CHAPTER 2 21
2.6 Evaluation Practices in South Africa 68
2.6.1 Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) 69
One of the objectives of the South African Higher Education Act of 1997 is to provide for quality assurance and quality promotion in higher education. Consequently, it made provision for the establishment of the Council for Higher Education (CHE), an independent statutory body to assume executive responsibility for quality assurance within higher education and training in South Africa. This includes programme accreditation, institutional audits, programme evaluation and quality promotion and capacity building. The CHE also monitors and evaluates whether, how, to what extent and with what consequences the vision, policy, goals and objectives for higher education are being realized, including reporting on the state of South African higher education (CHE, 2003). According to Singh (2001) to address the need for direction, responsibility for quality assurance was assigned to the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC), which was constituted in March 2001.
Page 70
The HEQC, which is a permanent committee of the CHE, is concerned with strategic and conceptual issues of quality in higher education, and is responsible for programme accreditation, quality promotion and institutional auditing (Baijnath and Singh, 2001).
The HEQC has four directorates, viz. Institutional Audits Directorate, National Reviews Directorate, Programme Accreditation Directorate and the Quality Promotion and Capacity Development Directorate. The Institutional Audits directorate is responsible for conducting audits of public and private higher education institutions’
systems for ensuring good quality of provision in three core functions of teaching and learning, research and community engagement. The National Reviews directorate re- accredits existing programmes in specific disciplines and/or qualification areas. The Programme Accreditation directorate accredits the learning programmes of public and private higher education institutions. The Quality Promotion and Capacity Development directorate is responsible for implementing the HEQC’s quality promotion and capacity development programme which disseminates information and knowledge about quality assurance, and prepares individuals and institutions to participate in implementing the HEQC’s quality assurance system (CHE, 2003).
Some of the lessons learnt in South Africa highlight some of the challenges faced by institutions of higher learning regarding the implementation of quality assurance.
Wilkinson (2002) in her analysis of several South African case studies found some common lessons.
1. The implementation of an institutional quality management system is a slow and demanding undertaking. The implementation of quality assurance systems takes several ‘cycles’ to enable a system to mature within an institution. The process of bringing reluctant staff on board as part of developing a comprehensive system is challenging.
2. The institutional and operational quality management should form an integral part of the strategic planning and management of the institution (Wilkinson, 2002).
Experience from several institutions indicates that quality assurance will not be
Page 71
successful if there is no systematic implementation plan for the quality assurance system at the institution. Ad hoc implementation of quality assurance outside general planning and management procedures is not successful. Leadership support for quality assurance is also critical to create a learning orientated culture which can lead to progressive and adaptive planning processes that respond to the dynamic demands of higher education (de Haan, Hummels, Claeseen, 1999; Newton, 1999).
3. Information received from management should be adequate to inform the judgements in an institutional quality management system. Correct quantitative and qualitative data about institutional practice is essential for effective quality assurance.
According to Kulati and Mosdell (1996), this data is used for critical analysis and the improvement of current practices in various areas.
4. The transformation of academic culture is perceived as the biggest challenge and requires well-planned staff-development action. Webbstock (2002) believes that in the South African context, transformation has been made harder by disillusionment with recent changes in the higher education section that have not been successful. Staff buy-in is vital if quality assurance is going to succeed as this is where the real change happens. To quote Kistan (2002:98): “policies come and go without perturbing the institution; change happens in the trenches where faculty and students are engaged in the primary activities of the university, teaching and research.”
5. Ownership of the process of quality assurance can be enhanced by well- designed self-evaluation mechanisms. Ownership of the quality assurance process is indispensable for the success of quality assurance. There are several case studies in the South African context that suggest establishing a quality assurance system based on critical self-evaluation has a greater chance of success. Strydom, Zulu and Murray (2004) believe that to establish this culture of self-evaluation it is important to orientate staff about the importance of self-evaluation and to support the system with constructive and developmental feedback.
Page 72
6. The uniqueness of flexi- and dual-mode education needs to be addressed.
Distance and open learning is creating a change in higher education provision. These different modes of provision require quality assurance processes that evaluate product (course materials), processes (teaching and learning processes), assessment procedures, support systems, library and information technology resources and academic staff training (Swift and Morejele, 1996; Brink and Singh, 2002).
Finally, human, physical and financial resources are costly but critical factors in an institutional quality management system. Institutions need to invest in the staff, infrastructure and finances required for an effective system. Duderstadt (2000) posits that a quality assurance system can, however, help to reduce costs by reviewing and eliminating activities that do not meet customer needs; helping to eliminate waste in any work processes; allowing certain services to compete in an open market and by using international benchmarks for critical activities in an institution.