Quality Assurance System at Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Quality Assurance System at Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Aminudin Zuhairi, Sri Yuniati PKH, Endang Nugraheni & Tian Belawati
Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia
Abstract
This paper presents a brief outline of the development and integration of Quality Assurance (QA) system, policies and standards, linking internal and external QA activities at Universitas Terbuka (UT), and its achievement. The development of QA system describes how QA had been started and formally implemented consistently since the beginning of 2001 until now. The integration of QA system discuss the various kinds of QA frameworks, standards, criteria, requirements and instruments and how they are integrated to meet stakeholders' requirements to establish the current UT QA Policy 2012. UT QA policies and standards refer to the current UT Strategic and Operational Plans, translated into the current QA components and statements of good practices and how they are implemented to ensure quality distance education offered to students and clients. The linking of internal and external QA activities at UT describe how UT has developed internal QA system that meets external accreditation criteria and standards and stakeholders requirements sustained through continuous internal quality assessment and audit, reference and adjustment to stakeholders requirements and benchmarking with QA good practices in Open and Distance Learning (ODL). Finally some QA achievements of UT are reported, such as ISO 9001 certification since 2006, accreditation by the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education in 2008 and 2011, and Quality Reviews of International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) in 2005 and 2010.
Development of QA system
Quality in ODL has existed since ODL systems or and programs start to begin their lives. As quality becomes the concern of ODL students and stakeholders, ODL institutions have worked hard to improve the quality of their programs in order to meet stakeholders’ requirements. For UT, quality, not only quantity, has been a goal to achieve. Effort to improve the quality has been done since as early as the UT was founded and soon as a particular study program has started to enrol students.
A formal systematic approach to quality assurance at UT began in 2001 with the establishment of a Quality Assurance System Committee to coordinate quality assurance initiatives and programs. Starting with a QA team, rather than a formal QA unit, has made the UT easier to start developing a formal QA Policy 2002, adopting the Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU) QA Framework Draft 2001. Based on that, QA manuals and procedures were then later developed, and the Quality Assurance Centre was founded in 2003 with the purpose of coordinating and managing QA activities university-wide.
Adoption of QA system based on ISO 9001 quality management system was initiated in 2004, with the first ISO 9001 certification beginning in 2006. Earlier in 2005 the first Quality Review was conducted by the ICDE in 2005, and then the second ICDE Quality Review was done in 2010. The UT Study Programs were also externally assessed and accredited by the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education (BAN-PT) in 1998, 2007 and 2011 respectively.
The UT has consistently implemented its QA system and improves its programs continuously. Up until now UT continues to refer to existing laws and regulations issued by the government, education standard and accreditation agencies and other external quality measures. Benchmarking in good practices with other good ODL systems are done in order to leverage the UT quality level. The next challenge for UT is integrating its QA system and linking internal and external QA activities to meet various requirements of stakeholders.
Integrating QA system
UT refers to, and often has to refer to, various QA frameworks, standards, criteria, requirements and instruments set by ODL organisations and regulatory bodies. QA references are made to ODL organisations that have QA frameworks, such as the AAOU, ICDE, and the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). QA reference is also made to national regulatory bodies, such as the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education (BAN-PT), National Board of Educational Standard (BSNP), and the Internal Quality Assurance System of the Directorate General of Higher Education (SPMI DIKTI). QA policies and frameworks of these agencies become the major source of reference in developing UT QA policies and system that are in line with the existing QA policies and systems that are universally acceptable in ODL in higher education.
Using these different QA references, the challenge for UT is to integrate these QA policies into a QA system that meets stakeholders’ requirements. An integrated QA system must be able to ensure quality ODL and satisfy users’ and stakeholders’ requirements as stated in its regulatory frameworks and standards. UT attempt to integrate various QA frameworks and also include reference to the most recent AAOU QA Framework 2010 and the earlier developed in 2002 UT QA Policy called the Sistem Jaminan Kualitas (SIMINTAS). A broad comparison of the various QA frameworks can be seen in Table 1. Based on these existing QA frameworks, UT has developed, revised and updated its existing 2002 QA policy to become UT QA policy 2012.
Table 1
Different QA Frameworks referred and used by UT
AAOU/UT QA 2002 |
UNESCO QA |
BAN-PT 2010 |
AAOU/UT QA 2010 |
|
|
|
|
QA policies and standards
UT refers to the Strategic Plan 2010-2021and Operational Plan 2010-2013 in constructing the quality policy and its implementation. The UT Strategic and Operational Plans state that the future development of UT focuses on the following aspects: (1) academic quality and relevance, (2) accessibility and quality of services, and (3) institutional governance (UT, 2010). As further stated in the Strategic and Operational Plans, quality assurance is a continuous process covering all aspects of distance education. It is a comprehensive effort to ensure all aspects of distance education practice meet certain criteria and standards (UT, 2010).
A QA system is implemented referring to various frameworks and instruments. UT has consistently implemented quality audits internally as well as externally. Internally, UT has employed a periodic internal audits coordinated by the Quality Assurance Centre and more recently as well by the Internal Audit Office. Externally, UT has also involved external quality reviews, audits and accreditation by external quality agencies or bodies, such as ISO, ICDE, and BAN-PT.
UT has adopted the ISO 9001 quality management system approach emphasising the process approach to quality assurance using the ISO protocol. To meet stakeholder’s requirements, has attempted to meet the quality criteria stated in the Internal Quality Assurance System set by Directorate General of Higher Education. To ensure international benchmarking and standards of distance education practice, UT has also adopted the AAOU QA Frameworks 2001 and 2010 and implemented quality reviews by the ICDE.
The UT QA policy 2012 has been developed and evolved based on the exiting AAOU QA Framework 2001, UT QA policy 2002, and AAOU QA Framework 2010. A brief summary of the evolutionary quantitative differences of those can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2
Quantitative Differences of UT QA Policy
No |
QA Policy |
UT/AAOU QA 2002 |
AAOU QA 2010 |
UT QA 2012 |
1 |
Components |
9 |
10 |
10 |
2. |
Statements of Good Practice |
107 |
132 |
110 |
The UT QA policy 2012 has evolved from its earlier version of 2002, and there is one more component added in the 2012 version. The statements of good practice have been improved and revised in order to adapt to most recent developments in ODL that is moving towards more uses of new technologies. In terms of the QA components, the differences and similarities of the two can be summarised in Table 3.
Table 3
Comparing Components of UT QA Policy 2002 and 2012
No |
Components of QA Policy |
2002 |
2012 |
1 |
Policy and planning |
√ |
√ |
2 |
Human resources |
√ |
√ |
3 |
Internal management |
√ |
√ |
4 |
Learners |
√ |
√ |
5 |
Program design and development |
√ |
√ |
6 |
Course design and development |
√ |
√ |
7 |
Learning support |
√ |
√ |
8 |
Infrastructure, media, and learning resources |
√ |
√ |
9 |
Learner assessment and evaluation |
√ |
√ |
10 |
Research and community services |
|
√ |
The UT QA System 2012 is an adoption of the AAOU QA Frameworks 2001 and 2010 and an evolution of the UT QA System 2002. The UT QA System 2012 comprises 10 components and a total 110 statements of good practice in distance education as seen in Table 4.
Table 4
Components of UT QA System 2012
No |
Components |
Statements |
Policy and planning |
7 |
|
Human resources |
8 |
|
Internal management |
16 |
|
Learners and learners’ profiles |
8 |
|
Program design and curriculum development |
12 |
|
Course design and development |
11 |
|
Learner support |
9 |
|
Infrastructure, media, and learning resources |
4 |
|
Learner assessment and evaluation |
22 |
|
Research and community services |
13 |
|
|
TOTAL |
110 |
The UT QA implementation plan starting 2012 will have to repeat of the earlier experience of QA implementation plan 2002 and need to focus on the following activities: (1) developing awareness, (2) continuous improvement of manuals and procedures, (3) development of new manuals and procedures, and (4) internal and external academic audits. Awareness of quality values need to be reinforced and enhanced so that all people at all levels share common beliefs in the importance of quality and quality improvement.
QA manuals, procedures and work instructions are important tools and references for people at all levels to perform their jobs and activities. These tools provide clear and systematic guidance so that staff has confidence and certainty in doing their jobs consistently following the stated procedures step by step. Existing manuals and procedures are improved continuously, and new manuals and procedures are constructed to meet new requirements. QA implementation involves internal and external academic audits, which are conducted periodically and intended to ensure consistency and provided feedback for improvements. Findings of audits are to be followed up by relevant units to improve systems and enhance performance of the system.
Linking internal and external QA activities
Linking internal and external QA activities at UT is a challenge, as the UT has to be able to integrate both internal and external QA measures and instruments. The UT QA effort must be in line and congruent with external measures and meet the expectations of students and requirements of stakeholders, including accreditation board and Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) standards.
Once the QA policy has been established, the manuals and procedures have to be developed referring to the relevant laws and regulations and requirements set by official bodies, such as BAN-PT, BSNP, MOEC, and benchmarking with other international ODL standards such as the AAOU and ICDE. BSNP sets standards in higher education practice to be followed by UT and other higher education institutions in the country. BAN-PT sets accreditation standards for higher education, including distance higher education, and this as well has to be respected by UT. Similarly, MOEC has internal QA system to be implemented by higher education institutions within the MOEC responsibilities. The international benchmarking with AAOU and ICDE QA frameworks is important to ensure that UT also meets international quality standards in ODL.
The UT internal and external audits have to be managed in ways that make both meaningful tools to improve UT ODL practice. Internal are conducted audits following the external audits measures and requirements. UT ODL system is designed to meet relevant external bodies responsible to look at the quality of ODL. Both internal and external audits are equally important and both make significant contributions to improvement of UT ODL system.
QA achievement
All the QA effort at UT has resulted in quality achievement in the form of recognitions. External quality recognitions are awarded by different bodies, such ISO certification agency, accreditation body, and ODL organisation. Gaining recognitions is both an achievement and a challenge to maintain it and ensure that quality assurance can be consistently implemented and quality can be improved continuously.
Since 2006, UT has been awarded the ISO 9001 Certificates in its core business processes, i.e., learning materials services (since 2006), development of learning and examination materials (since 2007), distance learning services (since 2007), academic administration (since 2008), and promotion and cooperation (since 2009). The ISO certification is meant as a tool of quality improvement rather than as an objective of quality assurance. The ISO quality management system has since been implemented, and internal as well as external audits have been conducted periodically to ensure process consistency, prevention errors and continuous improvement of the core business processes. The ISO9001 approach has proved to be effective in ensuring the consistency of process in the industrial management core activities of a distance education system.
The government has established BAN-PT with the goal of ensuring quality standards of higher education in Indonesia. Accreditation by BAN-PT is not mandatory, but in many cases they have become mandatory requirements by stakeholders and many employers. Accreditation by BAN-PT is based on Study Program. The UT Study Programs have gone through accreditation by BAN-PT and have been awarded accreditation status since 1998, 2007, and 2011 respectively. Accreditation status of UT Study Programs will help graduates meet employers’ requirements in terms of their recruitment and promotion in their world of work.
Conducted every five years in 2005 and 2010 respectively, the ICDE Quality Reviews have been important as benchmark to which level UT meets quality criteria and standards internationally based on good practices in ODL recognised by the international authority in ODL. Using the internationally accepted ODL quality criteria and standards, findings of the ICDE Quality Reviews conducted by international ODL experts have indicated UT strengths and weaknesses in its ODL practices. These findings have provided objective assessment of UT ODL system and the UT has to do follow-up improvement actions plans. The ICDE Quality Reviews will be further conducted in 2015, in which UT expects to reach an even higher level of quality ODL practices.
Conclusion
UT QA system has evolved to adapt to new environments, more demanding customer expectations and changing stakeholders’ requirements. QA agencies have continuously improved quality standards and criteria, and new good practices in ODL have been introduced to respond to these changing environments. Benchmarking in ODL good practices with high quality ODL institutions provide resourceful and trustworthy information on the quality level that UT has to achieve. These conditions have triggered UT to continuously review and update its QA system and good practices in its quality ODL system.
References
- AAOU. 2001. AAOU Quality assurance framework. Unpublished document.
- AAOU. 2010. AAOU Quality assurance framework. Unpublished document.
- BAN-PT. 2010. Akreditasi program studi sarjana perguruan tinggi terbuka dan jarak jauh [Accreditation of Bachelor study program for open and distance higher education]. Jakarta: BAN-PT.
- COL-UNESCO. 2009. Quality assurance toolkit distance higher education institutions and programmes. Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning.
- UT. 2010. Rencana strategis 2010-2021 Rencana operasional 2010-2013 [Strategic plan 2010-2021 Operational plan 2010-2013]. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
- UT. 2002. Sistem jaminan kualitas Universitas Terbuka 2012 [Quality assurance system of Universitas Terbuka]. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
- UT. 2012. Sistem jaminan kualitas Universitas Terbuka 2012 [Quality assurance system of Universitas Terbuka]. Unpublished document.