Analytic Quality Glossary
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z Home
Citation reference: Harvey, L., 2004–12, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/
This is a dynamic glossary and the author would welcome any e-mail suggestions for amendments or additions.
____________________________________________________________________
Internal quality monitoring (IQM) is a
generic term to refer to procedures within institutions to review, evaluate, assess, audit or otherwise check, examine or ensure the
quality of the education provided and/or research undertaken.
explanatory
context
Internal monitoring operates
at three levels (the institution, the course and the module) Internal monitors
include:
á
institutional
units, such as audit and assessment units, institutional research units,
management information units (such as statistics section of Registry/Central
administration);
á
sub-committees
of academic boards/senate;
á
standing
institutional audit and review bodies;
á
specially
convened review boards;
á
faculty-based
units;
á
sub-committees
of faculty boards;
á
programme
boards (or sub-committees, programme directors);
á
individual
teachers and researchers;
á
student
organisations;
á
formal or ad
hoc groups of students at programme or
module level;
á
external
examiners:
á
invited
consultants: JimŽnez, Escalante and Aguirre-Vasquez (1997, p. 265), for
example, discuss the role played in 1989 by independent external experts in
helping the educational community at the Autonomous University of Southern Baja
California learn to adapt to changing conditions. They conclude that it is
important, when using external experts, not to become dependent on them but
rather to learn from them.
analytical
review
The term internal quality monitoring
tends not to be defined as such but is used internationally. Campbell and Rozsnya (2002), for example, refer to institutionsÕ
Ôinternal quality monitoring or academic processes as a wholeÕ in their
analysis of quality processes in institutions in Eastern Europe and
Alean-Kirkpatrick et al. (2002) write
about ÔInternal quality monitoring of the teaching at the ETH, ZurichÕ.
One of EUAÕs key goals, for example, is
Ôto strengthen universitiesÕ capacity to monitor their quality internallyÕ
(Toft, 2003). HEA (2002) notes:
The EUA adopts a dynamic methodological
approach to evaluation. It focuses
on the universitiesÕ capacity to change, including their strategic planning and
internal quality monitoring, and examines if all the preconditions are
assembled to make each and every institution more adaptable and responsive to
the changing higher education environment at local, national, European and
international level.
The emphasis on IQM is
made clear in the following view from EUA (2002):
As discussions in Europe intensify regarding the quality dimension of the Bologna process (which will contribute to promote mobility and European competitiveness), the European higher education sector is at risk of witnessing the development of external procedures that could be heavy-handed and potentially negative in altering the mission and function of higher education towards narrow economic interests. The only way to protect it from this risk is to develop robust internal quality monitoring, guided by academic rather than merely economic imperatives.
Relationship
between internal and external monitoring
Martin
Trow (1995, p. 22) argues that Ôinternal
reviews and assessments are more accurate and fruitful than those done by outsidersÕ
a view reinforced by Bente Kristensen in her view of the Danish system. She
notes that, while there can be a fruitful synergy between external and internal
processes, external monitoring can never stand alone and Ôwill never be able to
replace valuable internal quality monitoringÕ (Kristensen,
1997, p. 91).
Using
data from IQM for enhancement
Internal
quality procedures are usually predicated upon the collection of data. Apart
from financial data and enrolment statistics, institutions collect a wide range
of data about the services they provide including:
á
student
progression;
á
surveys of
student views;
á
surveys of
recent graduates;
á
employer
views of graduates.
á
internal
peer review of teaching;
á
internal
audits of quality procedures.
Most
exercises are designed to inform quality judgements with a view to enhancing
the quality of provision, for example, peer reviews of teaching are designed to
share good practice, or surveys of students, graduates or employers are
designed to identify areas of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. A considerable
amount of data about stakeholder views is generated, which is designed to
provide feedback primarily for quality-improvement purposes. To be effective in
quality improvement, data collected from surveys and peer reviews must be
transformed into information that can be used within an institution to effect
change. Furthermore, this information must be linked into a process of action
and feedback. In short, there must be a means to close the loop between data
collection and effective action (Harvey, 2000).
related terms
sources
Alean-Kirkpatrick, P., Hanni, H. &
Lutz, L., 1997, ÔInternal quality monitoring of the teaching at the ETH,
Zurich: model design and initial impactsÕ, Quality in Higher Education, 3(1), pp. 67ff.
Campbell, C. & Rozsnyai,
C., 2002, Quality Assurance and the Development of Course Programmes. Papers on Higher Education
Regional University Network on Governance and Management of Higher Education in
South East Europe Bucharest, UNESCO
European
University Association (EUA), 2002, Guidelines: Quality Culture Project
2002Ð2003. http://www.uta.fi/opiskelu/opetuksen_tuki/bolognan
_prosessi/toimintasuunnitelma.pdf.
Harvey, L., 2000, ÔInternal improvement and external evaluationÕ, a keynote presentation at the Universidae de Chile, Santiago, October 2000
Higher Education Authority [of Ireland] (HEA), 2004,
Quality Review of Universities in Ireland, MarchÕ www.hea.ie/uploads/word/2HEAIUQB.doc
Jensen, H.T., 2003, ÔConsolidating a quality culture in European universities?Õ keynote by the Chair, Steering Committee, EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme, Quality Culture Project, Graz Convention, 29Ð31 May, 2003.
JimŽnez, Escalante and Aguirre-Vasquez
(1997, p. 265),
Trow
(1995, p. 22)
Kristensen, 1997, p. 91.