibility for quality In an ideal world. No one should be responsible for quality Everybody should be responsible for quality

16. May, 2007 CINDA16 But who should be responsible for quality assurance? Possible configuration  Senior academic to take oversight of the whole process  Committee of academics to propose and review policies  Quality Assurance Unit to assist in internal and (where appropriate) external reviews.

17. May, 2007 CINDA17 Internal QA – the structure  Initial approval of programmes  Annual review of programmes (monitoring)  Regular, more fundamental, reviews of programmes  Thematic reviews

18. May, 2007 CINDA18 Ways of gathering student feedback Questionnaires The appointment of student representatives Establishment of staff/student liaison committees Discussion (focus) groups Immediate feedback in lectures and classes Informal means Above are programme related, at intuitional level Student representatives on university committees

19. May, 2007 CINDA19 Internal Quality Assurance – the stakeholders The internal people  Staff – both academic (also acting on behalf of the “subject discipline) and non-academic  Students The institution, acting on behalf of the wider community Outsiders  Employers  Professional and licensing bodies

20. May, 2007 CINDA20 Questions What are the most effective ways of involving  students  graduates  employers in internal quality assurance?

21. May, 2007 CINDA21 How to approach a self assessment process?

22. Present situation: Where are we now? Strategies: How do we get from here to there? Desired situation: Where do we want to be? Questions that should be asked:

23. Present situation How is the institution/programme doing with regard to its purposes and goals? Are the available resources adequate? Is the institution/programme able to fulfil its promises to students and other stakeholders? What are the main strengths of the institution/programme? What are its main weaknesses?

24. Desired situation What are the institution’s purposes and goals? How do they translate into an expected state in five more years? What does the academic community think of this vision? How much do you know about conditions in the environment that could affect viability of the vision? Is it possible to improve the links between stakeholder needs and the proposed vision?

25. Strategies What would be necessary to go in the desired direction (are the resources sufficient? What changes should be made? What restrictions are in place?) What are the possible alternatives for action? What is needed to implement the different alternatives for action? How do we choose among them? How will the institution implement those strategies?

26. Information Elements needed to provide answers: Knowledge Data

27. May, 2007 CINDA27 Data  Data are the raw material for information.  They don’t have meaning on their own, they need a conceptual structure where they acquire meaning.  Should never be confused with information.

28. May, 2007 CINDA28 Information  Information is always a message on the status of something  Data provide the language for those messages  Information in itself is not quantitative or qualitative, it is organized in either way  Data  Processing Information

29. May, 2007 CINDA29 Information Analysis Relevant knowledge Knowledge Information proceeds by selecting data and processing them in terms of identified needs Thus, information is selected in relation to goals and objectives Analysis of relevant information produces knowledge

30. May, 2007 CINDA30 Conceptual framework for analysis of a college / university

31. Conceptual framework for analysis of a college / university* * Source: M.Middaugh, 2000

32. May, 2007 CINDA32 Some questions for discussion What basic information is available in your institution? What would you have to do to collect other information, necessary but currently unavailable? With the information now available, could you carry out a reasonable self assessment exercise?