European Journal of Scientific Research (ISSN: 1450 ... - EuroJournals

More documents

Recommendations

Info

62 © European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol 7, No 5, 2005 TQM always says that "We'll need to talk to each other more and control one another less." V. QUALITY ASSURANCE The subject review method It is concerned with the student learning experience and student achievement; both the experience and the achievement should demonstrate that the aims and objectives set by the subject provider are achieved. For quality higher education, world class quality is the goal; this is quite a challenge for higher education institutions. Confidence in the achievement of the goal comes from the well-defined aims and objectives and the standards used. The aims express the subject providers broad educational purposes in providing the programs of study in the particular subject. The objectives set out the learning outcomes and experiences that demonstrate successful completion of program study. Main features of the subject review method are : Self-Assessment Peer-Review and The Review Visit. Graded profile The Overall Summative Judgement The Subject Review Method Monitoring and Evaluation Self-Assessment, is an evaluation by the subject provider. Clearly, the quality of the student learning experience and student achievement is measured against the aims and objectives that e subject provider set for the education of his/her students in that subject. The self-assessment is supported by the evidence and discusses both strengths and weaknesses in the provision. Consequently, the subject provider is expected to discuss further the steps taken to improve the quality in the weaknesses acknowledged. Peer Review, is carried out by a team of registered subject specialist reviewers. The team gathers evidence and makes judgements on the quality of education provided. To aid in the work of the subject provider and the Peer Review team, the institutions may nominate institutional facilitators. The Review Visit, is aimed at gathering and testing sufficient evidence on the provision in a subject so as to form a collective judgement on the quality of education and student achievement (measured against the subject providers aims and objectives). The visit is conducted in a spirit of dialogue and communication between the institution, the subject staff and the review team. It can be helpful if the institutional facilitator informs reviewers, upon their arrival to the institute, of any matters, from the institutional perspective, which may be, very important to their understanding of the subject reviewed. The visit establishes a graded profile giving an overall judgement on the quality of the provision. The overall summative judgement is derived from the profile. Each aspect has equal weight and positive result is reported as ‘quality approved’.
© European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol 7, No 5, 2005 The subject review report is published after each review visit. It is the most important documented outcome of the review process. Off course, the Self-Assessment, if monitored properly, gives the institution the priority voice in the key aspects of the provision. The last but the least feature is due to continuous monitoring and evaluation. Quality of faculty, in fast growing fields is being upgraded through the development of post-graduate programs to drain the next generation of academic staff. Incentives for quality improvements at about the undergraduate levels will be introduced through competitive grants for program innovation and research. Most countries have introduced different types of institutions different lengths of study programs and varying modes of institutional delivery as ways to accommodate rapid enrollment expansion. VI. THE KEY CHALLENGES FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE With the international study, learning occurs at a different time and place and the institution has limited control over the circumstances in which it takes place. How is this learning monitored and how can the coherence of a program be assessed across different instructional, settings, including cultural and linguistic differences and in how educational programs are structured? In both circumstances, the critical evaluative task for quality assurance is to focus on what remains central, i.e., what students learn. Educators, as well as quality assurance agencies, must look to the actual results, or outcomes of an instructional process. Furthermore, as many quality assurance agencies have recognized, these same challenges also apply to study in traditional settings, especially when students enroll part-time, change field of study, interrupt their studies or transfer to a new institution. Whether a unit of learning takes place in a work place, in another country or university or over the internet, the instructor or assessor may not have the full range of knowledge about the student that is possible in a traditional classroom situation. 63
Page 1 and 2:
© European Journal of Scientific R
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12: © European Journal of Scientific R
Page 23: © European Journal of Scientific R
Page 26 and 27: 26 © European Journal of Scientifi
Page 32 and 33: REFERENCES 32 © European Journal o
Page 72 and 73: LITERATURE CITED 72 © European Jou
Page 84: 84 © European Journal of Scientifi
show all

European Journal of Scientific Research (ISSN: 1450 ... - EuroJournals

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?