Country Case: Sri Lanka Ensuring Quality in Higher Education

1. Country Case: Sri LankaEnsuring Quality in Higher Education Prof. Colin N. Peiris Quality Assurance Specialist QAA Council of the UGC Sri Lanka

2. JFN RUSL EUSL WUSL PDN KLN SEUSL CMB SJP VAPA OUSL MRT UWUSL SUSL RHN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN SRI LANKA

3. STATISTICS IN UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

4. Introduction • presents a brief description of the QA Framework introduced into the Sri Lankan higher education system • discusses some of the lessons learnt and experience gained at the initial phase of the External Quality Assessment Process • provides some suggestions for the future development of the QA programme in Sri Lanka

5. MAIN COMPONENTS • Codes of Practice • Subject Benchmarking • Credit and Qualification Framework • External Quality Assessments (EQA) • Institutional Review (IR) • Subject Review (SR) • Library Review (LR)

6. EQA – OBJECTIVES • To Safeguard the Standards of Awards and Quality of Delivery • To Identify and Share Good Practices • To Use the Existing Structures without Additional Bureaucracy • To Inculcate the QUALITY CULTURE

7. IR – ASPECTS OF EVALUATION • University Goals and Corporate Planning • Financial Resources and Management • Research • Quality Management and Administration • Quality Assurance • Learning Infrastructure and Student Support • External Degree Programmes • University/Industry/Community/Other Extension Activities

8. SR – ASPECTS OF EVALUATION • Curriculum Design, Content and Review • Teaching, Learning and Assessment Methods 3. Skills Development 4. Quality of Students including Student Progress and Achievements • Extent and use of Student Feedback 6. Peer Observation 7. Postgraduate Studies 8. Academic Guidance & Counseling

9. LESSONS LEARNT

10. PROGRESS DURING THE INITIAL PHASE • Concept of QA in HE is a new phenomenon to the Sri Lankan university system • Need for an active awareness campaign at the initial stage was strongly felt. • Awareness programmes were launched in 2005 • Considerable progress has been achieved • During Jan 2005 to October 2007, the QAA Council was able to conduct 114 SR & 03 IR assessments in different public universities • Many have accepted the benefits of EQA

11. TRANSPARENCY AND FLEXIBILITY OF THE EQA PROCESS • Review panels appointed by the QAA Council have to be accepted by the institute/department • Review report has to be accepted by the institute/department • Making the process as flexible as possible, at least during the first review cycle • All the programmes offered by a particular department are evaluated under one SR assessment (“departmental review” or “programme review” )

12. SHARING OF GOOD PRACTICES • First review cycle is not expected to result in ranking of universities and programmes, and is also not linked with any form of accreditation • Main expected outcome of the first review cycle is the introduction of good practices and procedures that will facilitate the continuous quality improvement • Conducted SR assessments have revealed that most of the depts. are weak in four aspects Peer Observation Curriculum Revision Student Feedback Research Methodology • QAA Council has initiated a serious of workshops on the above

13. INTERNAL QA WITH EQA • Internal QA procedures have to be strengthened along with the External QA (EQA) • Internal QA units have been established in all public universities in 2005 and a broad framework has been prepared with the involvement of all the stakeholders • Internal QA mechanisms • would bring the staff members in the same institution together to share and learn from each other • would create a sense of responsibility and a new awareness of process approach throughout the institution

14. CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

15. Need for a multi-pronged strategy to gain a wider acceptance of the EQAs by the majority of the university community has to be emphasized • It is desirable to evaluate the impact of the external assessments conducted on the quality of programmes, courses and other related activities before the commencement of the second review cycle • Follow-up review cycle in a more simplified form after one to two years of the first review is recommended • a model similar to the ‘process review’ conducted in Hong Kong (Massy & French, 2001) could be adopted

16. More workshops and seminars would be needed to facilitate discussions on the lessons learnt • In the light of the lessons learnt, it would be necessary to make amendments/revisions to the existing guidelines for EQAs • University authorities should make every effort to induce the desire for quality as a main principle in every operation in their institutions to create a quality culture

17. It has to be accepted that the QA is never ending process • When planning for the future, it is imperative that the wealth and knowledge already available internationally has to be taken into consideration

18. www.qaacouncil.lk

19. THANK YOU