PARTNERING WITH LIBRARIANS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

1. PARTNERING WITH LIBRARIANS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION PREM NAIDOO naidoo.p@che.ac.za HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY COMMITTEE (HEQC)

2. Higher Education Quality Committee Contents of presentation • Higher education context • The HEQC’s responsibilities and approaches to quality. • Criteria for Audit and Accreditation for libraries. • Libraries make higher education distinctive. • New Challenges for Librarians • Propositions for Librarians partnering HEQC towards improved higher education quality • Conclusion

3. 1. HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT

4. Higher Education Quality Committee Restructuring and transforming higher education PAST Binary divide, race separation Uncoordinated, no articulation INTERNAL PRESSURES EXTERNAL PRESSURES Increase access with success Knowledge economy Redress and equity Free trade and commodification Socio-economic responsiveness Portability, articulation Single coordinated higher education PRESENT AND FUTURE (White Paper on Higher Education, 1997)

5. Higher Education Quality Committee STEERING INSTRUMENTS 1. SIZE & SHAPE 3-year rolling plans, mergers, mission differentiation, PQMs Registration of privates and transnational institutions 2. FUNDING New funding formulae and NSFAS 3. NATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK (NQF) Monitoring QA agencies, standard setting and recognition of qualifications 4. CHE Advice and monitoring Quality assurance (HEQC)

6. Higher Education Quality Committee 2. THEHEQC’S RESPONSIBILITIES and APPROACHED to QUALITY 1. Education White Paper 3: A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education, 1997: “The functions of the HEQC will include programme accreditation, institutional auditing and quality promotion.” 2.  Higher Education Act, 1997: Provision is made in Act for the establishment of a Higher Education Quality Committee with the mandate to – • Promote quality assurance in higher education. • Audit the quality assurance mechanisms of higher education institutions. • Accredit programmes of higher education.

7. Higher Education Quality Committee DEFINITION OF QUALITY • Fitness of purpose, i.e. located within a framework based on national goals, priorities and targets, particularly in relation to redress and equity. • Fitness for purpose in relation to specified mission within a national framework that encompasses differentiation and diversity. • Value for money as judged in relation to the full range of higher education purposes as set out in the White Paper. Judgments about the effectiveness and efficiency of provision will include but not be confined to labor market responsiveness and cost recovery. • Transformation in the sense of developing the capabilities of individual learners for personal enrichment, as well as the requirements of social development and economic and employment growth.

8. HEQC SUB-SYSTEMS Higher Education Quality Committee Institutional Audits Programme Accreditation National Reviews Quality Promotion and Capacity Building Self-Accreditation

9. Higher Education Quality Committee HEQC’s schedule of activities (2004-2006) • Full-scale audits commence at all public and private institutions where no mergers are under way. Audits in merged institutions only from 2007 onwards. • New programmes are evaluated which are submitted for accreditation. • In general, existing programmes are not evaluated by HEQC. Joint re-accreditation of professional programmes with professional councils or other statutory bodies where such bodies require re-accreditation of programmes. • National reviews in selected programme, qualification or disciplinary areas. • Self-accreditation status not granted. Applications could be made in 2007-2009. • HEQC’s schedule of activities (2007-2009) • Audits continue at all institutions not affected by mergers and commence at merged institutions. • Accreditation of new programmes continues. • Re-accreditation of existing programmes only if an institution performs consistently poorly in accreditation of new programmes, and if audits and national reviews show serious problems. • Institutions can apply for self-accreditation. • National reviews continue as required.

10. 3. AUDIT CRITERIA • CRITERION 4: Academic support services (e.g. library and learning materials, computer support services, etc.) adequately support teaching and learning needs and help give effect to teaching and learning objectives. • In order to meet the criterion, the following are examples of what would be expected: • (i)Academic support services which adequately provide for the needs of teaching and learning, research and community engagement and help give effect to teaching and learning objectives. Efficient structures and procedures facilitate the interaction between academic provision and academic support. • (ii)Academic support services which are adequately staffed, resourced and have the necessary infrastructure in place. The institution provides development opportunities for support staff to enhance their expertise and to enable them to keep abreast of developments in their field. • (iii) Regular review of the effectiveness of academic support services for the core functions of the institution.

11. Higher Education Quality Committee Questions relating to Audit Criterion 19 • How frequently are user satisfaction surveys used to obtain feedback from ACADEMICS AND STUDENTS about the quality of library services and are the results of the surveys used in continous improvement? • What is the nature and frequency of benchmarking activities of the library against other equivalent reference points to ensure the continuous self-improvement of the library quality? • What are the processes and procedures for the review (self and external) library services? How frequently are these reviews done and with what effect? • How is the library making use of impact studies for measuring and evaluating the impact of the library on the core functions of the institutions?

12. Higher Education Quality Committee Library information sources and evidence for Criterion 19 • User surveys. • Review reports. • Impact studies. • Data on national and international benchmarks. • Data of implementation of changes / improvements, following user surveys, impact studies, etc.

13. 3. ACCREDITATION CRITERIA • CRITERION 7: Suitable and sufficient venues, IT infrastructure and library resources (which are integrated into the programme) are available for students and staff in the programme, providing favourable conditions for quality teaching and learning, research and student support. Policies ensure the proper management and maintenance of library resources, including support and access for students and staff.   • In order to meet the criterion, the following is required at minimum: • (i)Suitable and sufficient venues are available at all official sites of learning where the programme is offered, including teaching and learning venues, laboratories and clinical facilities, where appropriate. Codes for clinical conduct, laboratory practice and safety exist, where appropriate. Venue allocation and time-tabling are carefully planned to accommodate the needs of students. In the case of remote students, care is taken to place suitable sites of learning close to where students live / work. • (ii)Suitable and sufficient IT infrastructure, as determined by the nature of the programme, is available at all sites of learning. This includes functionally appropriate hardware (computers and printers), software (programmes) and databases. The infrastructure is properly maintained and continuously upgraded and adequate funds are available for this purpose. Students (and staff) are trained in the use of technology required for the programme.

14. CRITERIA 7 CONTINUED • (iii)Suitable and sufficient library resources exist which are integrated into the programme curriculum in a systematic manner. These resources - • §Complement the curriculum. • §Provide incentives for students to learn according to their own needs, capacity and pace. • §Support appropriate professional and scholarly activities of students and staff involved in the programme. • (iv)Policies exist for the proper management and maintenance of library resources, as well as for their continuous renewal and expansion. These policies are integrated into the institution’s financial plan. • (v) On and off-campus students have adequate library support and access to the library research and computing facilities on weekends and outside of normal working hours.

15. 4. LIBRARIES THE HEART OF H.E. • INDEPENDENT LEARNING THE KEY FEATURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION • LIBRARIES AND LIBRARIANS ARE KEY TO CREATING THE CONDITIONALITIES FOR INDEPENDENT LEARNING • WHY THEN LITTLE EMPHASIS IN HEQC AUDIT AND ACCREDITATION SUB-SYSTEMS? • THE HEQC PARADOX

16. 5. NEW CHALLENGES FOR LIBRARIANS • INCREASED INFORMATION ON WEB NEED FOR STUDENTS TO BE INFORMATION LITERATE • PRIVATE PROVIDERS DOWNPLAYING THE IMPORTANCE OF LIBRARIES BY CUTTING COSTS AND SPOONFEEDING • CATERING FOR UNDER-PREPARED STUDENTS BY SPOON FEEDING • INCREASED DISTANCE EDUCATION DELIVERY AND REMOTE STUDENTS • MERGERS AND MULTIPLE CAMPUSES • DOING MORE WITH LESS

17. 6. PARTNERING INSTITUTIONAL ACADEMICS, QA DIRECTORS AND HEQC TO DELIVER H.E. QUALITY • IMPROVING STUDENTS INFORMATION LITERACY SKILLS • PREPARING INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMMES FOR HEQC AUDIT AND PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION • WORKING IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ACADEMICS IN DVELOPING READING LISTS AND IDNTIFYING OTHER MATERIALS FOR NEW PROGRAMMES OR REVISING OLD PROGRAMMES • HELPING INSTITUTION AND ACADEMICS MONITOR USE OF LIBRARY RESOURCES • DEVELOPING MATERIALS BASED MODULES THAT ENCOURAGE INDEPENDENT LEARNING • SELF AND EXTERNAL PEER ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIBRARY SERVICES

18. PARTNERING CONTINUED • DEVELOPING NATIONAL BENCHMARKS FOR LIBRARIES AND COMPARING WITH INTERNATIONAL BENCHMARKS • DEVELOPING MIMIMUM STANDARDS FOR LIBRARIES • DEVELOPING AND SHARING GOOD PRACTICE GUIDES • IMPROVING STUDENTS QUALITY LITERACY • RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STUDENTS IN RELATION TO LIBRARIES

19. 7. CONCLUSION • LIBRARIES ARE CENTRAL TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION • LIBRARIANS CAN PLAY A CRITICAL ROLE IN PREPARING INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMMES FOR HEQC EVALUATIONS • LIBRARIANS NEED TO PLAY A GREATER ROLE IN HELPING STUDENTS AND INSTITUTIONS TO DEAL PROACTIVELY WITH NEW CHALLENGES • LIBRARIANS DEVELOP THEIR ON PEER EVALUATION MECHANISMS AND SYSTEMS TO SELF AND EXTERNALLY EVALUATE LIBRARIES • PROMOTE GOOD PRACTICES AMONG LIBRARIANS

20. NEW ROLES AND PARTNERSHIPS • LIBRARIANS AS CURRICULUM CO-DEVELOPERS • LIBRARIANS AS PARTNERS WITH QA DIRECTORS AND HEQC IN ASSESSING AND CONTINOUSLY IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF THE DELIVERY OF THE CORE FUNCTIONS OF TEACHING, LEARNING, RESEARCH AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT • HEQC DEVELOPING PARTNERSHIPS WITH CHELSA AROUND KEY IMPERATIVES THAT LEAD TO THE IMPROVED AND CONTINOUS IMPROVEMENT OF LIBRARIES