Quality in higher education

Quality and higher education

To many, the idea of applying quality concepts (particularly some of the terminology rooted in the manufacture of commercial products) to education is anathema (Anderson, 2006). For some, in the context of education, it does not seem possible to move beyond transcendent conceptions of quality. However, defining quality in education by using other equally ill-defined terms (such as 'excellence') doesn't advance the issue in any practical way. The contemporary, user-centred, perceived experience view of quality is not conceptually incompatible with many modern ideas in education (Lewis & Smith, 1994), including student-centred learning, inclusiveness and learner experience design. But, like all matters of educational policy and practice, the devil is in the detail, and no less so than in defining/agreeing what we mean by 'quality' in higher education, and then devising objective measures for it. As previously noted, quality is a system-wide function, and a comprehensive model of quality in higher education should encompass both teaching (organisation-related aspects) and learning (student-related aspects), and include input, process and output factors for both areas (Oliver, 2003).

Many critics of quality in education appear to confuse 'quality' with quality assurance and/or quality control (QA/QC) processes. However, these processes don't define or necessarily even improve quality; they only seek to ensure that a previously specified level of quality (however that is defined) is actually achieved. An inability to articulate and/or agree what constitutes quality in education does not, of itself, constitute a limitation of QA/QC processes as applied to education. This is not to say that the move from a transcendent to a more concrete definition of quality in education, or that reconciling the needs of the large education stakeholder group is necessarily straightforward or without conflict.

The starting point for quality is the user, or to use the unfortunately more 'charged' quality terminology - the 'customer'. It is worth noting that the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 9001:2000 Quality management systems (QMS) standard simply defines 'customer' as any person or organisation that receives a product or service; there is no inherent implication of a purchase being involved. Then, who are the 'customers' in higher education? Who receives the outputs/benefits of the higher education system? The Standards Australia handbook HB 90.7-2000 Education and Training Guide to ISO 9001:2000 suggests that it can be any or all of the following as appropriate to the particular context:

• a student;
• a student's parents or employer;
• a company or organization with whom a research contract, a consultancy agreement or a training contract is entered into;
• an industry;
• an internal customer (i.e. within the education and training provider's own organisation);
• a government, regulatory body, accreditation body and similar; and
• a relevant society group, such as a parents and citizens group, members of staff, and society as a whole (Standards Australia International, 2000).

Such a diverse stakeholder/user group indicates the complexity of the task of identifying the range of needs that we might include in a definition of quality in higher education. We also need to consider what service/product we are providing to the user(s). HB 90.7-2000 includes the following suggestions:

• an educational environment,
• a curriculum and other resources,
• a community service, or
• research outputs,

for the enhancement of skills/knowledge/understanding/attitude/values (Standards Australia International, 2000).

Defining who the user is and what we are offering to them provides a framework for identifying what aspects of quality we would seek to control and/or improve and which areas of the organisation contribute to/impact on that quality as perceived by the user. In any conception of quality in higher education, students must be viewed as a principal user group. Some may argue that many undergraduate students are comparatively naive 'customers' with a limited conception of the knowledge and skills necessary in their field of study. However, ignoring the needs and expectations of any important customer group is a recipe for organisational failure, and the modern university undergraduate student is just as likely to turn out to be a mature age student (with significant experience of their field of study and/or prior experience in higher education) rather than an 18 year old directly from secondary school. Over the course of their studies, students will experience a wide range of teaching and learning, and be well placed to make comparative judgements of quality, and, as novices in their discipline, will also be qualified to judge whether their involvement in education is assisting them to learn (Ramsden, 1991).

A range of universities have adopted ISO 9001 as the basis for their QMS, with many being certified by external accrediting bodies. In Australia, it is common to see separate academic and administrative units and/or commercial subsidiaries with a certified QMS, rather than entire universities (Baird, 2006). At the time of writing, these include various Faculties of Central Queensland University, the School of Chemical Engineering of the University of Adelaide, the School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering at the University of Western Australia, a range of university commercial entities (including Deakin Prime) and many university support divisions (including several divisions of Deakin University). ISO 9001 has been used as an example/framework for a QMS in the sections above, but this is not meant to imply that it is the only or best approach - in a higher education context, the literature contains a range of approaches to implementing a QMS.

In Australia, the Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA) plays an important role in quality in higher education. AUQA is a national body that audits and reports on QA in Australian higher education. Audits are conducted on a five-yearly cycle, and require institutions to prepare a self-report around a series of structured criterion, which is then followed up by an on-site audit of the institution. Audits are primarily norm-referenced, taking into consideration the individual aims of the institution, as well as commonly accepted practice in the sector. AUQA principal function is in the assurance of quality, though it does incorporate elements of quality improvement/enhancement through:

• the inclusion of recommendations for improvement in its audit reports;
• the hosting of a 'good practice database' to disseminate good practice; and
• hosting the Australian Universities Quality Forum to facilitate sharing of good practice in higher education in Australia.

AUQA's audit process evaluates the institution's QA processes on four dimensions: approach, deployment, results and improvement (ADRI) (Australian Universities Quality Agency, 2007). While not performing a third-party QA certification role per se, AUQA's audit reports (including 'Commendations, Affirmations and Recommendations') are publicly available. From 2011, the functions of AUQA will be taken over by a new body the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA), which will be established during 2010.

In higher education, just as in industry, QA processes can be seen as resource sapping busy work or an administrative tool to micro-manage the affairs of staff (Marginson & Considine, 2000), but this has more to do with the implementation of the QA system, rather than any inherent feature of QA. These perceptions are perhaps amplified in higher education due to the wide range of 'customers', the intangible nature of the 'product' and the bureaucratic nature of higher education institutions and accounting for the use of public funds.

Activity

Who are the stakeholders with an interest in the quality of the program(s) that you contribute to?  What would be the measure(s) of quality that they would use?

Forward to: Quality improvement in higher education