Search results

Contrasts idealised versions of quality assurance systems and quality improvement programs. Notes that only powerful customers such as defence procurement agencies can impose quality assurance systems; also points out that individual customers are weak customers whose only power is the ability to move from one supplier to another. Outlines the conditions under which a customer will be able to impose a quality assurance system on the supplier. These conditions include, for example, that there should be an excess of capable suppliers. Points out that quality improvement programs, on the other hand, are initiated and sustained by the supplier’s own top managers. Considers also the role of such factors as industry regulators.

This paper aims to examine the roles of quality managers at community colleges, their experiences balancing accountability and improvement and their insights into the future of quality assurance.

This phenomenological, qualitative study used semi-structured interviews with eight community college quality managers to investigate their roles, experiences and perspectives. A reflexive thematic approach was used to analyze the interview data.

Four themes were identified from participant responses: quality managers frame and enable program quality, quality managers drive program change, quality managers cultivate a culture of quality and quality managers seek system change. The findings illustrate the roles played by quality managers as they work to improve college education at program, institution and system-wide levels.

The decision of participants to accept the recruitment invitation might reflect particular attitudes, perspectives or experiences.

Quality assurance has emerged as a key mechanism for ensuring postsecondary programs are current, relevant and meeting the evolving needs of students and employers. This study advances the understanding of how quality assurance processes play out at the operational level and explores the experiences of quality managers as they navigate various quality tensions.

Quality managers play key roles in leading, evaluating and influencing quality assurance processes in postsecondary education yet they are underrepresented in the literature. The findings of this study shed new light on the aspirational and influential roles they play in advancing quality assurance.

This study aims to report the design, development and evaluation of a digital quality assurance application aimed at improving and ensuring the quality of assessment programmes in higher education.

The application was developed using a design-based research (DBR) methodology. The application’s design was informed by a literature search and needs assessment of quality assurance stakeholders to ensure compliance with daily practices and accreditation requirements. Stakeholders from three study programmes evaluated the application.

As part of the development of the application, module- and programme-level dashboards were created to provide an overview of the programme’s outcomes, assessment methods, assessment metrics, self-evaluated quality indicators and assessment documents. The application was evaluated by stakeholders at the module and programme levels. Overall, the results indicated that the dashboards aided them in gaining insight into the assessment programme and its alignment with underlying assessments.

Visualisation of the assessment programme’s structure and content identifies gaps and opportunities for improvement, which can be used to initiate a dialogue and further actions to improve assessment quality.

The application developed facilitates a cyclical and transparent assessment quality assurance procedure that is continuously available to various stakeholders in quality assurance.

In 2010, the Ontario Universities Quality Assurance Council was established and became responsible for monitoring the quality of university programs, and each university was tasked with establishing institutional quality assurance purposes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality assurance process at facilitating change at one Canadian institution.

To better understand the impacts of quality assurance, the authors analyzed 39 self-study documents, which were completed for all academic programs at Queen’s University. Focus groups were also conducted with key stakeholders to gain more insights into the institutional change that resulted from completing these self-studies.

After the analysis of the self-studies and focus groups, three themes emerged as impacts of completing self-studies: teaching and learning, identity and collaboration and resource allocation and strategic planning. This study demonstrates that self-studies completed by departments have value beyond simply meeting the provincial mandate, as they are effective in catalyzing positive institutional change.

The self-study documents were created for the purpose of institutional quality assurance process, not this research study, therefore limiting the data that could be collected.

Four considerations are provided at the end of this study to spark conversations at other institutions when reviewing and assessing the impact of their quality assurance processes.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time self-studies have been analyzed to evaluate the quality assurance process.

Higher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews.

The authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews.

The authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty.

A learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.

This study aims to explore ways of developing, implementing and validating a new framework and criteria for self-evaluation of programme curricula, with specific reference to the quality assurance certification process in a particular case.

The framework is developed using a case study research methodology and implemented based on criteria extraction through the triangulation of indicators achieved from internal goals and external directives.

The findings reveal that this is an improvement-led framework that can be adapted to other contexts during the quality assurance processes to facilitate periodical programme evaluations with a focus on the curriculum.

The proposed practical tool is developed for the programme evaluation process with a curricular focus during the quality assurance certification process of an interior architectural programme while enlightening the processes for the periodical self-evaluations of other institutions. The framework depends on both institution-specific internal and external directives and fulfilling curriculum-related criteria of the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance.

Within quality assurance processes, despite external quality assurance mechanisms, there is a shortage of self-evaluation tools for internal quality assurance procedures, which allow the dissociation of programme-specific qualities. The proposed framework is developed as an example of a self-tailored internal quality assurance tool and process for educational institutions to reveal their unique qualities.

CASPE Research and Brighton Health Authority have been working together to test a series of approaches to quality assurance in healthcare. In this paper, they give an account of the results of the quality assurance techniques used; discuss the key requirements for successful quality assurance in the NHS environment; and consider the need for systematic evaluation of quality assurance programmes.

The involvement of stakeholders such as employers, alumni, and students has always been considered a key element in improving the higher education (HE) system. While considering stakeholders as key players in serving the market and in improving HE instruction, a two-sided collaborative involvement should aim at satisfying the mutual interests and overcoming existing barriers. Quality assurance systems have always supported crossing these barriers to link with the external stakeholders. However, many of the external quality assurance agencies (EQA) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region specify a group of external holders, limiting the various types of key stakeholders needed to enhance the academic programs. On the other hand, there are encountered risks in involving stakeholders if left with no objective guidance, especially that quality agencies are formidably urging the universities to consider the external stakeholders’ inputs to satisfy the quality assurance standards. The main objective of this chapter is to investigate the types of stakeholders’ and their levels of involvement within the local higher education institutions (HEIs). The chapter aims to provide an insight to invest in this involvement and utilize it to further improve the programs and their graduate attributes and suggests actions that would proficiently and truly enhance the involvement of external stakeholders. The outcomes of this chapter are expected to guide the EQAs and the HEIs to develop new practices in involving stakeholders, such as curriculum input, collegiate internships, aligning graduate attributes to market needs, financial support through endowments, professional development, and partnerships in service-level agreements.

Why evaluate quality in Library and Information Science (LIS) schools? From a historical perspective, quality assurance always has been considered a strategic issue by LIS schools for improvement of the teaching and learning experience and for accountability. Internationalization has added a new role to quality assurance in LIS. In terms of the context of the World Trade Organization General Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO-GATS), LIS is increasingly recognized as part of the knowledge sector. The WTO-GATS has approved a multilateral framework that sets out rules for the conduct of international trade in services, including educational services. The GATS includes both general rules—for example, those related to the transparency of trade-related regulations—and a framework for specific commitments under which countries choose whether, and under what conditions, to allow access to their markets for foreign suppliers. The provisions in the GATS related to trade regulations and ways countries choose to allow access to their markets are relevant to the recognition of international standards or qualifications for professionals. Although not mandatory, international standards are encouraged, both for quality assurance of LIS school offerings in general, and for recognition of a specific LIS school outside its home country. Additionally, in the context of an increasingly internationalized job market, employers need reliable information on how to evaluate specific higher education degrees and assess degrees recognized and granted in their domestic market. The goals are to facilitate the mobility of students and to increase employability. The need to reinforce the comparability of higher education internationally through quality assurance systems is now becoming more pressing.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.