Seventh Quality in Higher Education Seminar Transforming Quality 30–31 October 2002 Melbourne

Seventh Quality in Higher Education Seminar

Transforming Quality

30–31 October 2002

Melbourne

Transforming quality

Deliberate ambiguity:

can quality transform or do we need to transform quality?

Themes

• Is quality in higher education about transforming students?

• How might (external) quality monitoring be transformed to help improve the quality of the student experience and of the learning?

• What has been the transformative impact of external quality monitoring?

Theme 1

Is quality in higher education about transforming

students?

Quality learning

• What constitutes a high quality learning process and outcomes?

• To what extent is there a need to reconceptualise how higher education engages with the key issues of—access —employability —funding?

standards monitoring


assessmentassessment

auditaudit

accreditation

accreditation

Object

improvementimprovement

accountability

accountability

Rationale

External evaluationApproach

learnerlearner

outputoutput

medium of delivery

medium of delivery

providerprovider

Focus

qualificationqualification

learning experience

learning experience

curriculum design, admin


governanace & regulation


controlcontrol

compliancecompliance

nationalregional

nationalregional internationalinternational



assessmentassessment

auditaudit

accreditation

accreditation

Object


accountability

accountability

Rationale


learnerlearner

outputoutput

medium of delivery

medium of delivery

providerprovider

Focus

qualificationqualification

learning experience

learning experience





controlcontrol

compliancecompliance

nationalregional

nationalregional internationalinternational

Interlinked elements

fundingfunding

accessaccess employabilityemployability

learninglearningqualityquality


fundingfunding



value for moneyvalue for money

fitness for purposefitness for purpose excellenceexcellence

transformationtransformation


fundingfunding



value for moneyvalue for money

fitness for purposefitness for purpose excellenceexcellence

transformationtransformation

employersemployers

institutionsinstitutions

studentsstudents

academic staffacademic staff

Theme 2

How might (external) quality monitoring be transformed to

help improve the quality of the student experience and

of the learning?

improvement audit

improvement audit

accrediting, assessing and checking


Object


accountability and conformance


Rationale


learnerlearner

providerand what is provided


Focus

learning experience

learning experience

static elements:regulation, curriculum, outputs


improvement audit

improvement audit



Object




Rationale


learnerlearner



Focus

learning experience

learning experience



improvement audit

improvement audit



Object




Rationale


learnerlearner



Focus

learning experience

learning experience



improvement audit

improvement audit

Object


Rationale


learnerlearner

Focus

learning experience

learning experience

transformation of the learner

transformation of the learner

Transformative learning

• A continuous process of assimilation, reflection, synthesis and critique.

• Questioning absolutes, preconceptions and taken-for granteds —others and ones own.

• Deconstructing knowledge and building alternative understandings.

Transformativelearning


RoteEngaging/

Questioning

Reconceptualising

Accepting

Understanding


Enhancing students’ abilities and knowledge

Empowering students to be active learners

Enhancing learners

Enhancing students as transformative learners means:

• providing students with access to a body of knowledge;

• enabling students to develop a range of intellectual and other attributes through which they can engage and develop knowledge.

self skillsself skills risk takingrisk taking

flexibility and adaptabilityflexibility and adaptability

ability to find things out

ability to find things out

willingness to continue learning

willingness to continue learning

intellectintellect

Attributes

knowledgeknowledge

analysis, synthesis, critiqueanalysis, synthesis, critique

communicationcommunication team workingteam working

interpersonal skillsinterpersonal skills

Empowering learners

Empowering students as transformative learners means:

• treating students as intellectual performers rather than as passive recipients of teaching;

• encouraging critical engagement with a body of knowledge.

Quality monitoring?

To what extent can external quality processes assure transformative learning.

Approaches to date are not strong on learning at all —tend to conservatism.

Quality monitoring?

External processes are not the primary mechanism by which transformative quality improvement in higher education is assured.

Day-to-day quality assurance is through internal academic processes.

External processes should articulate with, and augment, internal procedures.

Theme 3

What has been the transformative impact of

external quality monitoring?

Impact• What impact has EQM had and on

what?• Does it go beyond the level of

rhetoric?• Does it lead to short-term response

or does it lead to permanent cultural changes?

• If so, does this permeate all levels of the institution or is it a management preoccupation?

External quality monitoring

leads to bureaucratisation and inflexibilityleads to bureaucratisation and inflexibility

is amateurish, burdensome and inefficientis amateurish, burdensome and inefficient

is concerned with accountability not improvementis concerned with accountability not improvement

leads to ‘game playing’ and ‘performance’leads to ‘game playing’ and ‘performance’

short-term response not cultural changesshort-term response not cultural changes

has no real impact on student learninghas no real impact on student learning

Bureaucracy

• Any form of EQM would involve some level of ‘bureaucracy’.

• Key issue is not the existence of a bureaucracy or of bureaucratic processes but the nature of the bureaucracy and its processes.

• Bureaucracy must meets needs of external and internal stakeholders, not be self-perpetuating.

Quality bureaucracies

Three main roles: • ensure integrity of HE• act as a catalyst for improvement• act as a conduit for useful

information

Amateurism

• Dominant approach —self-assessment, peer review, statistical data — not necessarily seen as the best approach.

• Burdensome.• Most benefit to the peer assessors

not the assessed.

Efficiency

• Doubts about the efficiency of most EQM.

• Cost (of agency and and to the institution) outweighs the value gained.

• Periodic ‘events’ do not help inform change management.

• EQM inhibits innovation through its conservative or rigid evaluation criteria.

Improvement

• Temporary impact.• EQM must interact with internal

quality systems — often not the case.

• Changes in culture—slow—commitment.

• Event or continuous process: performance and game playing.

Performance & game playing

• Engagement mediated by the perceived, short-term affect.

• ‘Game playing’ and compliance.• ‘Performance’ to ensure maximum

return. • Obscures the reality.• No surprise: ‘natural’ outcome of

accountability-oriented processes.• Game playing taking up resources

for very little real return.

Self-assessment

• Main value of EQM is the internal self-reflection.

• But ‘two sets of books’.• Fear of revealing weaknesses.

Longevity of process

• Improvement potential decreases as process becomes more elaborate and routine?

• Emphasis shifts to procedural elements rather than innovative process.

• Need for constant reflection on and change in EQM, more trust and collaboration.

• Periodic change in purposes and in the agencies themselves.

Longevity

Without periodic change, there is the danger of ending up with a British-style, QAA-type, system: a rolling ‘juggernaut’, that is not sure what it is looking for, but which ensures compliance and minimizes innovation and risk-taking. British institutions continue to comply, even if the return on the investment is derisory, because of the fear of loss of income.

“

”

Impact on learning

• Extreme sceptical that EQM had any impact on programme quality or student learning.

• No evidence of clear impact on learning —available research suggests that

other factors outweigh the impact of EQM.

• Structure and organisation of EQM is not compatible with empowering staff and students to enhance the learning situation.

Impact on learning?

I still haven’t seen a study that directly links external evaluation to improved student learning. (NOR)

‘’

Impact on learning?

We still know almost nothing about the outcome of this concern for quality in terms of improvements in student learning. (SWE)

‘’

Impact on learning?

I can detect no improvement in the learning situation of students — perhaps, in fact, even the opposite. Because we spend so much time trying to lay ‘paper trails’ for audit, and trying to ensure good RAE ratings, time to devote to students (certainly for informal interaction with them) is at a premium. (UK)

‘

’

A Quality Manifesto

“ Academics and students of the world unite and reclaim the quality agenda…..

”

Thank you

Documents

Seventh Quality in Higher Education Seminar Transforming Quality 30–31 October 2002 Melbourne