Monitoring and Managing of Quality in Higher Education

1
Monitoring and Managing of Quality in Higher
Education

• Dr. Abdul Raouf
• Distinguished National Professor of Higher
  Education Commission, Pakistan
• University Professor and Advisor, University of
  Management and Technology, Lahore
• Patron and Professor, Institute of Quality and
  Technology Management, University of Punjab,
  Lahore
• Chairman, Quality Assurance Committee

2
Presentation Plan

• Quality Assurance
• QAA Operations Outline
• Self Assessment Procedures
• Literature Survey
• Quality Management
• Limitations of EFQM Model
• Limitations of Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
  Award
• University Quality Model
• Self Assessment Criterions
• UQA Form
• UQA Assessment Tool
• Conclusion

3
Quality Assurance

• Quality assurance of higher education in
  Pakistan is an integrated method of review on the
  establishment, maintenance and enhancement of
  quality and academic standards and quality of
  learning opportunities of the programs offered by
  the institutions of higher learning and
  assessment of the institutional management of
  standard of quality.

4
QAA Operations Outline
5
Self Assessment

• The Quality Assurance Committee of HEC has
  prepared guidelines for self assessment of
  academic programs which can be used by councils
  for conducting external peer reviews.

6
Self Assessment Procedure for Academic Programs
7
(No Transcript)
8
LITERATURE SURVEY

• The methodological approach traditionally used
  to assess higher education quality has been
  reviewed by (Chun, 2002). He has grouped these
  into four basic categories
• Numerical data
• Ratings of institutional quality
• Student surveys
• Direct measure of student learning

9
Quality Management

• The current situation of quality management has
  two points of views. One refers to ISO 9000 that
  basis the quality management on a system
  structured by means of manuals, procedures and
  work instructions and with these its is possible
  to establish a minimum standard of
  classification. In this system the customer, from
  the external point of view to organization,
  imposes the fundamental demand. Are the things
  being done right ? It is less satisfactory in
  addressing the other question Are the right
  things being done. The second approach is
  assessment of quality of higher education through
  models of excellence.

10
Limitations of EFQM Model

• The major limitations of EFQM methodology are
• The model is too perspective, albeit in
  philosophy but not in methods and techniques.
• Too time consuming.
• There is a high degree of subjectivity in scoring
  the EFQM criteria, particularly because evidence
  provided could not always be vigorously verified.

11
Limitations of Malcolm Baldridge National Quality
Award

• There is little publication on the success of the
  MBNQA education model for a comparative analysis
  to be made since the educational criteria was
  introduced in 1999 (Ossco Asare and Longbottom,
  2002).
• It may be stated that ISO 9000 is a system to
  assure that an organization is functioning
  according to the prescribed procedures, methods,
  etc. EFQM is a process based model and the MBNQA
  is a product based approach. Needless to say that
  process based approach facilitates further
  improvements in the process and product.

12
University Quality Model

• Keeping the characteristics of the existing
  models an effort has been made to develop a model
  to assess university quality. The model presented
  incorporates quality criteria for the purposes of
  assessing institutional quality.

13
University Quality Model
(3) INTERACTION WITH EMPLOYERS AND STAKE HOLDERS
Mission (5)
Physical Resources (10)
QUALITY OF PROGRAMS (20)
Students (15)
Faculty (25)
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT (5)
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SOCIETY (5)
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (10)
(2) LINKAGE WITH OTHER UNIVERSITIES
14
Self Assessment

• This process gives a feeling of ownership to all
  of the stake holders and drives continuous
  improvement and above all is a diagnostic tool of
  current health of the institution.

15
Self Assessment Criterions

• Self Assessment consists of 10 criterions and
  each criterion has several standards.

16
Self Assessment Criterions

• The criterions are
• Missions
• Students
• Quality of Programs
• Personal Development
• Contributions to the Community
• Research and Development
• Physical Resources
• Connections with Industry
• Linkages with other Universities

17

• Criterion 1 Mission
• The mission must be explicit, appropriate,
  consistent, rigorous and periodically reviewed.
  Status and governess should include
  organizational structure, decision making
  processes and issues of quality improvement.
• The key areas are

• Vision and mission
• Status and governance
• Strategic objectives

18

• Criterion 2 Students
• The university should have a clear idea of the
  qualities it is seeking to develop in students
  attending its programs. It must be able to show
  that the procedures and standards used to control
  admissions are appropriate and rigorous,
  supporting the mission and individual program
  objectives. Students should be provided with
  adequate support processes to ensure adequate
  course preparation, work experience and career
  support.
• The key areas are

• Criteria for selection
• Course preparation
• Progression
• Career placement and support
• Student Services

19

• Criterion 3 Quality of Programs
• The university should be able to provide
  evidence of the quality of teaching on its
  programs, also of the quality of processes for
  the management of these programs. There should be
  clearly defined rules relating to academic
  leadership and administrative responsibility for
  all its programs. The process for designing
  programs should be rigorous and involve feedback
  from students and employers.
  The Key areas are

• Program design
• Program content
• Program delivery
• Student assessment
• Program evaluation
• Compatibility with similar programs offered at
  other universities

20

• Criterion 4 Personal Development
• Great importance is to be attached to the
  personal development dimension in programs within
  the Pakistani context. Universities play a key
  role in developing personal awareness and the
  appropriate attitudes, values, skills and
  behaviors to equip students in their future life.
  
• The key areas are

• Personal effectiveness
• Direct application of skills

21

• Criterion 5 Contribution to the Community
• The university should be concerned not only with
  its contribution to the national and
  international community but also to the total
  environment within which it operates and how it
  functions as an exemplary institutional citizen
  of its own community.
• The key areas are

• Social and economic contribution
• Extra-curricular activities
• Services to education

22

• Criterion 6 Research Development
• The university should be able to demonstrate
  high levels of quality in its teaching team, as
  evidenced by research, scholarship and
  consultancy. The majority of the team should be
  actively involved in these areas.
• The key areas are

• Research activities.
• Innovation

23

• Criterion 7 Faculty
• The size and quality of faculty must be in
  accordance with the mission of the institution.
  Teaching staff should be appropriately qualified
  and credible for the programs within their areas
  of responsibility. The deployment of faculty
  resources should reflect the institutions
  mission and allow adequate servicing of its
  degree programs. There must be an effective
  review process for evaluating the performance of
  the faculty and the contribution of individuals
  in line with the mission.
• The key areas are

• Faculty size and composition
• Faculty policy and management
• Faculty development

24

• Criterion 8 Physical Resources
• The overall level of resources and facilities
  offered by the university should be adequate to
  support the mission and agreed standards of
  programs design and delivery. The library,
  computing and research facilities should be
  appropriate to the nature of the faculty and the
  student body and should include adequate access
  outside of normal working hours. HECs
  requirements are to be met.
• The key areas are

• Financial management
• Premises and equipment
• Library facilities
• Computing facilities
• General support facilities

25

• Criterion9 Connections with Industry /
  Employers
• The university must be able to clearly
  demonstrate a successful relationship with
  industry / employers that results in the improved
  quality of programs.
• Key Areas

• Policy for maintaining effective connections with
  the industry / employers
• Impact on the development of the institution and
  its programs?
• Effectiveness of links between the university and
  the employer / industry

26

• Criterion 10 Links with Other Universities.
• The university should have an effective policy
  for including linkages with other universities.
• Key Areas

• Policy for adding a successful linkage
• Policy on partnerships with other Institutions

27
Assessing University Quality

• The instrument to be used for assessing the
  quality as per criteria has been developed. Each
  criterion along-with key areas are covered in the
  assessment form. The guidelines for grading and
  classification of universities into various
  categories has been prepared. Some universities
  are testing the model on voluntary basis. One
  page of the instrument is displayed for example.

28
UQA Form
29
Encircle Appropriate Value
30
Scoring of Criterion Items

• Key areas of each criterion are to be scored
  normally by considering the approach taken by the
  university and the results achieved. Maximum
  score for each item is 5 and the minimum is 1.
  The visiting team is required to award the score
  by encircling one of the entries against each
  item. The total of the encircled values (TV) for
  each criterion will be determined and normalized
  in percentages. Each criterion has a weight
  allocated to it. Scores pertaining to a
  particular criterion will be the product of TV
  and its weight age. Following are the guidelines
  to be used to awarding score to each key area.

31
Scoring of Criterion Items
32

• OVERALL ASSESSMENT SCORE
• SA SB SC SD SE SF SG SH SI
  SJ
• _________
• SCORE A SA TV / (No. of Questions 5)
  100 Weight
• Criteria for Classification
• CATEGORY A SCORE gt 85
• CATEGORY B 75 SCORE 84
• CATEGORY C 50 SCORE 74
• (Needs guidance for improvement. Must improve
  till next visitation.)
• UNSATISFACTORY lt 50
• (May continue awarding degrees in programs
  approved by the Council. On expiry of this period
  the university will face the possibility of
  de-chartering)

33
Conclusion

• The approach taken by HEC for assessing quality
  of programs and institutional management of
  quality standards has been presented. A model to
  assess university quality has been proposed.
  Testing of this model as a standard assessment
  instrument has been undertaken by a few
  universities on voluntary basis. Results will be
  reported in the near future.

34
THANK YOU

• QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS