Implikasi Penilaian Kendiri dan Pengiktirafan Terhadap
Transcription
Implikasi Penilaian Kendiri dan Pengiktirafan Terhadap
USM Speak 2011 1-2 July 2011 “Implikasi Penilaian Kendiri dan Pengiktirafan Terhadap Autonomi Kepada Pentabir Pengurusan Akademik Universiti” (Implications of self assessment and recognition of University’s administrator’s autonomy for academic management) Malaysian Qualifications Agency 7/5/2011 zpv 1 Outline • • • • Academic autonomy in higher education Changes in support of autonomy in Higher Education The “Why” factors Measures - Institutional Autonomy -National Higher Education Strategies 2007-2015 • QA practices to enhance Academic Autonomy • Self assessment acknowledges academic autonomy? – Prerequisites – Preparation – Impact • Challenges 7/5/2011 zpv 2 Development of Academic autonomy 7/5/2011 zpv 3 Concept of Academic Autonomy • Academic autonomy “What to teach, how to teach and who to be taught” • Institutional academic autonomy “that academic promotes ‘intellectual diversity’ and help a university’s primary goal of pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, and reasoned reason criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and development of students to help them become creative individuals and provide a pluralistic democracy and the transmission of knowledge and learning to public at large”. 7/5/2011 zpv 4 CHANGES IN HE LAW & MANAGEMENT Evolution in HE system Public Universities • Pre 1996 –Universities and University Colleges Act 1976 & Education Act 1961 • Private Higher Education Institutional Act 1996 • Amendments to these Acts in 2009 and 2010 7/5/2011 Impact • Basic regulations • Regulating a growing private higher educational institutions • Corporatisation of public universities- new public management to improve management of universities • More autonomy with amendments in 2009 zpv 5 Autonomy, Accountability and Audit – the “why” factors • Public interest in tertiary education-accountability for cost and investment and social/economic contribution • Is it taking effective responsibility for academic quality? • Many new challenges-mass education, private provision, issue of quality for social and economic growth & reduce funding , consumer protection • Regional higher education hub • Internationalisation and convergence trends • But “How to find a proper balance between governmental steering and institutional autonomy…to achieve academic excellence ” 7/5/2011 zpv 6 Measures - Institutional Autonomy -National Higher Education Strategies 2007-2015 • Autonomy of university - Universities and University College Act 1996 (Amendments 2009) • Phase 1 & 2 CAP Projects –focus on universities – What are the projects? – Good governance Principles - Code of Good Governance Index (CUGGI) Evaluation instrument to measure readiness – Leadership and management training – Stakeholders guidance, academic self governance, managerial self governance and dealing with competition • Government accepting institutional autonomy –development and incremental approach and “moving to remote control” 7/5/2011 zpv 7 MQA & Academic Autonomy of Universities “Quality assurance is an ongoing process and it is the responsibility of all parties involved. “ “Institutions have always been responsible to ensure quality of its academic awards and other related activities.” “COPPA and COPIA would assist institutions to enhance their quality provisions through the self-review and internal assessment processes as well as the external audit conducted by the MQA. “ “Universities are subjected to a broad quality and national framework” 7/5/2011 zpv 8 Universities Autonomy – Broad Policy & Quality Framework • Collaborations with foreign institutions • National Policies • Regulation for approvals MALAYSIAN QUALI ICATIONS FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME DISCIPLINE STANDARD PROGRAM/ GGP • Standards of International bodies 7/5/2011 zpv QUALITY ASSURANCE STANDARDS PROGRAMCOPPA/COPIA INSTITUTIONVISION, MISSION, AND STRATEGIES & POLICIES • Quality Standards and assess by Professional bodies 9 Quality Assurance Framework and Autonomy 7/5/2011 zpv 10 1. COPPA and COPIA recognises academic autonomy. Lets focus: 2 key areasprogramme approval and programme accreditation 2. Does the practice of self assessment promote and ensure “sufficient” academic autonomy of universities? 3. Self assessment in the Academic Performance Audit – a number have not incorporate self assessment/review mechanisms well 7/5/2011 zpv 11 58 HEPs Quality Assurance System -EQA links with IQA-programme and institutional level Results Feedback & Support External Quality assurance Programme Accreditation & Institutional audits Internal Quality Assurance system –Internal audits and CQI Implements MQF Applies for Accreditation or institutional audit submission of Self Assessment Report 7/5/2011 zpv 13 Generic QA Standards (Best Practices) – Practised by Universities? Quality assurance standards designed for fitness for specified (institutional) purposes “Voluntary compliance” 1. Vision, Mission, Educational Goals and Learning Outcomes 4. Student Selection and Support Services 2. Curriculum Design and Delivery 3. Assessment of Students 5. Academic Staff 6. Educational Resources 7. (Governance/ senate ) Programme Leadership and academic committees Administration 8. Programme Monitoring and Review 9. Continual Quality Improvement 7/5/2011 zpv 14 What are the “Must Haves” to recognise Academic Autonomy ? A structure of institutional governance which includes a clear academic management structure ? Strategies, goals and performance indicator (for academic excellence)? Sufficient academic, infrastructure and financial autonomy to manage academic affairs & academic staff ? Clear and effective policies and procedures to regulate all academic activities? Active stakeholders participations ? A robust and effective quality management system 7/5/2011 zpv 15 At Programme level? A Quality Cycle expected in University’s system Programme monitoring and review Internal university process for approval Dept to Senate Programme Accreditation (site audit by peers) PROGRAMME APPROVAL PROCESS PROGRAMME Application for accreditation Internal quality auditSelf assessment of programmes 7/5/2011 zpv 16 Programme Approval- (Sufficient Academic Autonomy? • Are we able to offer this new programme? – Subjected to institutional goals and serving the larger national and global policies and interests – Effective internal process to examine proposal – Market needs analysis and policies / approval of MOHE – Sufficient autonomy in design & delivery & provision of resources • External quality evaluation – “appropriateness & capacity” 7/5/2011 zpv 17 Full Accreditation & Effective Self Assessment Review (SAR) • Generally practice in programme accreditation and institutional academic performance audits • Purpose of SAR “….recognises HEP’s autonomy and responsibilities for quality; recognises the diversity of HEP - a different approaches; ensures initiations and/or maintenance of Continuous Quality Improvement systems and production of information & material.” 7/5/2011 zpv 18 Programme Review & Self Assessment Report • “Critical self assessment is important … it helps the university to discover its own quality- helps to improve and enhance quality • Programme review is a cyclical process- for evaluating and continuously enhancing the quality and currency of the programme-a combination of self evaluation, followed by peer-evaluation… • It fosters continuous programme improvement that is aligned with departmental, college and institutional goals 7/5/2011 zpv 19 Periodic Reviews by Institutional / Dept. Continuous Quality Improvement: • Active involvement of dept. / institutions staff in internal audits and preparation of submission • Periodical assessment leads to improvement • Clients and stakeholders participation – What actions are we taking in relation to this area? – Why were these actions taken? – How do we check their effectiveness-performance indicators? – Can we measure degree of achievement? – Can we improve further? 7/5/2011 zpv 20 What other measures Universities may put in place ? Establish Benchmarking and KPIs Enhancing Inter or multidisciplinary approach Graduate Attribute survey, Tracer Study, Employers satisfaction & other indicators Institutional responsibility for quality Improve R & D and community service Demand strong stakeholders collaboration internal, local and external and international Seeking to entrenched quality culture to ensure institutional effectiveness and growth 7/5/2011 zpv 21 Conclusion • Universities operate within a very competitive environment -national and global scenario. • Recognising academic autonomy of the university through the Quality Standards and processes • Accountability follows Autonomy. • Self assessment mechanisms practiced by University reflects exercise of its academic autonomy. • Increase of autonomy requires good governance. • National policies supports (full?)academic autonomy • Like the “swa universiti” 7/5/2011 zpv 22