1 / 23

Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation D I A M O N D A W A R D First Place

Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation D I A M O N D A W A R D First Place. QUT. Brisbane. A HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE MODEL FOR SMALL STATES: THE MALDIVES CASE STUDY Co-authors: NAME : Abdul Hannan Waheed a.waheed@student.qut.edu.au

mada
Télécharger la présentation

Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation D I A M O N D A W A R D First Place

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Asia’s Best in Powerpoint Presentation D I A M O N D A W A R D First Place

  2. QUT Brisbane

  3. A HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE MODEL FOR SMALL STATES: THE MALDIVES CASE STUDY • Co-authors: NAME : Abdul HannanWaheed a.waheed@student.qut.edu.au • Position : Full-time PhD student • INSTITUTION : Centre for Learning Innovation (CLI), Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia NAME: Professor HitendraPillay h.pillay@qut.edu.au • Position : Professor • INSTITUTION : Centre for Learning and Professional Studies, Faculty of Education, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

  4. Background Small States QA literature • 1.5 million or less • A significant gap: • focussing on bigger • systems; not Small • states • Adopt compromised • versions of models • Band-aid solution • (Houston & Maniku, • 2005) objectives • The main research question is “what constitutes key elements and mechanisms of an effective QA system in higher education for Small States?” • To develop a holistic higher education quality assurance system for Small States, based on the Systems Theory principles

  5. Theoretical Framework Systems Theory: a general formula of a systems theory (Klir, 1991) System R T T (relations) A system S=(TlR) R R T (things) T= element R= relationship

  6. Methods • Qualitative case study: Maldives from July to September 2011 • Maldives: a small state, representative of Small States • Generalisability to other Small Sates • Explored possible linkages, similarities, challenges, issues and QA options relevant

  7. Methods • Data collection: interviews & documents • 17 interviews & 10 documents • 4 stakeholder groups: Ministry of Education, the Maldives Qualifications Authority, leading higher education institutions and the industry associations • Data analysis: a comparative perspective against global principles, concepts, and models in QA in higher education

  8. Results • Key findings: • Regulatory mechanisms: weak regulatory mechanisms, absence of legislation, gov interference, independence • Management structure: conflict of interest in the regulatory board • Standards: lack of guidelines, Transparency issues • Service delivery: more energy used on processes other than QA, slow speed in implementing audit & accreditation

  9. DISCUSSIONS Regulatory Framework Clear national policies • Needed for the • development of the • whole system

  10. DISCUSSIONS Regulatory Framework Legislation • Without legislation the • system suffers from • slow speed of • development

  11. DISCUSSIONS Regulatory Framework One-tier system • More suited for Small • States

  12. DISCUSSIONS Regulatory Framework Independence • Critical for a strong • national QA body

  13. DISCUSSIONS Standards Guidelines needed to steer the QA process • Small States often struggle • to develop necessary • standards and guidelines

  14. DISCUSSIONS Service Delivery Academic audit • Four stages: • (1) a self-study • (2) the appointment of a peer • group or external experts • (3) site visits by the external • experts and • (4) a public report or the • publication of the decision or • recommendation of the • agency (Lewis, 2009)

  15. DISCUSSIONS Service Delivery Accreditation • Evaluates a higher education • institution as a whole or a • specific academic program • against a pre-determined • minimum criteria or • standards • (Vlăsceanu, et al., 2007)

  16. DISCUSSIONS Service Delivery Collaboration • Help speedy • development • Create ownership • among stakeholders

  17. DISCUSSIONS Service Delivery Transparency

  18. Conclusions • A holistic quality assurance model for higher education could include the following main elements: • Regulatory Framework • Standards • Service delivery

  19. Conclusions A tentative QA model for higher education Legislative Framework Standards HE QA System policies one-tier system Minimum requirements guidelines legislation independence Service Delivery Qualifications frameworks academic audit accreditation

  20. Recommendations • Develop HE QA systems for specific context of Small States • Legislative framework that stipulates clear functions, roles and responsibilities

  21. Impact / outcomes of the study

  22. Impact / outcomes of the study Bibliographical entries Commonwealth Consultative Group (1997). A future for small states: Overcoming vulnarability. London: Commonwealth Secratariat. Houston, D., & Maniku, A. A. (2005). Systems perspectives on external quality assurance: Implications for micro states [Article]. Quality in Higher Education, 11(3), 213-226. from the database. Klir, G. (1991). Facts of systems science. New York: Plenum. Lewis, R. (2009). Quality assurance in higher education – its global future Higher Education to 2030 (Vol. 2, pp. 323-352): OECD. Vlăsceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic terms and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES

  23. THANK YOU!

More Related