Abstract
Starting in the early 1980s, quality has become a key theme in higher education. The reasons are not hard to find. Higher education is witnessing rapid changes, such as the shift from an elitist system to ‘massification’, more diverse learner groups participating in higher education, the importance of education and training in the new knowledge society, the emergence of private providers, the growing internationalisation of education, shrinking public investment and a general perception that educational institutions are far from successful in serving the needs of the society in which they function. The recent emphasis on quality assurance (QA) in education can be attributed, on the one hand, to government interest in the demonstration of ‘responsible and relevant activities undertaken with the tax payer’s money’ and, on the other hand, to the growing doubts about the possibility of maintaining quality in changing circumstances. QA is no longer being seen as an option.
As a process, QA in distance education (DE) is not new, as Tait (1993) points out. QA features such as peer review of course materials, monitoring of assignments and incorporation of learner feedback have been associated with DE since its inception. DE processes involve the inspection of ‘products’ and ‘services’ internally as well as externally by the larger community of stakeholders.
Sallis (1993) reinforces the view shared by DE practitioners that QA is implicit in DE, by tracing the origins of QA to industrialisation, which led to a change in the nature of work. Sallis (1993) writes:
prior to industrialization, craftsmen set their own standards on which their livelihoods and reputations depended…, after mass production came, the manufacturing process broke down work into repetitive tasks, taking away from the worker the possibility of self-checking quality. (p. 5)
The fragmented nature of the teaching–learning process in DE has always lent itself to the adoption of external processes to ensure the quality of learning.
In contemporary times, all institutions of higher learning are expected to set up QA procedures for performance and to make themselves more relevant to both society and economy. This, however, involves an understanding of issues such as the contested nature of QA, accountability, control, autonomy and self-assessment, the ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ nature of quality and, indeed, the conflicting understandings of the term ‘quality’ itself. Failure to acknowledge the different dimensions of QA can diminish the institutional purpose.
The book is a documentation of QA systems and procedures developed and implemented in select DE institutions in 12 countries in Asia, and discusses the different perspectives that inform the concept of quality in these institutions and the QA mechanism chosen to serve or advance that concept. The cases are written in a narrative style and every case has a ‘Lessons Learned’ or ‘Issues and Challenges’ section, which is a reflective and critical account of the practice, mostly by the practitioners themselves. This is a significant part because it is not easy to reflect on one’s practice in a critical way. The last chapter, written by one of the volume editors, is an appraisal of the institutional QA mechanisms and an integration of the lessons drawn for future policy initiatives in QA in DE.
The book is divided into five thematic sections, each highlighting a different aspect of quality, which is reflected in the respective cases: ‘Approaches to Quality Assurance’; ‘Quality Management System’; ‘Pedagogy’; ‘Learner Support and Assessment’; and ‘Outcome-based Performance’. The cases suggest that QA schemes appear in different forms and serve different aims. A deeper engagement with the stated aims throws up several questions, such as the view of knowledge prevailing in the society in which the DE institutions function; the notion of quality and how it is measured; the multiple foci (students, teachers, employers, etc.) and the various levels of aims being pursued (accountability, efficiency, quality improvement); and determining which aims should assume primacy. The cases, however, eschew establishing links to or between these questions, and the book concerns itself with what are, according to the volume editors, ‘good practices in QA for DE which analyze the challenges in assuring QA and offer possible solutions’ (p. xxiii).
The first section on the systemic approach to QA consists of four cases, and the QA mechanisms discussed are based on a three-tier model: a national QA regulatory framework coordinator; an internal QA unit for self-evaluation; and peer review. The challenge is to adopt a balanced QA approach, integrating different concerns.
The case of Singapore Institute of Management (SIM), a privately funded not-for-profit university, described by Kiat, demonstrates that there is a strong tendency towards state intervention, as the state involves itself in the assessment of all public and private institutions through its regulatory regimes. While the state accelerates and expands the role of the market in the field of education, it also controls the latter by making it affordable by giving subsidies. QA can be seen, on the one hand, as a policy instrument supporting markets for students and, on the other hand, as an attempt by the government to continue to remain the major funding source in higher education and also to display a commitment to higher education, which explains the continuing influence of the state on regulatory mechanisms. Within this framework, SIM’s QA system consists of internal processes to appraise inputs, processes and learning outcomes, annual reviews and periodic internal and external academic audits, ensuring the involvement and ownership of the faculty.
In their study of Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU), Sungkatavat and Boonyarataphan bring out the contested nature of QA and suggest that the objectives of external and internal QA are different; the former is more focused on accountability, whereas the latter is more concerned with learning and improvement. STOU’s approach of balancing and integrating external and internal QA has enabled the university to carry out its internal QA effectively. This approach is also important because DE institutions, unlike their conventional counterparts, operate in an environment of hostility towards, and mistrust of, their methods and quality standards. It is interesting to note that QA schemes serve different aims because of the presence of a multitude of stakeholders in higher education (such as students, teachers, employers and government officials) who have different views on what constitutes quality. This situation, however, often restricts an institution’s autonomy in carrying out its QA processes effectively.
In his article on Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK), Butcher highlights a significant dimension of QA, that is, the importance of the larger context and the need to acknowledge the socio-cultural complexities of education and its processes in embedding institutional QA practices. The OUHK experience also underscores the need for having simplified QA procedures and for involving the faculty in the process. As Butcher notes:
‘If, in its enthusiasm for quality, an institution establishes QA procedures with too many levels of oversight, faculty members will feel distrusted and devalued as key participants in the process’. (p. 55)
Part 2 highlights the aspect of process-based quality management in QA by describing practices being followed in very different contexts. Hardini et al. examine the efforts and experiences of Universitas Terbuka (UT), Indonesia, in developing a framework for improving the quality of the QA processes and product, especially in material production and delivery and in the ‘working processes in all units at UT’ (p. 91). A total number of 215 QA manuals guide the faculty through flow charts, diagrams, etc., to ensure consistency in functions across the institution. UT is driven by the assumption that ‘an open university operates like a business entity and therefore uses ISO 9001 as an appropriate tool for ensuring the quality of its management process’ (p. 87).
From China, Li et al., in their study of the Peking University School of Distance Learning for Medical Education, bring out the need to ensure quality in products and processes in professional areas like medical education. The tool chosen for quality management in this case is similar to that of UT, that is, ISO 9001.
The growing use of ISO 9001 in DE indicates that the concepts of quality being used are driven by the external requirements of the market. ISO 9001 is a highly standardised approach and disregards the dimension or the type of activity being carried out in an organisation such as a university. Since it is focused on meeting ‘customer’ expectations, it emphasises the importance of services and not the core functions of teaching and learning (p. 91). In other words, it does not take into account the critical issues of content, pedagogy and learning. Implementation of ISO 9001 is difficult and leads to increased bureaucratisation of the processes. There are also problems with interpreting and adapting the standards (p. 91).
An additional challenge in having such standardized working procedures is that staff may become bored as tasks become ‘routine’ thus decreasing the human touch in performing their work. Concerns have been expressed that staff have become like ‘machines’ making some working processes almost unbearable. (p. 92)
These important insights reinforce the point that notions drawn from the world of business and applied uncritically in the educational context lead to a dehumanised working environment, and also diminish the core purpose of education.
The QA practices discussed in Part 3 focus on instructional design and pedagogy. Suzuki’s study of Japan’s Kumamoto University’s Graduate School of Instructional System (GSIS) challenges the notion of e-learning as simply putting existing materials ‘on the web’, while ignoring the pedagogical challenges present in this unique learning environment. GSIS programmes are aimed at promoting learner engagement and learning achievement using a variety of innovative strategies.
The step-by-step model for developing a course at the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in India is described by Samdup and Nembiakkim. The course team—comprising instructional designers, content experts, language specialists and media professionals, from both within and outside IGNOU—designs the curriculum. Beginning with a needs analysis, the course team identifies the programme and course objectives, decides the learner support and delivery system and carries out the process of curriculum design through various stages until it achieves its final form. The IGNOU experience shows that a shift to an individualised approach to developing courses, and the pressure to develop courses in a short time, can affect quality. Hence, there is a need to visualise course development as a complex and creative process, and not to regard it as merely an amalgamation of content.
With the exception of GSIS, the cases discussed do not offer any insights into the model(s) of teaching that have been adopted. Do DE institutions consider knowledge to be external to the learner, something that is sought to be transferred through print materials that are self-contained and have clear objectives, a logical flow and interconnections? Is this model being challenged to make way for dialogue and reflection using interactive technologies aimed at encouraging learners to discover the meaning of the learning for their own lives? The practices cited in this section, however, seem to suggest that QA in instructional design and pedagogy is not driven by the concerns that drive academic discourse.
Part 4 draws on the QA experiences in two DE institutions—Malaysia’s Wawasan Open University (WOU) and the Virtual University of Pakistan (VUP)—in providing flexible and individualised learner support. Different learner support functions are carried out by the tutors who are academics from outside the institution. The WOU case highlights the rigorous process of the selection and training of tutors.
Student support, in particular, enriches the learning experience by providing an opportunity for a dialogue with tutors, counsellors and the peer group, as well as for using educational technologies, thereby bridging the divide across space and time that separates distance learners. In other words, student support, when envisaged for effective learning, changes individualised learning into a social process. However, from the experiences narrated, it is not evident if there are any mechanisms in place to ensure that these important aspects of student support are being addressed.
In the last section, the Open University of Sri Lanka (OUSL) and Open University Malaysia (OUM) are cited as offering the best practices in performance-based QAs.
QA at OUSL is aimed at improving the quality of products, processes and outcomes, and at integrating these with the vision, mission and objectives of the institution. QA interventions in teaching–learning occur at different levels. Completion, retention and progression rates are monitored regularly, and performance indicators (PIs) for standards have been developed for ‘reflective self-evaluation’ (p. 250). OUSL has also developed a ‘national QA framework which has been internationalized across the Commonwealth’ (p. 254).
OUSL’s case demonstrates an integrated QA approach aimed at fostering a ‘reflective culture of quality’ (p. 250). In that, it goes beyond ‘window-dressing’ behaviour and suggests that there is more to QA than frequent performance checks and the use of different tools.
As descriptors of QA policies, frameworks and strategies, the cases discussed in this volume offer several useful insights into developments in DE institutions in Asia, a region that is witnessing many transitions in the field of higher education. Some of the insights are generic in nature and can serve as useful lessons for other DE providers (they are also described in the foreword and in the concluding chapter):
QA processes are value-laden. The application of methods and measures does not in itself lead to an improvement in quality.
A QA system needs time to develop, to embed itself and to mature in a way that reflects institutional and national priorities.
The development and implementation of QA requires the finding and adoption of effective ways of engaging and supporting all staff, students and other stakeholders. QA cannot rest on a ‘culture of compliance’.
Most of the DE institutions discussed in this volume seem to be characterised by a conflict between the need to improve services and products, on the one hand, and the need to improve the quality of the learning experience (content, learner support and outcomes), on the other hand. The practices, however, suggest that the former need has acquired primacy over the latter, a view that is also reinforced in the concluding chapter (p. 280). DE institutions are moving in a direction where the metaphor of the student as a ‘client’ or ‘consumer’ is being used increasingly and where ‘consumer perceptions’ rather than academic criteria determine what is perceived to be good quality. The book brings out the complex nature of quality-related issues in DE, and the existing practices point to the need for finding more effective ways of addressing these complexities in order to strengthen the foundation of DE institutions as credible universities.