What are the internal quality assurance processes in place within European higher education institutions (HEIs), and what can be said about the development of an institutional quality culture? A two-year project entitled “Examining Quality Culture within Higher Education Institutions” issues a study showing the state of art across Europe.

The project, which is coordinated by the European University Association (EUA) in partnership with the German Rectors’ Conference (HRK) and QAA Scotland, is supported by the Lifelong Learning Programme of the European Commission. It aims to identify these internal QA processes, to discuss the dynamics between the development of institutional quality culture and such processes, as well as to disseminate good practices in the field.

It should be noted that this project distinguishes “quality assurance” and “quality culture”, and defines the latter as referring to an organisational culture characterised by a cultural/psychological element as well as a structural/managerial element. “Quality assurance” should, following this approach, be understood as part of the structural element in a quality culture, and not as interchangeable with it.

Two Phases

Two phases of implementation have been planned in this project: the first one consisted of a survey to map internal QA processes across European HEIs. A publication, Examining Quality Culture. Part 1: Quality Assurance Processes in Higher Education Institutions ⁽¹⁾, was published in November 2010, based on the analysis of answers provided by 222 HEIs from 36 European countries. The survey explored the state of art in terms of QA processes and mechanisms, with particular interest on how the institutions have implemented the part 1 of the European Standards and Guidelines ⁽²⁾ . The second phase of implementation, which is ongoing, will take the results of this study further with interviews allowing a more in-depth discussion on the QA frameworks as well as quality cultures that are embedded (or not) into the institutional life.

While quality assurance has been increasingly perceived as a fundamental part of the higher education reforms since 2003 onwards ⁽³⁾, the first striking result from the survey is how HEIs have remarkably progressed in this field, with three-quarters of the respondents having introduced their QA system after 2003. Most of the respondents have implemented fundamental policies, structures and processes, and have included their QA framework in an institutional strategic document or equivalent. How this framework may be shaped greatly differs: a large variety of organizational structures exist for supporting the implementation of QA processes. Not surprisingly, institutions with a longer history in QA are also more advanced in the development of support structures such as pedagogical innovation or staff development units. Senior leadership is involved in one way or another in QA processes in most HEIs. The institutional leadership also conducts an annual evaluation to review strategic goals in about two thirds of HEIs, with only a little over a half of HEIs reporting that they have defined key performance indicators (KPIs) to monitor progress.

Further, the structures supporting the implementation of internal QA may be perceived as still under development in many institutions. Whereas the participation of staff and students is a key principle in developing internal QA and an institutional quality culture, nearly half of the respondents do not have any committee responsible for QA where staff and students would be represented. Such committees are more likely to be found in HEIs with a longer history in QA who also seem to grant more importance to the results of student surveys, to the development of student support services, as well as to the feedback look and follow-up of QA activities where students participated. Student involvement therefore appears as a potential area for improvement for many institutions.

As regards quality assurance in teaching and learning, about two thirds of HEIs have adopted a QA system that is institution specific but follows national guidelines. Only a minority of respondents follows a ready-made model such as ISO, CAF, or EFQM. Most HEIs have their curriculum designed by a committee or working group. After the curriculum design and implementation phase, a variety of processes exist for monitoring the functioning, with most of HEIs conducting an internal evaluations in one form or another. More than 90% of HEIs reported having developed learning outcomes, although they do not all make them publicly available. The student workload needed to reach these outcomes is measured through student surveys in less than half of cases. Student assessment, however, is directly related to the learning outcomes whenever they have been developed.

 Feedback Loop

In the context of a well-working and fully-accountable QA system, the feedback loop and management of an efficient information system are crucial. The study shows that while nearly all respondents have an information system for monitoring their activities, they tend to collect information about their profile and what is offered (details on study programmes…), rather than disclosing information on resources available to students (libraries, learning resources…). Likewise, most of HEIs offer learning resources, but do not systematically monitor or evaluate them. Moreover, the information collected does not necessarily become public. Also, some information such as teachers’ performances is typically considered as confidential or accessible only to a restricted audience (such as leadership level). The link between collecting information and informing those involved in this data collection (students, staff) therefore becomes distant. Students who provide feedback through surveys, for instance, are informed in about the results and follow-up actions in about half of the HEIs, although a significantly higher percentage of HEIs do conduct such surveys. Institutions that have processes in place to oblige a teacher to improve his/her performance also tend to give more consideration to the results of such surveys.

Trends

Several trends can be concluded from this study, as well as areas for possible improvement. One of the key observations is that participation of all stakeholders in the implementation of internal QA processes still demands attention. The role of staff, students and all members of an educational community should not be underestimated in building a stronger quality culture within an institution. Developing such a culture takes time and effort, as is closely related to values, beliefs, mindsets, and a cultural element that cannot be changed in a short time. The commitment of all stakeholders is therefore essential while striving for such an institutional culture to evolve.

Secondly, HEIs tend to be good at collecting information and have more information on the input and what is offered, than on the output. Developing a better and more efficient use of the collected information may facilitate the involvement of all stakeholders as well as contribute to strategic management and continued improvement. Likewise, the development of explicit feedback loops aimed to reach different groups within the institution may lead to a better commitment in return.

Finally, it should be noted that internal QA processes do not operate in a vacuum, and are embedded into a complex environment including external regulations, financial constraints, other developments in higher education, and potential reluctance from the institutional community itself. All these elements interfere in the development of a quality culture. How institutions address these constraints while making their internal QA processes work in their daily life, is to be examined by the next stage of the project. The end results of the “Examining Quality Culture” project will be available by September 2011.

Thérèse Zhang is Programme Manager at the European University Association (EUA)
The report “Examining Quality Culture. Part 1: Quality Assurance Processes in Higher Education Institutions” is available at the website of EUA.

This article is exclusive to www.qazine.eu

NOTES

[1] Available at website of EUA.

[1] The European Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the European higher education area, drafted by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) together with the European Students’ Union (ESU), the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) and the European University Association (EUA), were adopted by the European Ministers for Higher Education in 2005. See website EUA

[1] In 2003, the European Ministers for Higher Education officially acknowledged in the Berlin Communiqué that "consistent with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself."