Appendix 1:
National Quality Assurance Systems in Distance Education in Asia
January 5, 2011
(Prepared as a report to ‘Openness and Quality in Asian Distance Education’, a collaborative project of IDRC and VUP)
As one part of Sub-Project 6: Quality Assurance (QA) Models, Standards and Key Performance Indicators for ICT-supported Distance Education (DE) in Asia, this report describes and analyzes national quality assurance (QA) systems in distance education (DE) at tertiary level in Asia based on the analysis of formal documents provided by QA agencies, research institutes and governments and other references and interviews with local experts working in the QA agencies and DE institutions. In this report, DE includes various forms of technology-supported education including e-learning.
Summary and Conclusion
Insung Jung (International Christian University, Japan)
Introduction
Over the last few decades, there has been a noticeable growth in DE in Asia. Asia has the largest number of distance learners in the world, at least ten the world’s mega-universities, over 70 open universities, a growing number of conventional institutions offering DE, and the rapidly growing private and/or for-profit DE providers. Driven by these changes and other economic and social forces, Asian DE providers are now asked to respond to accountability demands from their government and other stakeholders and provide more concrete evidences for returns on investment beyond their broader contributions to society and national development. In response to the public demand for accountability, some countries/territories have developed a QA system for DE, some are trialing it, and some are in the process of the development.
Some countries/territories like Hong Kong (China), Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka consider DE/e-learning as an integrated part of higher educational delivery and thus apply same procedures and criteria to any types of educational provisions. Some show consideration toward uniqueness of DE/e-learning during the accreditation or audit process.
Other countries such as China, India and Korea acknowledge distinctive features of DE/e-learning and thus apply different QA procedures and criteria.
Some countries like Japan and Mongolia are yet to determine their stand or are in the process of developing QA procedures and criteria to consider DE/e-learning.
QA purposes
Brennan (1999) has suggested seven purposes of QA models in higher education: (1) ensuring accountability for public funds; (2) improving the quality of provision; (3) stimulating competition within and between institutions; (4) verifying the quality of new institutions; (5) assigning institutional status; (6) underwriting transfer of authority between the state and institutions; and (7) facilitating international comparisons.
QA models
Four basic QA approaches or models for DE exist in Asian countries: Accreditation, academic audits, performance-based funding and performance reporting.
Accreditation is a process of assessment and review of whether an institution (or programme) qualifies for a certain status or to be recognized or certified as meeting certain required standards. The result of accreditation is whether an institution or programme either receives or does not receive accreditation. Accreditation for DE institutions or programmes takes place in China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia and the Philippines.
audits focus on the processes that an institution conducts a critical self-analysis, and external review teams verifying the self-report, making recommendations for improvement, and monitoring progress. It asks: “how well are you doing what you say you are doing?” Academic audits use both quantitative and qualitative process performance indicators that are developed and collected at the institutional level or using standardized national performance indicators against which institutions are audited. In Asian DE, countries/territories like China, Hong Kong (China), Korea, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Singapore conduct periodic academic audits.
Performance-based funding ties public funding to performance of an institution or programmes. In the case of Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Korea, the outcomes of accreditation or academic audits are directly or indirectly linked to governments’ funding decisions.
Performance reporting refers to a QA approach that the reports of institutional performance are open to the public and submitted to governments and/or QA authorities. The reports provide valuable information for the public and policymakers to make decisions and they reflect the customer-oriented focus of DE provision. While most Asian countries make the reports public, some countries such as Japan, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and China either disclose only the final outcome on the status of accreditation or audits or share the reports within institutions and QA authorities. However, the trend of moving towards public disclosure of more information to the public is observed.
Regulatory framework
Accreditation and/or academic audit approaches in DE/e-learning can be either mandatory or voluntary. In Hong Kong (China), Indonesia, India and Mongolia, accreditation and audit are conducted on an institution’s voluntary basis. In these countries, the outcomes of QA processes are not directly linked to government funding. However in case of India and Mongolia, special development funds or government scholarships are given only to accredited institutions.
In other countries including China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and Singapore, accreditation and periodic audits are mandatory. In China, those online institutions which fail to pass the annual academic audit are not allowed to recruit students in the following year. In case of Korea, the outcomes of QA activities are directly linked to financial and administrative supports from the government. In Japan, no funding or administrative sanctions or rewards are given to the institutions. Malaysia and Singapore do not link the QA results to governmental funding decisions but Malaysia links the outcome to levels of institutional autonomy.
As seen in Table 1, there exist different types of regulatory frameworks for QA in DE.
Table 1: QA/accreditation agencies in 11 Asian countries
Country |
QA Agency |
URL |
Note |
Guidelines for DE |
Resource |
China |
the Higher Education Department (HED) of MOE |
http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2792/index.html |
Compulsory, every year |
Yes |
(QA Procedure) |
Hong Kong |
Hong Kong Council for Academic and Vocational Qualifications |
Voluntary |
No |
|
|
India |
The Distance Education Council (DEC) |
http://www.indiaedu.com/education-india/distance-education-council.html |
Voluntary |
Yes |
DEC Handbook on Assessment and Accreditation of Open & Distance Learning Institutions (HAAODLI) |
Indonesia |
the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education (Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi or BAN-PT) |
Voluntary |
Yes |
Accreditation Instrument for Distance Education Study Programmes |
|
Japan |
the National Institute of Academic Degrees and University Evaluation |
Compulsory, every 7 years |
No |
|
|
Japanese University Accreditation Association |
Compulsory, every 7 years |
No |
|
||
Japanese Institute for Higher Education Evaluation |
Compulsory, every 7 years |
No |
|
||
Korea |
the Korean Council for University Education |
Compulsory, every 5 years (Self evaluation: Compulsory, every 2 years) |
Yes |
Cyber University Evaluation Handbook (for self-evaluation) |
|
The Korean Council for University College Education (for 2 year college) |
Compulsory, every 5 years |
No |
|
||
Malaysia |
The Malaysian Qualifications Agency |
Compulsory, every 5 years |
No |
|
|
Mongolia |
The Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation |
Voluntary |
No |
|
|
Philippines |
the Accrediting Association of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines |
Voluntary |
No |
|
|
the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines |
http://en.wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Federation_of_Accrediting_Agencies_of_the_Philippines |
Compulsory |
No |
|
|
the Commission on Higher Education (the CHED Technical Panel on Distance Education) |
http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php |
Compulsory |
Yes |
CHED QA System for DE |
|
Singapore |
the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) |
Compulsory, every 4 years |
No |
|
|
the Council for Private Education (for private institutions) |
Compulsory, every 4 years |
No |
|
||
Sri Lanka |
the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Council (QAAC) of the UGC/Ministry of Education |
Not known |
Yes |
Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes |
QA methods and procedures
The QA systems of selected Asian countries adopt the following common methods:
Some QA agencies (e.g. Japan’s NIAD-UE and Mongolia’s MNCEA) assist the institutions by providing training for the preparation of a good self-report. Many agencies provide training for external reviewers. In case of India’s DEC, before going through the formal QA process, the institution’s readiness is assessed.
QA standards and criteria
Where there is a QA system for DE, QA criteria, guidelines or performance indicators both for self-assessment and external review are often specified covering input, process and output variables. In case of Sri Lanka, the Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes offer the performance indicators for distance higher education institutions under ten QA criteria and those of programmes under six criteria representing the various dimensions of DE practice. These performance indicators are designed to enable institutions to: 1) conduct a self-assessment of the performance of their processes in order to make necessary adjustments and changes for quality improvement; and 2) monitor the processes for continuous learning and ongoing improvement.
Table 2 summarizes key QA criteria in Asian countries. Common criteria are:
Table 2: Key QA criteria for DE in 11 Asian countries
Criteria |
Countries |
||||||||||
|
China |
Hong Kong |
India |
Indonesia |
Japan |
Korea |
Malaysia |
Mongolia |
Philippines |
Singapore |
Sri Lanka |
Vision, Mission, Goals |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Assessment/Evaluation |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Educational Resources |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Leadership, Governance & Administration |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Financial Resources |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
IT Infrastructure |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
|
|
|
|
|
Teaching & Learning |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
Course Development |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Student Support |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
Faculty & Staff |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
Internal QA System |
|
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
|
|
|
√ |
|
√ |
Research |
|
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
√ |
|
√ |
√ |
International accreditation
DE institutions in two countries have obtained international accreditations. Several online education colleges in China and Indonesia’s UT have obtained ISO 9001. UT had been reviewed by a Panel of the International Council for Distance Education (ICDE). Details of ICDE Quality Review are explained in the Indonesia’s country report.
Conclusion
The level of QA policy integration in an overall national QA in higher education policy framework varies across the eleven countries examined. The experience of these countries at different stages of QA system development shows that the QA purpose, methods and instruments are tailored to each country's particular circumstances. But at the same time, it reveals that there are some commonalities that connect these different QA efforts of all countries examined including:
Overall, QA in DE is still at the initial stage of development compared with QA in conventional higher education. QA in DE is still a relatively new concept in some countries/territories, and the different QA approaches described above reflect the differences in cultures, expectations and stages of development. Each of these approaches has its particular strengths and weaknesses and so it would be invidious to prescribe any single approach. However, in the light of these findings, it is suggested that the following principles should underpin national QA policy directions and that without these, there will be a considerable waste of resources and human potential in Asian DE.
Country Reports
China
Chen Li (Beijing Normal University, China)
Overview
There are over 2,300 universities and colleges in China. Since China kicked off the ICT-supported DE pilot project in 1999, ICT-supported DE has achieved remarkable developments. Two major DE provider groups are 68 online education colleges in the conventional universities and the Open University of China (OUC) system (http://en.crtvu.edu.cn/) and have attracted over eight million students by the end of 2008. In 2008, the number of active students was 3,560,000 (1,310,000 studying in the online education colleges and 2,250,000 in the OUC system), which accounts for 12% of the total number of students receiving higher education in China.
The 68 online education colleges offer 1,674 majors in 11 disciplines and 300 specialties at three different programs: undergraduate programs for high school graduates, junior college programs for high school graduates, and undergraduate programs for junior college graduates. OUC, together with China's 44 provincial open universities, 949 municipal open universities and experimental schools of provincial open universities and 1,823 county-level open universities, forms the largest DE system in the world with 74 majors - 38 majors for junior college education, 20 for undergraduate education and 16 for the “one undergraduate student per village” project.
China does not have a system to assure the quality of DE institutions and programs at national policy level. However it has established a QA procedure for the establishment and management of online education colleges operated by 68 conventional universities and OUC.
QA methods and procedures
The establishment of online education colleges in the conventional universities is under direct administration of the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China (MOE). From 1999 to 2003, MOE approved 68 conventional universities to take part in ICT-supported DE project. OUC was also chosen to take part in the pilot project. MOE has stopped the approval of setting up new pilot colleges since 2003.
The approval process of ICT-supported DE project began with each university’s submission of application documents in which the university should explain its new program’s mission, organization and management, teaching and learning models, equipment, teaching and support staff, off-campus learning centers, online instructional resources, technology infrastructure, QA system, and the benefit analysis. Then the university presented its case in a meeting with officials of the Higher Education Department (HED) of MOE (http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_2792/index.html) and in another discussion meeting with external reviewers or experts. Based on the results of all these evaluations, the university was either approved or disapproved to participate in the ICT-supported DE project.
Once established, the online education colleges have to take two QA measures: following nationally standardized syllabi and examinations, and following Annual Reporting and Censorship (ARC) procedure. Also the online colleges are encouraged to share their experiences through a consortium and obtain external reviews.
QA criteria
QA criteria for initial approval include:
It is emphasized that online courses should promote application-oriented personnel training objectives, be suitable for adult practitioners who study part-time, and use online technology effectively. During the annual reporting process, an online education college is subject to assess several criteria including:
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China
Tat Meng Wong (Wawasan Open University, Malaysia)
Overview
There are 9 universities and a number of colleges and vocational institutes in Hong Kong SAR, China. The Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) was established in 1990 to advice the Government on the quality of educational programmes through accreditation for higher education providers (HEP) which have not been conferred self accrediting/university status. The HKCAA also conducts institutional audits leading to the award of self accreditation status. In Hong Kong, only institutions with self-accreditation status can apply to the Government to be conferred the title of ‘University’
In Oct. 2007, with the enactment of the ‘Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications Ordinance (AAVQ Ord.), the HKCAA was re-titled to the Hong Kong Council for Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ: http://www.hkcaavq.edu.hk ).
The HKCAAVQ acts as the Accreditation Authority as well as the Quality Review Authority under a 7 level Qualifications Framework (QF) where each level is formulated as outcome-based Generic Level Descriptors (GLD) which describes the common features of qualifications awarded at that level of the QF. Qualifications which are quality assured are listed under the appropriate level in the Qualifications Registrar (QR)
Distance education ‘arrive’ in Hong Kong with the establishment of the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong (OLIHK) in 1989. The OLIHK was audited by a Panel from the UK based Council for National Academic Accreditation (CNAA) and found ‘fit’ to offer degree level education prior to its 1st intake of students in October 1989. In 1993, the first batch of OLIHK programmes successfully undertook the accreditation exercise conducted by a Panel set up by the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA) which was established in 1990.
In 1995, the HKCAA conducted an institutional audit on OLIHK and after a period of consolidation during which a number of additional QA processes were put in place, OLIHK was granted self-accrediting status in 1996. In 1997, the OLIHK was conferred the title of University by the Government and was re-titled as the Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK). As a University with self-accrediting status, programmes offered by OUHK were no longer required to be subjected to external accreditation. However, the institution is required to undertake periodic institutional audits. OUHK successfully undertook subsequent Institutional Reviews (Audits) in 2002 and again in 2007.
Other DE/online education institutions in Hong Kong include the Cyber University of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (http://www.hkcyberu.com) and the Hong Kong Virtual University consortium (http://hkvu.ust.hk/hkvu/programme.html).
QA methods and procedures
The HKCAAVQ is the accreditation authority for the Quality Framework in Hong Kong. It uses a 4 stage QA process as follows:
QA criteria
Criteria for Initial Evaluation (IE) cover:
In evaluating the above (based on submission documents including a self –evaluation report and a site visit) the Evaluation Panel is guided by four guiding principles including peer review, fitness for purpose, evidence-based and threshold standards.
Threshold standards covering the above areas are set up for different levels of awards within the Qualifications Framework. These guides are available from the HKCAAVQ (http://www.hkcaavq.edu.hk/en/publication.asp). For example, 10 QA criteria for programme validation at QF levels 1 – 3 include:
Learner Records and Information Management: Learner records are safely protected based on written procedures. And learners are informed of the arrangements of issuance of QF-recognized qualifications.
India
Tat Meng Wong (Wawasan Open University, Malaysia)
Overview
India has 42 central universities, 259 state universities, 130 deemed universities, 65 private universities established by State Legislature, 39 institutions at state or national level, and 16885 colleges, including over 1800 exclusive women's colleges, functioning under these universities and institutions.
Maintenance of standards and quality in higher education is the responsibility of the University Grants Commission (UGC). Standards and quality of education in professional areas such as Engineering, medical, Nursing, Accountancy, etc. are maintained by specific agencies established by the Parliament of India. Quality in distance education is the responsibility of the Distance Education Council (DEC).There are three main bodies responsible for the accreditation of qualification awarded by colleges and universities.
To qualify for employment by the Government sector holders of DE-based degree and certificates must come from institutions that are approved by the DEC. In furtherance of it standards maintenance role, DEC has more recently introduced accreditation of institutions as a mark of quality. The criteria used by DEC to audit the quality of ODL institutions vary from those used by NAAC as well as the NBA.
DE first made its appearance in India in the 1960’s in the form of correspondence education. Traditional ODE made its appearance in the 1980s and was given a huge boost with the setting up of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in 1985 while the last decade saw the appearance of a number of institutions offering Virtual and Online education. The DEC was set up within IGNOU in 1991. Among the functions assigned to DEC was ‘the determination of standards of teaching, evaluation and research’. In pursuit of its standards maintenance role, DEC has used the approach of accrediting institutions (instead of academic programmes). A major development in this direction took place in 2009 with the publication of the DEC Handbook on Assessment and Accreditation of Open & Distance Learning Institutions (HAAODLI) accompanied by the establishment of a National Assessment & Accreditation Board (NAAB). A copy of the comprehensive HAAODLI can be downloaded at http://www.ignou.ac.in/upload/Publications.doc.
According to the Handbook, currently ‘DEC will only be considering Institutional Accreditation while the Programme accreditation will be taken up at a later stage’ No time frame was indicated.
QA methods and procedures
According to the HAAODLI, there are 6 stages in the assessment process as follows:
QA criteria
As explained in the HAAODLI there are 6 main criteria used for assessing the institution for Institution Accreditation. They are as follows:
For detailed criteria, see http://www.ignou.ac.in/ignou/aboutignou/icc/dec
Indonesia
Tian Belawati (Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia)
Aminudin Zuhairi (Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia)
Overview
There are currently 85 state/public universities (including Universitas Terbuka or UT), 26 state/public polytechnics (engineering, commerce and agriculture) and 2,987 private higher education institutions (including academies, polytechnics and teacher training institutions), serving over 240 million people. Besides, there are also Islamic higher education institutions (both private and state/public) which are under the control of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Several other government Ministries also operate their own higher education institutions to meet the specific needs of qualified human resources for their own Ministries.
All (except for those under the Ministry of Religious Affairs and other government Ministries) higher education institutions in Indonesia operate with government’s permit issued by the Ministry of National Education. In order for any higher education institution to maintain the permit of any educational program offering, every semester they have to submit an online report to the Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of National Education (http://evaluasi.dikti.go.id/). This online and self-evaluation report, known as Evaluasi Program Studi melalui Evaluasi Diri or EPSBED) is intended to assure that all minimum required standards for offering university level academic programs are safe-guarded. Submission of the EPSBED is compulsory and failure of submission may result in the terminaton of government permit to admit students. Therefore, EPSBED is the tool used by the government to assure the quality of higher education in Indonesia.
Another strategy for quality assurance is conducted through accreditation by the National Accreditation Board of Higher Education (Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi or BAN-PT), which is an independent body established by the Ministry of National Education (then was the Department of Education) in 1994. BAN-PT is responsible for accreditation of higher education institutions (http://ban-pt.depdiknas.go.id/), including Universitas Terbuka (UT).
Even though BAN-PT accreditation focuses at Study Program level, the assessment also takes into account the QA policy and practice at the institutional level. Different levels of programs use different sets of accreditation instruments. Since 2009, BAN-PT has introduced the most recent updated instruments. Then, since 2010, BAN PT has also applied the most recently updated version of accreditation instrument for Sarjana Program through open and distance education. The list of instruments is as the following.
UT, established in 1984, is the only higher education institution that is entirely employing open and distance education system. . UT has a total student body of more than 650,000, which consists of fresh senior high school graduates as well as working adults. UT has been accredited by BAN-PT and other international organizations such as the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) and the International Organisation for Standardisation/ISO for ISO 9001:2000/2008.
UT QA system has been developed based on the draft QA framework developed by the Asian Association of Open Universities (AAOU), which was modified and contextualized to suit the specific needs of UT for the Indonesian context. An actual step to put QA approach into action was through the establishment of a Quality Assurance System Committee in 2001 to work thoroughly on the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of QA system. The Committee worked with people from various units across the university to develop QA policy and procedures. A document called “Quality Assurance System for Universitas Terbuka” was produced in 2002 after numerous consultations and meetings. When ideas about QA have been more widely accepted, a Quality Assurance Centre was founded in 2003 to plan, organize, coordinate and facilitate the quality assurance mechanism and continuous improvement effort of the institution’s distance education services.
The UT QA framework comprises nine components:
Each statement is further delineated into indicators and methods of achievement, such as what sort of policies, systems, procedures, manuals, methods, work instructions, and records are needed to improve quality. This document serves as the foundation for implementing QA system, supplemented with an instrument for self-evaluation and priority setting, and a list of units within UT responsible for assuring the quality of their respective work activities. QA implementation required the writing of procedures, work instructions, and records of work activities. Working Committees were assigned to write these manuals, involving members consisting of managers and staff from different units related. QA system documents work activities, and ensures that systems and procedures are implemented accordingly. The writing of QA procedures required a great deal of time for discussion and consultation to ensure that clear and precise systems, procedures and work instructions could be understood by staff. The writing of procedures involved tryout and continuous revision for improvement.
UT has decided to invite both BAN-PT and ICDE to perform the quality assessment. This is because both agencies focus on slightly differenct emphasis on their assessment processes.
QA methods and procedures
BAN-PT accreditation begins with filling out instruments (known as Borang) developed by BAN-PT.
Although it is hihgly encouraged, accrediation through BAN-PT has not been made compulsory by the government, and thus it does not correlate to government funding. Nevertheless, accreditation status significantly influences public trust in the university and therefore universities are mostly voluntarily requesting BAN-PT to accredit them.
Similar to BAN-PT, ICDE quality review also begins with self-evaluation report based on several variables related to aims and objectives; curriculum design including materials distribution; teaching, learning and assessment; learning support and guidance; learning resources; quality assurance and enhancement; research; and public communication/relation. The submitted self-evaluation report was assessed by a Review Team consists of three people, who then also conduct a one-week field visit. The visit includes observations as well as discussion and interview with staff, students, alumnies, partners including course authors, tutors and exam supervisors. The preliminary result of visit is also presented at the end-meeting of the visit. The final result of the review process is presented in a qualitative report and a Quality Certificate for the university. It is important to mention that the final report also contain a set of recommendations for further institutional improvement.
QA criteria
This standard is reference to quality excellence in the management and strategy of open and and distance education study program to achieve its future vision. The strategy and effort in materialising vision, implementation of missions, and achievement of goals is to be understood and supported with commitment and involves participation of stakeholders. The formulation of vision, missions, goals and adjectives is to be easily understood and logically presented in terms of sequence and stages of their achievement.
This standard is reference to quality excellence in governance, leadership, management system, and quality assurance system of open and distance education study program as an integrated unity. This is to be seen as key success for an open and distance education study program to achieve its vision, implement mission, and achieve desired goals.
This standard is reference to quality excellence for students and graduates. Prospective students in open and distance education must have senior high school level certificate. There is no selection in terms of entry, age limit, year of high school graduation, time flexibility for registration, and frequency limit in taking semester examination, and duration of study. In this standard, an open and distance education study program must have focus and commitment to instructional process and activity to develop competencies of the students to become quality graduates. Students are provided with quality services, including academic and administrative services, monitoring and evaluation of student progress needs analysis of students and stakeholders so that quality competent graduates can be produced in accordance with the needs of stakeholders.
This standard is a reference to quality excellence of human resources, and how an open and distance education study program recruit and develop quality human resources to achieve vision, missions and defined goals. Human resources in an open and distance education program includes lecturers, tutors, as well as other educational staff, such as librarian, technical staff, and managers.
This standard is reference to quality excellence in the instructional system of open and distance education study program. The curriculum is viewed as all instructional activities of students as reference for an open and distance education study program in planning, implementing, monitoring, and evaluating teaching and learning activities in achieving the goals of the study program. The curriculum must be constructed based on in-depth study of the nature of the knowledge, the needs of the stakeholders, and assurance for the achievement of competencies of the graduates.
This standard is reference for quality excellence to provide supporting resources in the implementation of quality academic process, including the acquisition and management of funding, infrastructures and facilities, and information system needed to materialise vision, implement mission, and achieve the goals of the open and distance study program.
This standard is reference to quality excellence in research, community services, and cooperation in connection with the quality development of the open and distance education study program.
Aims and Objectives
Curriculum Design including Materials Distribution
Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Learning Support and Guidance
Learning Resources
Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Research
Communicating with the Community
In addition, ICDE quality review also puts a significant importance on:
In general, the main concern of ICDE is that the university implements the system which potrays the name that it carries: open university. Therefore, the assessment is very much interested to see whether the institution values and maintains the system flexiblity, openess, as well as reach-out capability, and whether the institution controls the quality throughout the whole system implementation. At the heart of the assessment is that whether or not students are provided with the learning supports that they need.
Japan
Aya Fukuda (International Christian University, Japan)
Overview
Serving a population of about 128 million, Japan’s higher education system comprises 778 universities including the Open University of Japan (OUJ), 76.7% of which are private, and 395 two-year colleges, 93% of which are private as of 2010.
OUJ first offered bachelors’ programmes in the greater Tokyo area through terrestrial TV and radio and correspondence in 1985. In 1998 it went nationwide, using satellite digital broadcast and a network of study centres and today it serves almost 100,000 students. Since 2001, OUJ has also provided graduate programmes but e-learning is not yet mainstreamed into OUJ’s repertoire.
Forty-two Japanese universities are classified as ‘correspondence institutions’. These correspondence institutions may offer entire distance education courses without any face-to-face component. And the ‘conventional universities’ can now offer up to 60 credits of synchronous and/or asynchronous distance study. As of 2010, there are a few cyber universities/graduate schools (i.e., a company-owned Cyber University which provides bachelor’s degree program in information technology and World Heritage only through the Internet without any face to face sessions, another company-owned Business Breakthrough University for bachelor’s degree in business administration and the Kenichi Omae Graduate School of Business, and the Graduate School of Instructional Systems at Kumamoto University) and several online programs within conventional universities.
The establishment of a new higher education institution including distance and online education institutions should be approved by the Council for Establishment of University and School Incorporation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) based on the ministerial ordinance of University Establishment Standards.
Once established, a higher education institution is subject to be periodically reviewed and accredited every seven years by one of three QA agencies approved by the MEXT. This accreditation system is based upon School and Education Law No. 109 enacted in April 2004.
Three QA agencies responsible for evaluating universities in Japan are the National Institute of Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE) (http://www.niad.ac.jp/english/index.html), Japanese University Accreditation Association (JUAA) (http://www.juaa.or.jp/en/index.html), and Japanese Institute for Higher Education Evaluation (JIHEE) (http://www.jihee.or.jp/english.html). NIAD-UE evaluates mainly public institutions including universities, junior colleges, colleges of technology and professional graduate schools for Law. NIAD puts more emphasis on education contents, means to deliver education or student support than facilities/equipments or administrative operation. JUAA is in charge of mainly private institutions including universities, junior colleges, professional graduate schools for Law and Business. JUAA was originally the association of the universities aiming at improving quality of higher education and contributing to international cooperation of higher education. JUAA puts emphasis on education contents and means to deliver education as well as facilities/equipments or administrative operation. JIHEE is also mainly for private institutions and in charge of evaluation for universities, junior colleges. These agencies apply the same QA procedures and criteria in evaluating both conventional and DE institutions (OUJ and forty-two correspondence institutions). The focus of JIHEE is similar to NIAD. No specific QA or accreditation criteria for the DE programs have been developed.
QA methods and procedures
Periodic review (academic audit) process generally follows three steps: 1) self-assessment by each institution, 2) field audit by an evaluation organization and 3) issuing the evaluation result by an evaluation organization. Procedures are slightly different among three accreditation agencies.
In the NIAD-UE’s case, the process begins with briefing by NIAD-UE before each institution’s application. Then NIAD-UE provides training to the institution’s internal assessors before the institution’s self-evaluation takes place. There are eight steps:
In case of JUAA, there is no briefing or training session provided to the institution. In case of JIHEE, a briefing session is offered to the institution.
QA criteria
Key criteria for initial establishment of a higher education institution include:
NIAD-UE applies the same criteria for evaluation of conventional and DE institutions. In it’s document, it is mentioned that ‘where distance learning programs are delivered, modes of teaching (i.e. document-based lessons, broadcast classes and other media-based classes) are well selected and appropriate guidance is provided’. Key areas of university evaluation include:
JUAA also applies the same criteria in reviewing both conventional and DE institutions and does not have separate considerations for DE programs. But evaluators are asked to consider such questions as:
JUAA’s general evaluation criteria cover:
Korea
Insung Jung (International Christian University, Japan)
Overview
As of 2009, the Republic of Korea, with a population of 47.5 million, has 212 universities including the Korea National Open University (KNOU), 78% of which are private, 177 two-year colleges, 90% of which are private, and 19 cyber universities, all of which are private.
The establishment of a conventional university is required by the Higher Education Law to be approved by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) in Korea. Creating a new degree-awarding program within a university after being approved to be established must also be approved anew. By prescribing standards and quality criteria in the process of initial establishment of a university, the MEST is seeking the minimum level of the quality.
Once a university is established, it is subject to be accredited every 5 years and its selected programs to be evaluated annually by the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE) (http://english.kcue.or.kr/). KCUE, since its foundation in 1982, has conducted university accreditation and program evaluations using pre-described standards and procedures. It also provides training to universities’ faculty and staff to improve overall education quality and offers the Academic Records Verification Service (ARVS) which verifies information related to post-secondary academic qualifications and institutions on behalf of organizations wishing to confirm the credentials of prospective or existing staff and students. The results of KCUE’s institutional accreditation and program evaluation are used by the MEST to determine administrative and financial support to each university while each university uses the results to improve its systems.
In Korea, ‘cyber institutions’ have been more strategically targeted than in most countries and virtual learning might be seen as entering the mass adoption stage. In 2001, the MEST legislated for the creation of cyber universities, inter-institutional and international collaboration, and private sector involvement with the aim of achieving synergy in expertise and provision and spreading the costs of expanded postsecondary education. Until 2008, cyber colleges and universities were regulated under the Lifelong Education Law. From 2009, these cyber colleges and universities could apply for a change of status to be operated under the Higher Education Act, which places them on an even more competitive footing with the conventional universities and allow them to establish graduate schools as well as offer bachelor and associate bachelor degree programs. As of 2010, 12 cyber colleges and universities are now operated by the Higher Education Act and 6 remaining cyber colleges and universities are under the Lifelong Education Law. The establishment of a distance teaching university including a cyber university is now required by the Higher Education Act to be approved by the MEST.
In October 2007, the Higher Education Act was revised to introduce a new evaluation system for Korea’ higher education institutions (including KNOU and cyber universities). The new system focuses on encouraging each institution’s voluntary QA activities and at the same time strengthening the institution’s public accountability. In 2008, related ordinances were developed to provide detailed procedures for the university accreditation and evaluation. From 2008, by the Higher Education Act, all higher education institutions are required to publish and update university information on selected areas at their homepage and the Academy Information site ( http://www.academyinfo.go.kr/mainAction.do?process=load; Korean only) managed by the Academy Information Center at the Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). In 2009, information on student enrollments, the number of full-time faculty, graduates’ employment rate, new students’ admission rate, drop-out rate, and full-time faculty’s publication record (in case of 2-year colleges, returns on College-Industry collaboration) of the higher education institutions was open to the public.
Beginning 2009, all 4-year universities regardless the delivery mode must conduct a self-evaluation at least once every two years. Areas for self-evaluation can be decided by each institution but should include areas to be uploaded to the Academy Information system. The full self-evaluation report and a 10 page summary should be published at the university homepage and the Academy Information site. The University Self-Evaluation Monitoring System (http://selfeval.kcue.or.kr/) is created and managed by KCUE to collaboratively solve problems faced by the universities during self-evaluation, elaborate evaluation criteria and methods, link the evaluation results to quality enhancement and improve the self-evaluation system itself.
Once the self-evaluation is completed, the universities must submit the application to an accreditation agency recognized by the government to be accredited and/or audited. As of 2010, KUCE is the only agency with the government recognition that can accredit 4-year universities. The Korean Council for University College Education (KCCE) is recognized as an accreditation agency for 2-year colleges. From 2011, universities (including KNOU, but not Cyber Universities) and colleges which completed the self-evaluation begin to apply for formal accreditation either to KUCE or KCCE.
KNOU, launched in 1972 in response to a spike in school leavers and adults seeking university entry, offers TV, radio, Web-based and multimedia lectures across 22 programmes to its over 270,000 students at the undergraduate level. Its graduate school programmes are operated totally online. KNOU’s reputation and funding had depended mainly upon internal QA reports to the MEST until the new evaluation system was first applied in 2009. With the introduction of the new evaluation system explained above, KNOU completed its first self-evaluation in 2009 in the areas of:
Also as core areas for self-evaluation, it assessed areas of:
QA methods and procedures
The Higher Education Act and related ordinances state procedures and detailed criteria for establishing a cyber university and guidance for operating the university. In addition, they also specify procedures and criteria for establishing online degree programs within conventional universities. Procedures for initial accreditation are specified as follows:
Once established, all cyber universities have to follow procedures for annual academic audit.
While KNOU must conduct a self-evaluation at least once every two years and make its full report open to the public beginning 2009 and after 2011, it must apply for accreditation to KUCE, in case of the Cyber Universities, as of 2010, no agencies including KUCE and KCCE have been recognized by the government as accreditation agencies for cyber universities. Thus it is likely that KERIS will continue to evaluating and monitoring the quality of those 19 Cyber Universities until a new QA/accreditation agency for cyber education is formally recognized.
QA criteria
Criteria for initial accreditation for a cyber university have been elaborated and updated every year. In early years, the evaluation focused on hardware, network and course development systems as shown in Appendix 1. Six QA areas included: hardware and network establishment, course development system, quality assurance mechanism, student support services, vision and missions, and administration.
Since 2008, revised QA criteria have been applied to evaluate the establishment of a new cyber university. 5 key QA areas cover: essential conditions, facilities and equipment for education and research, management of academic affairs, human resources and organizational structure, and quality management. Under each area, detailed evaluation criteria are specified as seen in Appendix 2.
Criteria for establishing online graduate schools within conventional universities are found to be similar to those for cyber universities except tutor and student ratio of 1:20 is recommended to maintain highly interactive quality of graduate studies. Once established, a cyber university is subject to annual external reviews by the Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS) (http://english.keris.or.kr/es_main/index.jsp) and the findings of these reviews are used to shape MEST’s cyber university policies and guidelines. KERIS publishes these findings on its website.
The criteria to assess the quality of the cyber universities have been refined every year and explained in detail in the “Cyber University Evaluation Handbook” published by KERIS. As of 2008, there are 95 specific criteria in 16 dimensions across six areas. Appendix 3 shows 95 specific criteria in 16 dimensions. Six areas are: educational planning, instruction, human resources, physical resources, management and administration, and outcomes. Total points are 500. Maximum scores assigned to each area vary: 45 points (9%) for educational planning; 155 (31%) for instruction; 100 (20%) for human resources; 75 (15%) for physical resources; 80 (16%) for management & administration; and 45 (9%) for outcomes.
As of 2010, KUCE does not have specific QA guidelines or criteria for DE/e-learning evaluation.
Malaysia
Tat Meng Wong (Wawasan Open University, Malaysia)
Overview
There are 20 public universities, 27 polytechnics, over 60 community colleges and 48 private universities/ university colleges including branches of foreign universities. There are three dedicated ODL/E-Learning universities (Open University Malaysia, Wawasan Open University, Asian e-University).
Prior to the1980s, all higher education providers were set up, funded and controlled by the Government. The qualifications they award were recognized by the government and the quality of the programmes was ‘assumed’ on the basis that they were ‘Government institutions’.
The realization that the Government will be increasingly hard pressed to fund and support the explosive demand for higher education consequent to the shift towards a knowledge economy provided the impetus for the Malaysian Government to revise its education provision strategy to one where the private sector was invited to share in the provision of higher education. This was done by allowing privately funded Higher Education Providers (HEP) to be set up. Due to a pent-up demand caused by a short supply of places in public institutions of higher learning and the application of a quota system as well as the business potential of the educational sector, many private HEPs were established during the late 1980’s and early 1990’s This brought along with it a number of institutions that were offering educational experiences and credentials of questionable standards. The need for a quality assurance regulatory body soon became critical. In 1996, the National Accreditation Board (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara or ‘LAN’) was established to oversee quality assurance and accreditation of programmes offered by private HEPs. Until 2007, LAN was involved mainly in the accreditation of Academic Programmes offered by private HEPs. Programmes that met the prescribed educational quality standards were usually accredited for a period of 5 years before the next accreditation exercise was due. All programmes offered by private HEPs irrespective of the mode of delivery (F2F, ODL or E-Learning) fell under the jurisdiction of LAN.
Besides LAN, two units of the Ministry of Higher Education oversaw QA in public higher education providers: the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) for universities and separately the QAD for polytechnics and community colleges. Both were set up in 2002 and in the main they operate through periodic institution audits.
The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) (http://www.mqa.gov.my), consolidating and replacing these three QA bodies that existed previously was established on 1st November 2007. It is charged with the responsibility of monitoring and overseeing the quality assurance practices of all Higher Education Providers (HEP) in the country as well as the accreditation of their programmes. All ODL/E-Learning institutions come under the purview of the MQA. With the establishment of the MQA, a number of major initiatives were introduced in addition to their programme accreditation role. These include:
QA methods and procedures
Programme accreditation: In Malaysia, all new programmes to be offered are submitted to the MQA for provisional accreditation evaluation. The documents must be submitted using a prescribed proforma. These are evaluated by a specially appointed MQA Panel that consists of Academic peers from other HEPs. This is basically a desk exercise and involved no site visit. The preliminary report of the Panel is presented via the MQA to the HEP for comments and response. Specific conditions that are laid down must also be addressed. The HEP’s response is incorporated into the final report of the Panel and subject to an overall satisfactory report by the Panel, a recommendation is made to the MQA Board for approval (or otherwise) and the award of ‘Provisional Accreditation’ status. On receipt of this, the HEP can apply to the MOHE for approval to recruit students into the programme.
All programmes that are provisionally accredited must seek full accreditation in the semester prior to the appearance of the 1st batch of graduates. The evaluation criteria are similar but the documentation required is much more comprehensive since it now involves evaluating the performance of the programme itself. Evaluation normally includes a site visit during which teaching support facilities are inspected, documents verified and interviews are conducted with all major stake holders. A significant policy change by the MQA (compared to LAN) is the fact that once full accreditation is awarded to a programme no further periodic accreditation of the programme is required (cf LAN) so long as the QA of the HEP is found to be of good standing based on the Institutional Audit report.
Institution Audit: All Malaysian HEPs are required to undertake periodic audit of their academic performance in addition to the need for their programmes to achieve full accreditation status. After a few cycles of programme accreditation and institutional audit, a HEP that is deemed to have demonstrated the appropriate level of QA standards may be invited by the Minister to undertake a special institutional audit for purpose of being conferred ‘Self Accrediting Institution Certification (SAIC). Institutions that are awarded this SAIC status will no longer need to have their programmes accredited by the MQA. They will however still need to undertake periodic institutional reviews.
QA criteria
The MQA has developed a code of practice on criteria and standards for higher education in Malaysia. This code of practice is benchmarked against international good practices and is nationally accepted by stakeholders through numerous consultations prior to implementation. The practices for quality assurance adopted by the MQA is based on clearly defined, transparent and fair criteria and standards that serve as references for evaluations and reports of programmes offered by higher education providers.
The MQA uses the same nine areas for both evaluating the accreditation of programmes as well as the auditing of academic performance of institutions. These are as follows:
Details explaining the basis and spelling out the criteria and standards set for each of the nine areas as well the type of information required are clearly explained in two comprehensive documents published by MQA:
Mongolia
S. Baigaltugs (Mongolia University of Science and Technology, Mongolia)
Overview
Over the past two years, Mongolia has reduced its number of higher education institutions from 214 (2008/2009) to 114 (2009/2010), among which 86 institutions (10 universities, 44 technical and vocational schools and 32 colleges) are public and the rest are private.
DE programmes are offered in a few institutions including four public universities (Mongolian University of Science and Technology (MUST), National University of Mongolia, University of Health Science, and Educational University ) and four private institutions. Among these universities and institutions, MUST has most actively developed and implemented e-learning programmes using the University Management Information System (UNIMIS). Between 2007 and 2010, MUST has offered 16 master degree online programmes and integrated ICT in its 1,560 undergraduate courses. On January 2010, e-Open University was established within MUST, as the first formal DE programme. MUST hopes to develop this e-Open University as an independent Cyber University in the future. (see http://202.5.195.17/emust/web)
The Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA) (http://www.accmon.mn/english) was established as a government MNCEA initiative in 1998 to address public concern over quality of higher education, and to evaluate and accredit universities and colleges and in 2002 it began to accredit vocational and technical institutions. It is responsible for accreditation and QA of higher education institutions in Mongolia and for providing management consulting to Mongolian higher education insitutions.
The MNCEA provides accreditation at the institutional level but piloted program accreditation with selected programs in co-operation with professional associations such as the Consortium of Management Development Institutions and Professional Association of Engineering and Technology.
The pilot program accreditation project, began in 2002 , has been carried out in the fields of telecommunications engineering, dentistry, veterinary medicine, and accounting, history and social studies, pre-school teaching, and solo musicianship.
Since 1990, several DE projects and programs have been implemented in non-formal education settings with supports from international organizations. For example, a non formal DE project titled “Gobi Women”, was jointly implemented by the Government of Mongolia and UNESCO, funded mostly by DANIDA (Danish International Development Assistance) between 1992-1996. As the second phase of the Gobi Women project, another DE project called “Learning for Life” was implemented between 1997 – 2001 involving more than 37.0 thousand people. In the beginning of these projects, teaching/learning materials were a combination of print, radio as well as local learning groups and visiting tutors, and family-based education for the rural nomadic population, which were relevant to the learners' needs, knowledge and skills. Then TV, tele-video lessons and currently more ICT-based materials such as CDs and VCD materials were added. Another project named DREAM-IT supported by IDRC implemented the curriculum development of university Computing and ICT education, the blended technology education project (BTEP) using technology to improve education and online psychological service for health professionals in Mongolia.
The first distance education center was established in 1997 in Mongolia. The centre was extended as the National Centre for Non-formal and Distance Education (NCNFDE) in 2002 and now serves as the responsible agency for non-formal and distance education. The Centre oversees non-formal education policy development, non-formal education surveys, the provision of information and consultancies, materials development and human capacity building at the national level. NCNFDE offers various DE progammes and has served over 8 thousand people. Nowadays there are 12 Distance education centres in Mongolia. They offer web-based training courses teaching English, ICT education, gender education, mathematics, pedagogy, medical education and others. DE materials have been distributed through these distance education centers across the country and they are available free of charge.
QA methods and procedures
The institutional accreditation process may take 1.5 – 2 years to complete its three stops.
The process starts two years before the final decision is expected, and it is initiated by MNCEA’s Officers who serve as the MNCEA’s staff liaison to the HE institutions. The officer(s) meets with various constituencies (the president and senior administrators, faculty, students, trustees, and most importantly, the self-evaluation team) at the institution and explains the role of each in the self- study process. The self-evaluation team of the college or university is appointed at the very early stage of the accreditation process, because it has the actual responsibility of coordinating the self-study review process on campus and writing the final self-study report. It is usually led by a chair or co-chairs appointed by the president and chief academic officers and faculty leaders from various programs are often appointed as team members to represent a total campus community. The role of the self-evaluation team is to identify key issues in QA, establish working groups or subcommittees, compile data across the institution, prepare and analyze interim reports, and finally to assemble, edit, and prepare the final self-study report. The institution submits the self-study report approximately 2-3 weeks prior to the visit. The MNCEA’s staff forwards the report, relevant publications and other materials to the external evaluation team for review before the visit.
The site visit follows the review of the self-study report. The external evaluation team discusses QA issues found in the report and observation with the institution’s self-evaluation team members and conducts pre-arranged interviews with members of the community in various QA areas. Then the final report is prepared by the external team and sent to the institution for comment.
The external evaluation team’s report with recommendations and the institutional written response are submitted to the MNCEA. The MNCEA Board members discuss the case and make a final decision on accreditation by secret ballot.
QA criteria
Accreditation is a voluntary process which includes both institutional and program accreditation. The institutional evaluation covers such areas as:
Philippines
Patricia Arinto (University of the Philippines Open University, the Philippines)
Overview
The higher education system of the Philippines consists of 2,180 colleges and universities, of which 607 are publicly funded and 1,710 are privately owned. The public higher education institutions (HEIs) include state universities and colleges (SUCs) funded by the national government, local universities and colleges (LUCs) funded by local government units, and other institutions operated or supervised by the government. Both public and private HEIs are under the supervision of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) (http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php).
SUCs have their own charters, and have the autonomy to develop their own curricula, institute programs, and award degrees. CHED ensures their compliance with the Higher Education Modernization Act (Republic Act 8292) by serving as chair of each SUC’s governing board. In addition, most SUCs undergo voluntary accreditation by the Accrediting Association of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines (AACCUP). Private HEIs are required by CHED to be certified by the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines (FAAP), which includes the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU) and the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities' Commission on Accreditation (PACUCOA).
Accreditation is done at both institutional and program levels. There are four levels of program accreditation. Level I status is granted after a formal survey by the accrediting agency and is effective for three years. Level II status is awarded to re-accredited programs and is effective for three to five years based on the appraisal of the accrediting network. Re-accredited Level II programs that meet additional criteria set by the accrediting network are given Level III status. Level IV status is awarded to re-accredited programs recognized to be of very high quality in the Philippines and as prestigious as similar programs in excellent foreign universities. These programs will have excellent outcomes in research and publications, teaching and learning, and community or extension service, as well as international linkages and a well developed internal quality assurance mechanisms.
Following a system of progressive deregulation, CHED grants autonomous status to HEIs with consistent Level III accreditation for its programs, outstanding performance of graduates in licensure examinations, and a reputation for high quality tertiary education provision. The University of the Philippines (UP), the national university, has autonomous status, as does some 40 private HEIs. Institutions on their way to being granted autonomous status are given deregulated status and as of 2003, there were 44 deregulated HEIs.
As an archipelago of 7,100 islands the Philippines would be an ideal place for distance education (DE) and e-learning. However, only a handful of HEIs — numbering 17 in 2005 — offer DE programs. Among the standalone DE providers are the UP Open University (UPOU), which is part of the University of the Philippines System, CAP College, the Asian Institute for Distance Education (AIDE), and the Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute (SAIDI). The rest are conventional universities offering a few of its programs by DE mode. Most of the DE provision is at the graduate level, which would perhaps account for the low DE student enrolments nationwide. UPOU, the most comprehensive DE institution in the country with 24 degree programs, offers only two undergraduate programs and has a total enrolment of about 2,500 students per semester.
Quality methods and procedures
CHED’s policies for DE programs are laid out in CHED Memorandum Order No. 27 Series of 2005, or CMO 27. A DE program is defined as one where at least 25% of all courses are offered via distance mode. CMO 27 stipulates that only graduate-level programs with Level III accreditation can be offered by DE mode. Section 13 of CMO 27 specifically states that undergraduate degree programs should not be offered by DE mode “because undergraduate students need face-to-face interaction with mentors and peers as part the academic environment for optimal learning.” However, some DE institutions, including UPOU, offer one or two undergraduate Associate and Bachelor programs, and the degrees granted are recognized by CHED.
As a constituent unit of the UP System, UPOU has autonomous status and is not subject to normal monitoring and evaluation by CHED, and it is not obliged to undergo accreditation. UPOU’s programs comply with internal quality assurance policies and procedures governing all UP units. For example, all program proposals are closely reviewed by various UPOU and System-wide committees (composed of representatives of UP’s seven constituent universities), before finally being approved by UPOU’s University Council and then by the UP Board of Regents, which is chaired by the CHED Chairperson and whose members include representatives of the Philippine Senate and House of Representatives, sectoral representatives, and three members at large appointed by the President of the Philippines. UPOU was declared by CHED as the Center of Excellence in Open and Distance Learning in 2003, and it is a member of CHED’s Technical Panel on Distance Education.
All other DE providers must comply with the CHED QA System for DE, which requires them to get government authority to offer DE programs from CHED, and then undergo periodic monitoring and evaluation by the CHED Technical Panel on Distance Education. An application for government authority to offer a DE program is reviewed first by the CHED Regional Office (CHEDRO) in the area where the HEI is located, and then evaluated by the CHED Office of Programs and Standards (OPS), and then finally deliberated upon by the Commission en banc.
Quality criteria
CMO 27 stipulates adherence to the following principles for all courses offered by DE mode:
HEIs seeking government authority to offer DE programs and/or government recognition of its DE programs are assessed in terms of the following criteria:
Institutional qualification refers to whether the HEI has Level III accreditation for the program it intends to offer by DE mode, or is a recognized CHED Center of Excellence in that program.
Institutional management and commitment is measured in terms of the mission and policy statement of the HEI’s DE unit, the financial or budgetary allocation for DE operations, the organizational structure and procedures for managing the DE unit, the qualifications of the DE unit head or manager, and a plan for continuing self-evaluation for DE program improvement.
Curriculum development and approval is evidenced by the complete program curriculum and detailed syllabi defining appropriate learning outcomes and assessment methods for each course.
Instructional materials development refers to the availability of self-instructional learning packages that have been developed by a team of qualified subject matter specialists, instructional designers, and production design specialists. In addition, these learning packages must have undergone testing, and they must be compliant with copyright laws. Moreover, the HEI must have defined procedures or guidelines and policies for periodic review and updating of the learning packages.
Specific requirements for delivery mode/strategies include a core of qualified teaching faculty; policies and procedures for course delivery; mechanisms for enabling interaction between teachers and students and among students; a validated system of student assessment and evaluation; and resources for learning such as libraries and learning center facilities.
Student support services include providing students with complete and clear program information, including registration advice; study and technology skills training; access to grievance procedures; regular feedback on academic progress; and clear admission and retention policies and procedures.
Singapore
Tat Meng Wong (Wawasan Open University, Malaysia)
Overview
The Government of Singapore currently does not accredit programmes or higher education institutions. It confers powers to two public universities (National University of Singapore: NUS and Nanyang Technological University: NTU) to grant their own degrees. These universities are audited under the Ministry of Education’s (MOE) Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU). Also Singapore Management University (SMU), the first private university which has received funding from the government has been assessed by MOE as being of sufficient quality to be accorded university status and to award degrees in its own name. Besides SMU, there are 9 private higher education institutions in Singapore including the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM).
The Higher Education Quality Assurance Section of the MOE (http://www.moe.gov.sg/about/org-structure/hed/) established the QAFU in 2004, the Polytechnic Quality Assurance Framework in 2006, the Arts Quality Assurance Framework in 2008 and the ITE Quality Assurance Framework in 2009 to oversee quality assurance in various post secondary education institutions and conduct benchmarking of higher education systems in other countries.
Private educational institutions come under the regulatory purview of the Council for Private Education through the implementation of the Private Education Act 2009. The Council for Private Education (http://www.cpe.gov.sg/) spells out the regulatory frameworks under which private institutions are allowed to operate but conducts neither programme accreditation nor institutional audits.
The main DE provider in Singapore UniSIM uses a blended approach for delivering education where e-Learning is used to supplement face-to-face classes. Its ‘birth’ could be traced back to 1992 when MOE appointed the SIM to collaborate with the Open University of United Kingdom (OUUK) to offer the Open University Degree Programme (OUDP). In 2002 OUDP was granted accreditation status by the UKOU and renamed SIM Open University Centre (SIM-OUC). SIM-OUC was granted full university status in 2005 and renamed UniSIM. UniSIM comes under QAFU in terms of its institutional QA audit.
QA methods and procedures
The MOE currently audits universities in Singapore on a 4 year cycle. Basically, it involves the following:
QA criteria
The QAFU used by the Singapore MOE is based on 5 areas of evaluation. These are:
Sri Lanka
S. Baigaltugs (Mongolia University of Science and Technology, Mongolia)
Overview
University education in Sri Lanka is offered mainly by 15 conventional public universities with an enrolment of 40,000 students and an Open University Sri Lanka (OUSL) with an enrolment of about 25,000 students. These universities are accredited by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Council (QAAC) of the UGC/Ministry of Education (http://www.qaacouncil.lk/). QAAC was established in 2003 with the support of World Bank’s IQRUE (Improving the Quality and Relevance of Undergraduate Education) project. The mission of the QAAC is to ensure quality, continuous development and efficient performance of Sri Lankan higher education institutions, and to gain the confidence of the community in their graduates in accordance with internationally recognized evaluation mechanism.
OUSL is the only university in the country that provides DE programs and courses. However with the implementation of the Distance Education Modernization Project (DEMP) (http://www.depp.lk/demp.php) funded by the Asian Development Bank, several universities have developed DE programs and materials. The DEMP was initiated in 2003 with the goal of significantly increasing access to higher education throughout the country with quality, technology-enhanced DE. The objectives of DEMP are to build the capacity among the institutions and organizations of Sri Lanka; to design and deliver effective open and distance education programming; and, to identify and establish an enduring, sustainable system of distance education that will continue beyond the duration of the project. To achieve these objectives, DEMP operates three sub-projects: the OUSL Capacity-Enhancement Project (OUSL-CE); the Distance Education Partnership Programme (DEPP); and, the Public Private Partnership Programme (PPP). With the co-sponsoring of COL, the DEMP produced the ‘Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes’ in 2009.
QA methods and procedures
At present, the QAAC conducts two types of reviews, namely Institutional Review(IR) and Subject Review(SR).
Purposes of these reviews are:
In evaluating institutions/programmes, the emphasis is placed on sharing views, ideas and expertise of both external reviewers and staff and students of an institution/programme. Both IR and SR adopt the following steps:
Specific details of these steps can be found at The QA Handbook for higher education http://www.qaacouncil.lk/publications/QA_handbook.pdf.
QA criteria
Institutional Review focuses on the powers and responsibilities, which universities hold for quality and standards. It is concerned with how a university assures itself and the wider public, that the quality and standards it sets for itself are being achieved. It analyses and tests the effectiveness of an institution's processes for managing and assuring the quality of academic activities undertaken by the institution. And it also evaluates the extent to which internal QA schemes can be relied on to maintain the quality of provision over time. 8 QA criteria include:
Subject Review evaluates the quality of education within specific subject or program. It is focused on the quality of the student learning experience and on student achievements. It is designed to evaluate the quality of both undergraduate and taught postgraduate programmes. 7 QA criteria include:
The ‘Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes’ by DEMP lists 10 QA criteria for DE institutions as follow:
It also presents 6 QA criteria for DE programmes:
Then the Tookkit specifies the performance indicators covering the most relevant domains of quality in distance higher education institutions across inputs, processes and outcomes. For more details of the performance indicators, visit http://www.col.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/HE_QA_Toolkit_web.pdf
Appendices
Appendix 1: Original evaluation criteria for new establishment of a cyber university, Korea.
Source: MEST (2003). Guidelines for virtual university operations. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea.
Areas/ |
Detailed evaluation criteria |
Hardware and Network
2. Software
3. Network
4. Physical spaces
* A virtual university can use hardware and network systems in a commercial IDC. But the specs specified in the criteria should be met. |
1.1. Web server 2.1. software for Web server
FDDI, Fast Ethernet or ATM 4.1. Minimum space required |
Course Development
4. LMS operation experience |
Video editing system
Web editor 2.1. Syllabus 3.1. Menu structure and functions 4.1. Accumulative e-learning experience |
Quality Assurance (QA)
|
At least one full time faculty and one assistant per programme
Student feedback 2.1. tutor-student ratio 3.1. faculty qualification |
Student Support Services
|
2.1. Independent digital library advised 3.1. Q & A system 4.1. One-stop online service system |
Administration
|
2.1 Computerized grading system |
Vision and Mission
|
|
Appendix 2: Revised evaluation criteria for new establishment of a cyber university, Korea
Source: MEST (2008). A study on the improvement of accreditation criteria for the establishment of a cyber university. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea.
Areas/ |
Detailed evaluation criteria |
Essential Conditions
|
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
|
Facilities and equipment for education and research
|
-------
-------
-------
|
Management of academic affairs
|
-------
-------
|
Human resources and organizational structure
|
|
Quality management
|
-------
-------
-------
|
Appendix 3: 95 performance indicators for annual evaluation of a cyber university, Korea
Source: MEST (2008). A report on comprehensive evaluation of cyber universities. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Korea.
Areas/ |
Detailed evaluation criteria |
Educational Planning
|
-------
|
Instruction
|
-------
-------
-------
|
Human Resources
|
-------
-------
|
Physical Resources
|
-------
-------
|
Management & Administration
|
-------
|
Outcomes
|
-------
|
References