Transcript Slide 1

CURRENT SITUATION IN EXTERNAL QUALITY
ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION
presented at the ASEM Conference
Quality Assurance and Recognition in Higher
Education: Challenges and Prospects
Lymassol, Cyprus,
6-7 December 2010
Kamanto Sunarto
Board Member, Asia Pacific Quality Network
The Asia Pacific Quality Network
(APQN)
 Founded in Hong Kong in January 2003
 2004: Legal Entity: incorporated as a non-profit
association in Victoria, Australia
 2003 – March 2009: Hosted by Australian
Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)
 2009: Legal Entity in the Philippines
 2009 handover: hosted by Shanghai Educational
Evaluation Institute (SEEI)
Vision
To be a self-sustaining Network, a
first point of reference for advice or
support, efficient in operation and open
in information sharing.
Mission
To enhance the quality of higher
education in Asia and the Pacific region
through strengthening the work of quality
assurance agencies and extending the
cooperation between them.
Purposes
•
•
•
•
•
To promote good practice in the maintenance and
improvement of quality in higher education in the Asia-Pacific
region
To facilitate research in the region into the practice of quality
management in higher education and its effectiveness in
improving the quality of higher education in the region
To provide advice anf expertise to assist in the development of
new quality assurance agencies in the region
To facilitate links between quality assurance agencies and
acceptance of each other’s decisions and judgments
To assist members of APQN to determine standards of
institutions operating across national borders
PURPOSES (continued)
•
•
•
•
To permit better-informed international recognition of
qualifications throughout the region
To assist in the development and use of credit transfer
schemes to enhance the mobility of students between
institutions both within and across national borders
To enable members of APQN to be alert to dubious
accrediting practices and organizations
Where appropriate, represent the region and promote
the interests of the region, e.g. vis-à-vis other networks
and international organizations
Methods
• dissemination of information through
newsletters, documents, journals and
books, whether in paper-based or
electronic form
• Training and development through
seminars, workshops, conferences and
staff movement
Russia
Bhutan
.
.Brunei
Maldives
Membership:
75 members from 28
countries/territories
and 5 observers from
5 countries
APQN MEMBERSHIP
1. 28 Full members
2. 13 Intermediate members
3. 6 Associate members
4. 28 Institutional members
•
5 Observers
APQN MEMBERS
Australia (4)
Bangladesh (3)
Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia (2)
China (3)
Chinese Taipei
Fiji (2)
Hong Kong, China (5)
India
Indonesia
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea, South (2)
Laos
Macau, China
Malaysia (2)
Maldives
Mongolia (4)
Nepal
New Zealand (3)
Pakistan (14)
Philippines (2)
Russia (3)
Samoa
Singapore
Sri Lanka (2)
Thailand (2)
Timor Leste
Vietnam (6)
Other Countries/Territories
Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cook Islands,
French Polynesia, Iran, Kiribati, Korea, North
Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Marshall Islands,
Micronesia, Myanmar, Nauru, New Caledonia,
Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands,
Tajikistan, Tokela, Tonga, Turkmenistan,
Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.
APQN Organisational Structure
CURRENT APQN BOARD 2008-2010
APQN BOARD
•
•
•
•
•
•
President
Vice-President
Secretary/Treasurer
Elected (4)
Co-opted (max. 4)
Appointed
COUNTRIES OF
REPRESENTATION ON APQN
BOARD
Australia
China
India
Indonesia
Kazakhstan
Malaysia
New Zealand
Philippines
Samoa
Sri Lanka
Thailand
APQN CONFERENCES AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS
• 2005 Hong Kong (First APQN Board Meeting)
CONFERENCES AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS
1. 2005 Wellington (in conjunction with INQAAHE Annual
Conference)
2. 2006 Shanghai
3. 2007 Kuala Lumpur
4. 2008 Chiba
5. 2009 Hanoi
6. 2010 Bangkok
7. 2011 Bangalore
DIVERSITY IN THE REGION
1. Stages of development
1. QAA system:
1. Absent
2. Emerging
3. Established
2. Quantity of HEIs and
programs in the
country/territory
2. From 1 to > 1.000
3. Quantity of QAA
3. Single, multiple
DIVERSITY
(DEEWR Report 2006)
Variations in QAA arrangements in the region:
• Establishment
• Ownership
• Legal basis
• Governance
• Funding
• Level of independence
DIVERSITY
(DEEWR Report 2006)
Variations in:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level of QA (institution, program, QAA)
Nature of QA process (mandatory, voluntary)
Aspects considered for QA
Role of HEI in constituting review team
Role of QAA staff in on-site visit
Extent of public disclosure of QA outcomes
Implications of QA outcome
Appeals mechanisms
Post-QA follow-up
BUILDING ON COMMONALITIES AND
STRENGTHS (Australian DEEWR Report)
 Diversities in QA practices to suit the national
contexts but agreement on common core principles
of QA
 Promotion of policies and practices that are strong
points of the region
 Regional approach to build on commonalities and
strengths which do not contradict international
developments but help the region to move forward
in the international QA scenario
COLLABORATION WITH OTHER
ORGANIZATIONS
 UNESCO-OECD TOOLKIT: UNESCO-APQN Regulation
the Quality of Cross-Border Education, 2005
Australian DEEWR-APQN Study: Quality
Assurance Arrangements in Higher Education
in the Broader Asia-Pacific Region, 2008.
Framework for Higher Education Quality
Assurance Principles in the Asia Pacific Region
(Chiba Principles)
A:
Internal
Quality
Assurance
B:
Quality
Assessment
C:
Quality
Assurance
Agencies
COLLABORATION WITH MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS:
NIAD-UE INFORMATION PACKAGE
• NIAD-UE Information Package providing basic
and specific information on the QA systems of
higher education in Japan, China, and the
United Kingdom (launched in Bangkok, backto-back with the 2010 APQN Conference and
Annual General Meeting)
COLLABORATION BETWEEN MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS
•
•
•
•
•
MoC: SEEI-HKCAA (2006)
MoC: AUQA-NAAC (2006)
Consultancy: PAASCU-ACC (2006)
MoA: NAAHE-MQA (2010)
Japan-ASEAN Information Package Seminar n Tokyo
(2010): QA Systems of GDETA (Vietnam), MQA
(Malaysia), NAAHE (Indonesia), -NIAD-UE (Japan),
ONESQA - (Thailand) and PAASCU (Philippines)
COLLABORATION BETWEEN MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS
MoU, MoC between QAAs in the region:
• Australia
• New Zealand
• Malaysia
• China
• India
• Hong Kong
GOOD PRACTICES IN QA IN THE ASIAPACIFIC REGION
(Australian DEEWR Report)
Some major influences:
INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice (GPP), 2007
Membership criteria of APQN
UNESCO-OECD Guidelines on Quality Provision in
Cross-Border Higher Education, 2005
• Australian DEEWR Study
SWOT Analysis of Quality
Assurance in the Asia-Pacific
Region linked to
international standards: analysis
of common issues and
opportunities for collaboration
Strengths
• Strong commitment and interest in QA at Ministerial
level
• Broad similarity in underlying approaches in QA
between countries
• Presence of regional QA body in APQN
• UNESCO-OECD Guidelines on CBHE
• INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice
• Lessons from Bologna Process
• High degree of cross-border provision and
collaboration
Weaknesses
• Considerable diversity between actual QA
practices
• Considerable differences in capacity of QA
agencies
• Weaknesses in dealing with QA of distance
and CBHE
• Lack of a strong Asia-Pacific regional identity.
Opportunities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reach agreement on principles for QA
Build capacity of QA agencies
Share best practice and learning
Raise awareness of benefits and relevance
of QA to education systems
Economies of scale and enhanced
effectiveness and efficiency through a
regional QA approach
Threats
•
•
•
•
•
Insufficient commitment and resources to
resolving QA issues
A focus on national approaches
A developing understanding of the benefits of
QA and regional cooperation in QA
EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF APQN :
2008 Evaluation review of the APQN
(BY BATEMAN & BATEMAN)
as recipient of World Bank Development Grant Facility (DGF)
2004-2007
Criteria used:
1. Efficacy
2. Initial outcomes
3. Governance and management
4. Efficient financing
5. Sustainability
Evaluation review of the APQN
(Bateman & Bateman, 2008)
“The APQN has demonstrated that it has
delivered capacity building outcomes across
the region within many of the
countries/territories that have less developed
QA systems. However, the task is not complete
and recommendations are framed with view
of further developments and reaching out to
all nations within the region.”
Thank You