1 / 21

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO QA AND THEIR IMPACT ON EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO QA AND THEIR IMPACT ON EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY. Ralph A. Wolff President and Executive Director Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities Western Association of Schools & Colleges. "Tell me and I forget.

monita
Download Presentation

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO QA AND THEIR IMPACT ON EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO QA AND THEIR IMPACT ON EFFICIENCY, EFFECTIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY Ralph A. Wolff President and Executive Director Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities Western Association of Schools & Colleges

  2. "Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn." Ben Franklin Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  3. Forces Leading to New Approaches • New types of institutions • Mergers, acquisitions, joint programs, dual degrees, transnational provision • New modalities of delivery • Heightened expectations of QA agencies • Increased emphasis on student learning • Global competition • Dissatisfaction of premier institutions • Economic downturn Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  4. A Personal Learning Journey • Receipt of grants from two foundations • Work with principles of learning organizations • Study of British QAA Audit process • Participation in Hong Kong TQLPR • Involved with 4 Handbook revisions • Member of Dubai UQAIB Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  5. Opening the Door to Change: The Questions We Asked • What do you most want from your accreditation experience? Did you get it? • What was the half-life of your last report? Did it lead to real change/improvement/ • Who was the report for? WASC or the institution? • Were key stakeholders deeply engaged in self review and preparation of the report? Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  6. The Answers We Received • Reviews need to be value adding – they aren’t • The process costs too much • Focus on continuous improvement • Have high standards that lead and guide • Rely more on existing data/evidence • Provide external accountability to avoid governmental interference • Focus on key issues • Address “accreditation fatigue” Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  7. Mental Models of Quality • Can you identify the top institution in your country in your jurisdiction? Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  8. Evolution of QA Goals • Meeting institution’s stated goals • Meeting external standards • Assuring adequate quality systems • Assuring effective learning results • Benchmarking- comparing results • Ranking Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  9. Developing and Applying Standards – Striking A Balance • Compliance -- -- -- -- -- Improvement • Minimum -- -- -- -- -- -- Aspirational • Prescriptive -- -- -- -- -- Adaptive • Quantitative -- -- -- -- -- Qualitative • Inputs -- Processes – - Outcomes • Comprehensive -- -- -- - Focused Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  10. Reframing the Review Process • Single Review -- -- -- -- Multiple Reviews • Episodic -- -- -- -- -- -- - Continuous • Formative -- -- -- -- -- -- Summative • Standards Focused -- --Theme Focused • Interview Based -- -- -- Evidence Based • Atomistic -- -- -- -- -- -- - Systemic • Judgmental -- -- -- -- -- - Developmental Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  11. Applying Quality Principles • Leadership commitment • Responsibility for all students • Range of variability • Sampling/Audit trails • Process mapping • Continuous improvement Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  12. US Accreditation Reform • The shift from an episodic ‘add-on’ to a value-adding process • The shift from inputs to alignment of processes to learning outcomes • A shift from a single comprehensive visit to a variety of new visit processes • A redefinition of accreditation from a conservator of traditional values to an agent for change Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  13. Southern Association (SACS) • Significant reduction in the number of standards • Off-site compliance review • Institutional Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) review (6 months) Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  14. Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) • Only for institutions in good standing • Quality systems centered • Self assessment • Strategy forum • Action projects • Annual external reviews • Systems portfolio/review (4 years) • Institutional review (7 years) Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  15. WASC • Learning-centered 3 stage review process • Proposal (peer reviewed) • Capacity and Preparatory Review (20-24 months)) • Educational Effectiveness Review (18-24 months) • Emphasis on student and organizational learning • Page limits; reliance on institutional portfolios • Evidence centered Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  16. Institutional Impact • New approaches are having a significant impact • Shifting to targeted areas of improvement that will make a real difference • Revealing huge “capacity” issues relating to faculty training and institutional data • Cited by many as “transformational” • Involves more work than ever before and greater value Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  17. Where We Are Still Challenged • Changing institutional culture to focus on student learning • Competing with the rankings/reputational paradigm • Shifting from mission-centered to public accountability • Deciding what to make public • Defining what level of learning is “good enough” • Addressing under preparedness of students • Improving rates of student completion Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  18. Lessons Learned/Implications • QA agencies need to define and periodically challenge their own models of quality • Revisions to visit processes are as important and impactful as revising standards • QA agencies have tremendous intellectual capital that makes us all leaders • Focus initially is on capacity; needs to move to effectivness • We all need to address what we will do after the second round of reviews under existing models Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  19. Stages of QAA Development • Formational – defining scope, creating standards, generating consent • Operational – implementing, creating support materials, building capacity • Developmental – training institutions to meet new expectations • Transformational – redefining purposes to serve new needs Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  20. Conclusion • We have a long way to go and a lot to learn • We are competing with budget cuts in many places that shift priorities and focus away from q.a. systems and assessment of learning • Institutions continue to build recognition through increased research and selectivity • Innovation, experimentation and adaptation works • Our QA processes holds great promise to lead the world in defining, evaluating and improving quality Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

  21. Personal Reflections • New approaches involve risk • Risk-taking requires courage • Meaningful change requires persistence and time • Consent-building is ongoing • Founded on passion for student and organizational learning Wolff - INQAAHE March 2009

More Related