3.4 QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM IN HIGHER EDUCATION
3.4.7 Internal versus external quality assurance
Quality assurance activities could be undertaken according to procedures that might be imposed on HLIs by funding agencies or the government. Alternatively, the institutions themselves could undertake quality assurance activities at the institutional or departmental levels for purposes of accountability, conformity and continuous improvement (Jonathan, 2000). Internal quality assurance refers to those practices and policies whereby academic institutions examine and improve the quality of their education provision by themselves, while external quality assurance refers to supra- institutional practices and policies whereby the quality of academic institutions is assured (Dill, 2007). Individual HLIs have always designed policies and mechanisms to assure the quality of education, but they have also operated within the framework of national policies designed by government to assure academic standards. In other words, quality assurance could actually exist internally as the duty of the HLI, or could be performed by external entities for the purpose of public guarantee (Jonathan, 2000).
64
Based on their point of reference, most scholars categorise internal quality assurance as enhancement-orientated and external quality assurance as accountability- orientated (Aksu, 2018; Askling, 1997). According to these authors, the difference between the two systems is based on how the practice is initiated, who owns the activity, and the consequence of the outcome on the HLIs. The transformation notion of quality is associated with internal quality assurance, whereas the notions of quality as fitness for purpose and value for money are associated with the external quality assurance approach.
Internal quality assurance refers to the policies, systems, structures and activities that HLIs have set in place to enable them to monitor and improve their educational mission and objectives (Kadhila & Iipumbu, 2019). It refers to the evaluation and monitoring of activities, instruments and achievements undertaken by the institution itself based on the internal quality assurance policy or guideline. External quality assurance, on the other hand, is benchmark activities, quality assessments, external quality audits and accreditation activities carried out by external legitimate entities (quality assurance agencies or professional associations or anybody other than the institution) (Dill, 2007). External evaluation can also be conducted by other academics usually in the same discipline; this is known as peer review. The task of an independent body that carries out external quality assurance tasks is usually characterised as offering accountability of HLIs to various stakeholders (Middlehurst & Woodhouse, 1995).
External quality assurance supports HLIs to improve their internal performance by providing professional recommendations on specific areas to be improved. Such a relationship requires building trust between the HLI and the external quality assurance body. However, more emphasis should be given to internal quality assurance tasks.
Of course, the interaction of the internal and external quality assurance activities leads to lasting improvement (Kis, 2005).
Self-assessment or self-review sets criteria against which an institution can evaluate itself, and helps the institution to assess its progress towards its strategic goals while allowing the institution to develop an action plan for improvement. Institutional self- assessment is a crucial aspect of the traditions of continuous improvement. It is the process of making considerable judgements on the performance of educational institutions and uses these results for future improvement of their services. Taking the
65
self-assessment seriously and rigorously benefits the institution. Conducting regular self-assessment (usually followed by external assessment or audit for validation purposes) is a contemporary mechanism used to assess the efficiency of the internal quality assurance system of an HLI (Jonathan, 2000).
Assuring quality education in HLIs is the responsibility of the HLIs and the government or any external body entrusted by the government (Ganseuer & Pistor, 2018;
Woodhouse, 1999). Harvey (2005) and Kadhila and Iipumbu (2019) argue that the internal quality monitoring processes have a more profound impact on the quality of higher education that students receive than the external monitoring processes.
According to Sallis (2002), every HLI has to take the initiation to establish its own route to assuring quality education, since externally arranged approaches are usually the least effective. Luckett (2007) also notes that although external quality assurances (accreditation and institutional audits) are helpful to balance accountability and improvement, their effectiveness in enhancing the quality of the student learning experience continues to be debated. However, for a successful quality assurance system at HLIs, Fresen and Boyd (2005) confirm that the external and internal quality assurance approaches complement each other and are both necessary in relative proportions. Therefore, it can be argued that an internally owned quality assurance system by HLIs is the major component for continuous quality enhancement, while the external quality assurance component plays a facilitative and supportive role in the internal quality assurance system. An internal quality assurance system is a set of integrated practices and policies at HLIs to adapt, execute, and manage quality assurance instruments, procedures, and measures to fulfil internal standards and objectives as well as external standards and criteria (Ganseuer & Pistor, 2018). This implies that a quality assurance system should have to address the diverse needs of stakeholders.
It can be noted that the improvement–accountability argument has a bearing on the characteristics of quality assurance systems. Quality assurance systems can appear in various forms at different levels (national or programme or institutional levels), focus (on input or processes or output), scope (on teaching and learning or community service or research), and responsibility (institution or government or other bodies) (Westerheijden, Hulpiau & Waetens, 2007). This implies the approach to quality
66
assurance and the quality assurance models for higher education also vary accordingly. Generally, the quality assurance system functions for the purposes of improvement, accountability, compliance and control.