Search results

In 2022, the International Network for Quality Assurance (QA) Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) published the new guidelines by adding three QA modules in response to the changing higher education landscape. The paper aims to investigate the transformative focus of quality assurance in higher education globally as well as Asian response to three new QA modules according to the INQAAHE ISGs.

The research conducted a quantitative approach for data collection. An on-line survey was conducted to perceive QA practices, perceptions toward new emerging QA modules and challenges encountered. In total, there were 26 responses from 18 territories with 22 QA agencies. A total of 13 out of them have a national qualifications framework in place.

Three are three major findings in the study. First, national policy and criteria and standards in distance education have been developed in the majority of Asian nations. Second, non-signatories of the Tokyo Convention had a higher proportion of having related policies, regulations and criteria in CBHE and distance education. Third, national policies and regulations; and lack of professional staff are two common challenges implementing QA in new types of providers.

The findings are of value for policymakers, QA agencies and universities to advocate the new QA model as a systematic approach in response to changing higher education landscape in the post pandemic era.

The 2020 pandemic disrupted traditional student mobility and forced a larger majority of transnational programmes to switch to a virtual or hybrid mode, including joint and double degree programmes. Therefore, this study aims to perceive the linkage between quality assurance (QA) and delivery modes of cross-border higher education (CBHE) in Asia before and during the pandemic.

Through an online survey and semi-structured interviews, the process by which top 200 ranked universities in the 2022 QS global ranking responded to QA and qualification issues of joint/dual degree programs in conjunction with delivery modes was explored.

The study has discovered that most respondents from universities, to some extent, tended to be positive about the effectiveness of hybrid delivery of the joint/dual degree programs, even if they still preferred the physical mode to alternatives. Either “divergence” or “responsiveness” QA modes were not applied appropriately in most joint/dual degree programs of the selected universities during the pandemic. Moreover, a fair, transparent and convergent quality and qualification system should be established to facilitate agility and responsiveness of CBHE.

The findings are of value for policymakers, QA agencies and universities to advocate the new QA model for CBHE as a systematic approach in response to changing higher education landscape in the post-pandemic era.