Exploring Innovative and Effective Methods for IQA (Internal Quality Insurance). Autor: Michaela Martin, programme specialist, IIEP-UNESCO Presentation made for CIES 2016, Vancouver, Canada

1. EXPLORING INNOVATIVE AND
EFFECTIVE MEHTODS FOR
IQA
- COMPARATIVE FINDINGS
CIES Conference, Vancouver
6-10 March 2016
MICHAELA MARTIN,
IIEP Programme Specialist
An IIEP research project

2. 1.Understanding of IQA varies
Shaped by:
 National or international requirements for EQA
 Possibly by regional integration policies (e.g.
EU)
 Higher education policy and administrative
context
 Institutional policies and resources
 Existing resources (effective informal
methods in resource scarce environments)

3. 2. Tools and processes for IQA are
evolving (1)
 Focusing on T&L more than management
 Moving from predominantly quantitative
surveys to include also qualitative methods
 Search for structured opportunities to use data
for internal dialogue and discussions
 Integration of institutional evaluation, quality
reports with the strategic planning and
institutional evaluation cycle

4. Ex1 : University of Duisberg Essen -An
integrated set of tools and procedures

5. 2. Tools and processes for IQA are
evolving (2)
 Employability related tools are rather common
in IQA systems
 Employability is an implicit issue; strongly
related to an understanding that academic
quality is most important
 Results from employability related tools not
always submitted to the discussion among
academics, but rather exploited by academic
managers only

6. IQA tools for graduate employability

7. 3. Structures for IQA are
evolving
 Finding an appropriate balance between
centralization and decentralization is a major
issue
 Importance of university wide policies and
procedures (quality policy, manuals) for IQA
 Central unit provides techncial support and
support to colleges
 Central unit organises, plans and monitors
university-wide processes
 But QA structure at all levels and major processes
under the responsibility of departments
 Variation in how coercitive the implementation of
IQA processes is

8. EX2: University of Bahrain-Academic Quality
Structure
Department
level
College
level
University
level
Quality
Assurance and
Accreditation
Center (QAAC)
College Quality
Assurance
Office (QAO)
Department
Assessment
Committees
(DAC)
President’s
Advisor for
Quality
Assurance
Academic
Committee
(University)
Academic
Committee
(College)
Academic
Committee
(Department)
Quality Structure Academic Structure

9. 4. Effects of IQA
 Many changes effected, but mostly in the T&L
domain, in particular in making educational
programmes more coherent
 Better alignment with requests from employers
 Management decisions become more
streamlined and better integrated with data
analysis and evaluation
 Information systems enhanced and aligned to
the needs of IQA, planning and management

10. 5. Conditioning factors
 Leadership
 Solid information systems
 Participation of academic staff in the
development of systems
 Sustain systems by making benefits visible
 Financial incentives less valued by academic
staff

11. 6. Good principles of IQA
 Importance on communication and
organizational learning
 IQA system based on quality
analysis/quality quality dialogue and
quality development
 System is geared towards maximum
usability of the data : importance of data
reporting
 Structured follow up on recommendations
for improvement

12. 7. Developmental pattern for
IQA
 Stage 1: Development of and experimentation
with unconnected tools and processes
Often data overlaod
 Stage 2: Linking tools and processes with
strategic processes (strategic planning,
budgetary processes)
 Stage 3: Diminishing the quantity of data, but
focus on the use and follow up at the
decentalized level
Creating a coherent system of data acquisition,
analysis and management

13. 8. How do actors view IQA ?
 Leaders and decision makers have a more
positive view than academics
 Academics stress their concern with workload
and competing demands on their time
 Students view IQA relatively positively, but
would like to be more involved and better
informed of evaluation results
 Discipline does not really make a difference in
how academic staff view IQA