EXPLORING INNOVATIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEHTODS FOR IQA- COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

CIES Conference, Vancouver6-10 March 2016

MICHAELA MARTIN, IIEP Programme Specialist

An IIEP research project

1.Understanding of IQA varies

Shaped by: National or international requirements for EQA Possibly by regional integration policies (e.g.

EU) Higher education policy and administrative

context Institutional policies and resources Existing resources (effective informal

methods in resource scarce environments)

2. Tools and processes for IQA are evolving (1)

Focusing on T&L more than management Moving from predominantly quantitative

surveys to include also qualitative methods

Search for structured opportunities to use data for internal dialogue and discussions

Integration of institutional evaluation, quality reports with the strategic planning and institutional evaluation cycle

Ex1 : University of Duisberg Essen -An integrated set of tools and procedures

2. Tools and processes for IQA are evolving (2)

Employability related tools are rather common in IQA systems

Employability is an implicit issue; strongly related to an understanding that academic quality is most important

Results from employability related tools not always submitted to the discussion among academics, but rather exploited by academic managers only

IQA tools for graduate employability

3. Structures for IQA are evolving Finding an appropriate balance between centralization

and decentralization is a major issue Importance of university wide policies and procedures

(quality policy, manuals) for IQA Central unit provides techncial support and support to

colleges Central unit organises, plans and monitors university-

wide processes But QA structure at all levels and major processes

under the responsibility of departments Variation in how coercitive the implementation of IQA

processes is

EX2: University of Bahrain-Academic Quality Structure

Department level

College level

University levelQuality

Assurance and

Accreditation Center (QAAC)

College Quality

Assurance Office (QAO)

Department Assessment Committees

(DAC)

President’s Advisor for

Quality Assurance

Academic Committee (University)

Academic Committee (College)

Academic Committee

(Department)

Quality Structure Academic Structure

4. Effects of IQA Many changes effected, but mostly in

the T&L domain, in particular in making educational programmes more coherent

Better alignment with requests from employers

Management decisions become more streamlined and better integrated with data analysis and evaluation

Information systems enhanced and aligned to the needs of IQA, planning and management

5. Conditioning factors Leadership Solid information systems Participation of academic staff in the

development of systems Sustain systems by making benefits

visible Financial incentives less valued by

academic staff

6. Good principles of IQA Importance on communication and

organizational learning IQA system based on quality

analysis/quality quality dialogue and quality development

System is geared towards maximum usability of the data : importance of data reporting

Structured follow up on recommendations for improvement

7. Developmental pattern for IQA Stage 1: Development of and experimentation

with unconnected tools and processesOften data overlaod

Stage 2: Linking tools and processes with strategic processes (strategic planning, budgetary processes)

Stage 3: Diminishing the quantity of data, but focus on the use and follow up at the decentalized levelCreating a coherent system of data acquisition,

analysis and management

8. How do actors view IQA ? Leaders and decision makers have a more

positive view than academics Academics stress their concern with workload

and competing demands on their time Students view IQA relatively positively, but

would like to be more involved and better informed of evaluation results

Discipline does not really make a difference in how academic staff view IQA