Comparative analysis of QA restructuring in NIAD-QE and HEEACT
| NIAD-QE | HEEACT | |
|---|---|---|
Original QA Frameworks | ||
1 st and 2nd cycles of external QA frameworks | Institutional accreditation (no program accreditation except for professional graduate programs) 1st cycle (2005–2011) CEA (Certified Evaluation and Accreditation) 2nd cycle (2012–2018) CEA emphasizes “learning outcomes,” “internal QA,” and “information disclosure” | Institutional and program accreditation 1st cycle (2006–2010) of program accreditation 2nd cycle (2012–2016) of program accreditation 1st cycle (2011) of institutional accreditation 2nd cycle (2017–2018) of institutional accreditation Self-accreditation was implemented in 2012 at program level |
Emerging Challenges and Needs | ||
Criticism and demands against original QA frameworks | Over-emphasis on compliance Demands for effectiveness in enhancement Evaluation “Exhaustion” Enhancing public awareness | Heavy workloads on universities Reviewers’ qualification and quality Program survival or closure affected by accreditation result Building public trust and enhancing evaluation use by employers and students |
New Reforms | ||
Year | 2019 | 2017 |
Overall Traits and New Focus | Continuing institutional QA Implementing internal QA with program reviews and monitoring in the institutional QA standards Reviewing alignment of university 3 policies (diploma, curriculum and admission policies) Collaborating with existing third-party evaluation | Continuing institutional evaluation Program evaluation became voluntary Updating self-accreditation (university self-evaluation) for program evaluation |
Capacity to develop university | Emphasizing improvement through internal QA with program reviews and monitoring | Updating self-accreditation methods |
Capacity to support university autonomy | More emphasis on program review as internal QA method to enhance university autonomy Yet, internal QA is emphasized under the external QA framework Loosing regulation and pursuing simplification and efficiency by: Reducing the number of evaluation standards and indicators Requiring universities to analyze and submit selected evidences Collaborating with other third-party QA schemes in some disciplines | Promoting and supporting university’s self-accreditation More choices and flexibility for universities about program QA approaches to respect their autonomy (i.e. choices among self-accreditation, HEEACT external program accreditation and third-party program accreditation in special areas) Loosing regulation and pursuing simplification and efficiency by: Reducing the number of evaluation standards and indicators |
Capacity to balance between accountability and improvement | Shift from compliance to improvement Newly stressing self-improvement under internal QA in evaluation standards as an “essential principle” As internal QA mechanism, self-improvement at program level based on 3 policies (Diploma, Curriculum and Admission policies) Self-improvement based on internal QA is embedded in external QA | Shift from compliance to improvement Further emphasizing self-accreditation to enhance improvement at program level Self-improvement based on internal QA is operated by universities, less controlled by external QA |
Capacity to enhance transparency | Stressing information disclosure of university information | Stressing information disclosure of university information Fair selection of peer reviewers |
| NIAD-QE | HEEACT | |
|---|---|---|
1 st and 2nd cycles of external QA frameworks | Institutional accreditation (no program accreditation except for professional graduate programs) 1st cycle (2005–2011) CEA (Certified Evaluation and Accreditation) 2nd cycle (2012–2018) CEA emphasizes “learning outcomes,” “internal QA,” and “information disclosure” | Institutional and program accreditation 1st cycle (2006–2010) of program accreditation 2nd cycle (2012–2016) of program accreditation 1st cycle (2011) of institutional accreditation 2nd cycle (2017–2018) of institutional accreditation Self-accreditation was implemented in 2012 at program level |
Criticism and demands against original QA frameworks | Over-emphasis on compliance Demands for effectiveness in enhancement Evaluation “Exhaustion” Enhancing public awareness | Heavy workloads on universities Reviewers’ qualification and quality Program survival or closure affected by accreditation result Building public trust and enhancing evaluation use by employers and students |
Year | 2019 | 2017 |
Overall Traits and New Focus | Continuing institutional QA Implementing internal QA with program reviews and monitoring in the institutional QA standards Reviewing alignment of university 3 policies (diploma, curriculum and admission policies) Collaborating with existing third-party evaluation | Continuing institutional evaluation Program evaluation became voluntary Updating self-accreditation (university self-evaluation) for program evaluation |
Capacity to develop university | Emphasizing improvement through internal QA with program reviews and monitoring | Updating self-accreditation methods |
Capacity to support university autonomy | More emphasis on program review as internal QA method to enhance university autonomy Yet, internal QA is emphasized under the external QA framework Loosing regulation and pursuing simplification and efficiency by: Reducing the number of evaluation standards and indicators Requiring universities to analyze and submit selected evidences Collaborating with other third-party QA schemes in some disciplines | Promoting and supporting university’s self-accreditation More choices and flexibility for universities about program QA approaches to respect their autonomy (i.e. choices among self-accreditation, HEEACT external program accreditation and third-party program accreditation in special areas) Loosing regulation and pursuing simplification and efficiency by: Reducing the number of evaluation standards and indicators |
Capacity to balance between accountability and improvement | Shift from compliance to improvement Newly stressing self-improvement under internal QA in evaluation standards as an “essential principle” As internal QA mechanism, self-improvement at program level based on 3 policies (Diploma, Curriculum and Admission policies) Self-improvement based on internal QA is embedded in external QA | Shift from compliance to improvement Further emphasizing self-accreditation to enhance improvement at program level Self-improvement based on internal QA is operated by universities, less controlled by external QA |
Capacity to enhance transparency | Stressing information disclosure of university information | Stressing information disclosure of university information Fair selection of peer reviewers |