QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE
https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2019.03.022
Abstract
The article reviews international practice in managing and reforming national education quality assurance systems. Due to the influence of debates about instruments that have the potential to contribute to the development of quality education, many countries over the past decades have elaborated a system for assessing higher education quality. The review discusses both countries known for a long history of quality assurance (England or the United States) and cases that, under the influence of external pressures, developed a model of quality assessment from scratch. There are three significant trends in international experience. Firstly, countries either substantially reform the format of accreditation or abandon it entirely. There is a consensus among experts that the aim of the assessment system should be improving the quality of education. The accreditation is not suitable for it, since this format is generally related to satisfying the minimum standards. Secondly, more and more experts emphasize the advantages of quality audit, its format being related to assessing the university’s ability to autonomously maintain high standards of education quality. Third, the rejection of a unified assessment of universities is considered necessary, as it leads to a decrease in the diversity of the education system. A quality assurance system should take into account the specific features of the university, since the differentiated education system is more responsive to the demands of the labour market, the needs of students and society. The idea of creating uniform quality standards outside Russia and several countries of Eastern Europe not only lacks popularity, but is also criticized actively. All these trends allow us to conclude that the current Russian education quality assurance system does not meet international trends. In this regard, the experience of other countries in organizing the national system of education quality assessment is seen as particularly relevant to the context of Russian higher education.
About the Author
K. S. Guba
Center for Institutional Analysis of Science and Education, European University at Saint Petersburg
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Katerina S. Guba – PhD (Sociology), Director
8-931-306-7221
References
1. Frazer M. Report on the modalities of external evaluation of higher education in Europe, Higher Education in Europe, 1997, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 349–401.
2. Bernhard A. Quality assurance in an international higher education area: a case study approach and comparative analysis. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2012. 294 p.
3. Har vey L., Newton J. Transfor ming quality evaluation: moving on In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 225–247). Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
4. Guba K., Makeyeva A., Sokolov M., Tsivinskaya A. Kak rabotayet Rosobrnadzor: analiz otkrytykh dannykh o kontrol’no-nadzornoy deyatel’nosti v sfere vysshego obrazovaniya [How Russian Educational Watchdog works: Analysis of Open Data], St. Petersburg: CIASE, 2018. 24 p. (In Russ.).
5. Langfeldt L., Stensaker B., Harvey L., Huisman J., Westerheijden D. F. the role of peer review in Norwegian quality assurance: potential consequences for excellence and diversity, Higher Education, 2010, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 391–405.
6. Capano G. The Re-regulation of the Italian university system through quality assurance. A mechanistic perspective, Policy and Society, 2017, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 199–213.
7. Billing D. International comparisons and trends in external quality assurance of higher education: commonality or diversity? Higher Education, 2004, vol. 47, no 1, pp. 113–137.
8. Harman G. The management of quality assurance: A review of international practice, Higher Education Quarterly, 1998, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 345–364.
9. Westerheijden D. States and Europe and qualit y of higher education In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 73–99). Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
10. Jeliazkova M., Westerheijden D. F. Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: towards a next generation of quality assurance models, Higher Education, 2002, vol. 44, no. 3/4, pp. 433–448.
11. Massy W. Education quality audit as applied in Hong Kong In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 203–227). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
12. Kehm B. The German system of accreditation In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 227–249). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
13. Stensaker B., Harvey L. Old wine in new bottles? A comparison of public and private accreditation schemes in higher education, Higher Education Policy, 2006, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 65–85.
14. Tomusk V. Open World and Closed Societies: Essays on Higher Education Policies in Transition. Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. 241 p.
15. Hsieh C., Huisman J. Higher education policy change in the European higher education area: Divergence of quality assurance systems in England and the Netherlands, Research Papers in Education, 2016, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 71–83.
16. Williams G. Subject benchmarking in the UK In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 157–183). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
17. Dill D., Beerkens M. Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments. Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010. 335 p.
18. El-Khawas E. The Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC) in the USA In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 37–61). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
19. Brittingham B. Accreditation in the United States: How did we get to where we are? New Directions for Higher Education, 2009, vol. 145, pp. 7–27.
20. Ewell P. The US National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 83–99). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
21. Schwartzman S. The National Assessment of Courses in Brazil In D. Dill, M. Beerkens (Eds.), Public Policy for Academic Quality: Analyses of Innovative Policy Instruments (pp. 293–313). Dordrecht, London: Springer, 2010.
22. Lemaitre M., Maturana M., Zenteno E., Alvarado A. Institutional management and quality audit: the experience in Chile In M. Shah, C. S. Nair (Eds.), External Quality Audit: Has It Improved Quality Assurance in Universities? (pp. 209–220). Oxford: Chandos Publication, 2013.
23. Liu S., Liu J. Quality assurance in Chinese higher education In M. Shah, N. Quen. (Eds.), The Rise of Quality Assurance in Asian Higher Education (pp. 15–33). Oxford: Chandos Publication, 2017.
24. Rebora G., Turri M. Critical factors in the use of evaluation in Italian universities, Higher Education, 2011, vol. 61, no. 5, pp. 531–544.
25. Van Vught, F. A., Westerheijden D. F. Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education, Higher Education, 1994, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 355–371.
26. Blackmur D. The Public regulation of higher education qualities: rationale, processes, and outcomes In D. F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 15–47). Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.
Review
For citations:
Guba K.S. QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE. University Management: Practice and Analysis. 2019;23(3):94-107. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.15826/umpa.2019.03.022
Views:
2419
Email this article 