Quitín-sintasa III

An effective quality assurance system serves to continually monitor new knowledge creation and obliges institutions to regularly update curricula, teaching methods and learning approaches to ensure that graduates have knowledge and skills relevant to current and future labour market needs (Materu, 2007:11). Some of the features of an effective external quality assurance system as identified in literature are discussed below.

2.12.1 Clarity of purpose

To build a national commitment to quality, it is important that the aim of the quality assurance system is clear and that expectations are formulated according to the higher education strategy and the shared expectations of stakeholders (OECD, 2008:9). Strategies and values of university education are outlined in universities’ mandates or mission statements or in national development plans, mostly aimed at meeting expectations in developing national capacities and selected global capacities.

Therefore, an effective quality assurance system should be consistent with the mission and core values of the higher education sector, and the process of evaluation should be visibly attached to these key areas (Kis, 2005:30).

69 2.12.2 Legitimacy

An effective quality assurance system earns legitimacy by keeping the quality assurance processes transparent, open and free from political and special-interest influences (Materu, 2007:55). Special-interest fluences might permeate through appointments of personnel for the quality agency, who may feel obliged to serve interests of appointing authorities; and through financing of the quality agency. It is necessary for the quality assurance system to be transparent to allow stakeholders to appreciate the outcomes, and because there is no other oversight body responsible for assuring the quality of the quality agency (Materu, 2007:55; Ryan, 2015:9).

An effective quality assurance system needs to gather consensus among different stakeholders based on shared expectations of purpose and outcomes (OECD, 2008:9). In this respect, the involvement of stakeholders is important, particularly the academic community, as quality judgements that lack legitimacy in the eyes of those who receive them are not likely to be acted upon if action can be avoided (Kis, 2005:30). Therefore, academic support is key in the legitimation of external quality systems.

However, most quality agencies are instituted and funded by government, especially in Africa – a situation that is likely to expose quality assurance agencies to government influence or political influences (Materu, 2007:55). Considering this, an effective quality assurance system should be independent to protect itself from special-interest influences and to protect its legitimacy.

2.12.3 Link between internal and external processes

An effective quality assurance system should link internal and external quality processes. It is argued that improvement in quality assurance seems to occur when external quality arrangements mesh with internal processes (Kis, 2005:30).

Kis (2005) states that the process of monitoring should be collaborative and not perceived as something done to the institution, because quality improvement is likely to be achieved through a balance of power and trust between internal and external actors (Kis, 2005:31). The linkage between internal and external quality assurance is necessary to accommodate the different purposes and interests of stakeholders at all levels of the system to avoid imbalances of power that may risk damage to the quality and the integrity of the higher education sector (Kis, 2005:31).

70

The link between internal and external quality is crucial for the effectiveness of a quality assurance system to earn and maintain the support of academics so that both improvement and accountability can be achieved (OECD, 2008:9). If the two are achieved, it is hoped that over time the external quality system may place less emphasis on accountability, as there will be evidence of stronger adherence to baseline standards (OECD, 2008:9).

A combination of internal and external quality assurance mechanisms could be used to address different purposes of quality assurance (OECD, 2008:9). Internal quality mechanisms provide data for external audits to bring about quality improvement, while performance indicators as set by external quality bodies address the issue of accountability in universities (OECD, 2008:9).

The link between external and internal quality systems is necessary because external agencies may set the context for institutional improvement and can ensure that their processes are not counterproductive, yet it is the higher education institution itself that must improve (Woodhouse, 2013:4). By implication, external quality assurance is insufficient in achieving quality assurance in higher education institutions.

2.12.4 Follow-up procedures

An effective quality assurance system should have an adequate follow-up procedure that accounts for recommendations suggested by external reviewers. The follow-up procedure places the responsibility to take subsequent action on government, the quality assurance agency and higher education institutions. It is suggested that higher education institutions have the responsibility to do follow-ups on the outcomes of external reviews and that government should take measures only when a higher education institution has not acted on the recommendations (Kis, 2005:32). The emphasis in the follow-up procedure is that feedback should be linked to action.

2.12.5 Regular and cyclic monitoring

An effective quality assurance system should have the ability to reflect on improvements after a certain period (Kis, 2005:32). In this view, external quality assurance is not a one-off event, but a process that is regular and cyclic. It provides a useful feedback loop to those involved in the quality assurance process (Pillay & Kimber, 2009:5). However, for external quality assurance to achieve lasting internal benefits, the process should less comply with external requirements (Kis, 2005:32).

71 2.12.6 Linking quality results to funding

Kis (2005:11) states that linking evaluation results to the allocation of public funding to higher education institutions, whether partially or wholly, is highly controversial. Kis (2005:11) traced the controversy to the inside view of academics, who argue that basing funding on teaching would lead to problems being concealed rather than solved. Besides concealing the shortcomings, linking funding to evaluation results would lead to compliance at the expense of innovation and diversity.

However, it is suggested that linking public funding to quality assurance processes and outcomes could strengthen accountability and encourage higher education institutions to undertake improvement (Materu, 2007:48). Proponents of linkages between quality results and funding also argue that linking funding to evaluation serves the accountability purpose despite constituting an obstacle to quality improvement (Kis, 2005:32). The proponents further suggest flexibility in the allocation of financial resources to both good and poor performers, and to avoid negative sanctions wherever possible (Kis, 2005:32).

In conclusion, it is challenging to offer a comprehensive outline of the attributes of an effective quality assurance system because it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of a quality system. However, the identified attributes represent a commitment to design and implement a comprehensive external quality system.