ࡱ> aN(    <(http://www.uce.ac.ukH4http://www.qualityresearch/ 0LDTimespԬL詼v 0( 0 ` .  @n?" dd@  @@`` Pi&             c $ @g42d2dv 0p pp  <4KdKd 0L8 g4(d(dv 0@p@ pp<4!d!d` 0LԪuʚ;2Nʚ;<4dddd{ 0h___PPT2001D<4X2___PPT9/ 0? %O =EA6B7The End of Quality?$$  Has external quality review had its day? Has control of quality been usurped by the market and by information technology? Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality?$$$  J;!External Quality Monitoring (EQM)""$"  accreditation (of institutions and programmes); institutional quality audit or assessment; programme assessment or review; external evaluation and comparison of standards; research reviews;  internal-external .,1$ $  D9  K<External quality monitoring$   L: Bureaucracy$  $   8Any 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. \$$ZQ 7   Quality monitoring bureaucracies(! $!  Three main roles: ensure integrity initial private; act as a catalyst improvement; act as a conduit qualitative research participatory not consumerist.%$$$$$4$   3  ^NQuality process$   Type and approach$  Programme, subject or institutional level? Less important than the purpose of the activity. Dominant approach: self-assessment, peer review, statistical data. Not necessarily seen as the best approach. .$D  Self-assessment&$  Main value of EQM is the internal self-reflection. But  two sets of books . Fear of revealing weaknesses.j$jj  N> Engagement  $   6Engagement mediated by the perceived, short-term affect.  Game playing and compliance.  Performance to ensure maximum return. Obscures the reality. No surprise:  natural outcome of accountability-oriented processes. Game playing taking up resources for very little real return. ($>  O?Burden$  However benign, imposed an unnecessary bureaucratic burden. Time taken to prepare specific event-related documentation. Evaluate on the basis of what institutions already produce.$  P@ Legitimacy  $   "How far it is supported by academics. Collaborative  not something being  done to an institution. Help to improve outputs. Some internal-external processes have legitimacy (e.g., external examining and departmental reviews), which external monitoring should not displace.>$&31  QA Improvement  $   Temporary impact. EQM must interact with internal quality systems. Changes in culture slow commitment. Event or process: performance and game playing.xV$$0$ :  RB Longevity  $   %Improvement potential decreases as process becomes more elaborate and routinised? Emphasis shifts to procedural elements rather than innovative process. Need constant reflection on and change in EQM, more trust and collaboration. Periodic change in purposes and in the agencies themselves. (&$F*F       WH 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. (pop  SC Efficiency  $   vDoubts about the efficiency of most EQM. Cost (external and internal) in no way reflect the value gained from the process. Little engagement with the internal improvement process. Periodic  events do not help inform change management. EQM inhibits innovation through its conservative or rigid evaluation criteria.6<$zsO<  ZIImpact on learning$  DExtreme 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.$L$z$S)KxE  TDStudent feedback&$  ZImportant element of quality monitoring. Link feedback to action and empowerment. Over-evaluation of students, unlinked to action, leads to  questionnaire fatigue and cynicism by both students and staff . Too much emphasis on a consumerist approach to feedback rather than a participative approach?.$..   Theme 2,$$  U Has control of quality been usurped by the market and by information technology? PS`Pb$`V  VF Market and IT$   M=$Quality monitoring and gold standard%%$%  The market will not adequately monitor quality at the very least need accreditation (e.g., US) the market is not self-regulating competition will not ensure the integrity of HE. Underlying  gold standard notion of HE (international) HE encapsulates a certain type of learning experience; a degree has a universal structure and integrity.|/$$$/7gT  [KImpact of the market$  The market has had limited impact despite predictions (US apart) There will not be a higher education market that will determine quality. Some aspects of a  market will impact on HE either to encourage improvement or inhibit it. Despite their interconnections, distinguish between the impact of IT and of the  market . (B$AB  \LPublic versus private$  Important issue in some countries. (Negative) impact on standards of fast growth in private sector. Cherry-picking public universities:basic  theoretical learning private universities: lucrative (post-graduation) vocational skill development.<s$$s  ]MPseudo-market conditions*$  Competition and efficiency contingent funding, e.g., performance lowering standards. Diverse income streams. Compliance government agendas distortion. Diversity (and equivalence) transformative potential for more students possibly drives down standards.$:$#$$$L$:#K    *    >  _OConsumer choice$  Internet market challenge (but not distance) international QM integrate and enhance existing provision. Student choice in learning style. Marketable skills development.r $`$A$ `"  Theme 3$  O Does the development of mass education necessarily mean the end of quality? ZMb$K$$b$P  `PMass higher education$   bQMass higher education$  ^increase the general level of education, skills and abilities; recruitment of less well qualified students; necessitating greater value added to avoid decline in  standards ; most governments are not prepared to fully fund expansion of higher education; resulting in access and equal opportunity issues.(0$/0  dS Value-added  $   K It is unfortunate that so little advance has been made in developing value-added approaches or measures. Although it might be difficult to measure student progress in any quantifiable way one suspects that there was no political will to develop value-added, not least because it might turn conventional league tables upside-down. LLL  cRStudent experience$  ;Massification gives rise to concerns about the quality of the student experience. Lowering of service standards to students Fewer resources, less staff time. Less formative assessments. More paid work, less peer interaction. Different rather than worse experience. More emphasis on explicit attribute development.(<$P   /  eT Standards  $   8Little support for the notion that standards in HE are declining. HE has changed and that current and past standards cannot be compared. Value-added is improving. New era in HE, which needs new methods of evaluating standards that provide for continuous assessment and allow for assessment of skill development9$99  fUQuality as agent for change   <EQM as agent of change or vehicle for government policy. Teaching ability is now expected: staff development, to enhance teaching ability. Quality processes as a means to change curricula and priorities: responsiveness to external factors. Biggest problem of quality reviews is legitimation of declining resources.p$$$K$Qu#K=  # A Quality Manifesto$   6+/E ` ̙33` ` ff3333f` 333MMM` f` f` 3` 3f3>?" dd@,|?" dd@   " @ ` n?" dd@   @@``PR    @ ` ` p>>  ( On   6 P  X Click to edit Master title style!!    0   RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!    S    0 ``  T*    0 `   V*    0 `   V*  H  0޽h ? 3  Blank0 P(    0ݭ P    T*     0     V*   d  c $ ?    0P  @  RClick to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level!    S    6 `P   T*     6P `   V*   H  0޽h ? ̙33  ^( wY B  c $SP   TSummary of the discussion sessions at the Sixth Quality in Higher Education SeminarPU) U    # lYs @  (` The End of Quality? 25 26 May 2001 Birmingham $0$$ $1  H  0޽h ? 33  `*(  r  S ty     c ${0<$0    <  `Three discussion themes:   H  0޽h ? 33  p0&( t 0r 0 S     0 s *l<$0   0 <Q VEQM includes :   H 0 0޽h ? 33 G( Htܻttt   < D UTheme 1$  F  Z @  h  . Has external quality review had its day? \" b$+$b$/  H  0޽h ? 33      4= (  4r 4 S 薰    4 B))?P$D 0PH___PPT2001$0 -leads to bureaucratisation and inflexibility?&.-  .  d 4 B))? P$D 0PH___PPT2001$ 0 fis amateurish?&     4 BL))?P$D 0PH___PPT2001$ 0 Tleads to  game playing and  performance ?&+*  +  s 4 BȨ))?P $D 0PH___PPT2001$ 0 u)short-term response not cultural changes?** *  |  4 B,))? Pp $D 0PH___PPT2001$ 0 ~&has a superficial impact on standards?&'&  '  q  4 B$))?p PP $D 0PH___PPT2001$ 0 s'has no real impact on student learning?(( (  j  4 Bl))? P$D 0PH___PPT2001$0 l is obsessed with accountability?!! !  H 4 0޽h ? 33  ,V(  ,r , S     , c $d<$0  H , 0޽h ? 33  P( h ) r  S       S <$p0  H  0޽h ? ̙33#      |K (  | | B̰))? `,$D  0 R legitimacy      | Bа))?  ,$D  0 Nburden    | BX԰))? P ,$D  0 Z engagement      | Bذ))?0 ,$D  0 _self-assessment    | Bݰ))? ,$D 0 Ttype    | B,))? `,$D  0 Xstudent feedback     | BX))?  ,$D  0 Vimpact     | B))? @ ,$D  0 Y longevity       | B))?0 ,$D  0 [ improvement      | c 0e0e "`   H | 0޽h ? ̙33  \(  x  c $      c $ <$p0  H  0޽h ? ̙33   \(   x  c $      c $<$p0  H  0޽h ? ̙33  <\(  <x < c $     < c $Xi<$p0  H < 0޽h ? ̙33  @\( w @x @ c $<      @ c $  <$p0  H @ 0޽h ? ̙33  D\( w Dx D c $h     D c $H <$ 0  H D 0޽h ? ̙33   H\( w Hx H c $     H c $p <$ 0  H H 0޽h ? ̙33  0L\( w Lx L c $     L c $<$ 0  H L 0޽h ? ̙33  z@d(  dx d c $\"     d  f<# @8<$  0   d <$ L `   d 0(  L `  H d 0޽h ? ̙33  PP\( w Px P c $/     P c $/,<$ 0  H P 0޽h ? ̙33  `h\( NX hx h c $7     h c $X8<$ 0  H h 0޽h ? ̙33  pT\( w Tx T c $<     T c $=<$p0  H T 0޽h ? ̙332  <r( A <x < c $hC     <  fE @h   H < 0޽h ? ̙33   \4(  \x \ c $- $,,tt $ ,,t tC- $, , 77 $i i tt $77ii $7 7 iiG- $77ii $77iiL- $77BB $^^ii $BB^^ $BB^^P- $BB^^ $BB^^V- $BBLL $TT^^ $LLTT $LLTTZ- $LLTT $LLTT_- $LLWW $IITT $WWII $WWIId- $WWII $WWIIh- $WWaa $??II $aa?? $aa??l- $aa?? $aa??p- $aall $44?? $l$l$44 $ll44t- $$l.l.4$4 $ll44x- $.llw.w $.))4.4 $.w8w8).) $ww)){- $8wBwB)8) $~ww)~)- $Bw~w~B $B~~)B) $BLLB $t~~t- $LVVL $jttj- $VjjV $VjjV $V``V $`jj`- $`jj` $V``V- $jVVj $j V Vj $jtt j  $LVV L - $t~~ t  $BLL B - $~BB~ $~BB ~  $~~ $8BB8- $ $.88.- $.. $.. $ $$..$- $ $$$- $ $ $ $- $ $- $ $ $ $ $ $- $ $ $ $- $---&& @Times JwSwgw - .$2 The End of Quality?+$+$$1$ ! .@Times JwSwgw - . 2 L25. . 2 w5. .2  26 May 2001 ( . .2 l Birmingham $ $.--"Systemwf  -&TNPP &՜.+,D՜.+,    rOn-screen ShowCRQ# %TimesBlankUSummary of the discussion sessions at the Sixth Quality in Higher Education SeminarThe End of Quality?"External Quality Monitoring (EQM)PowerPoint PresentationExternal quality monitoring Bureaucracy!Quality monitoring bureaucraciesQuality processType and approachSelf-assessment EngagementBurden Legitimacy Improvement Longevity Longevity EfficiencyImpact on learningStudent feedbackTheme 2Market and IT%Quality monitoring and gold standardImpact of the marketPublic versus privatePseudo-market conditionsConsumer choiceTheme 3Mass higher educationMass higher education Value-addedStudent experience StandardsQuality as agent for changeA Quality ManifestoPowerPoint Presentation  Fonts UsedDesign Template Slide Titles# 8@ _PID_HLINKSA http://www.uce.ac.uk/http://www.qualityresearch/ _bkrusrj7bkrusrj7  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoqrstuvwxyz{|}Root EntrydO)Current UserSummaryInformation(pPowerPoint Document(DocumentSummaryInformation8~