CURRENT SITUATION IN EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION CURRENT SITUATION IN EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE ASIA-PACIFIC REGION presented at the ASEM Conference Quality Assurance and Recognition in Higher Education: Challenges and Prospects Lymassol, Cyprus, 6-7 December 2010 Kamanto Sunarto Board Member, Asia Pacific Quality Network

 Founded in Hong Kong in January 2003  2004: Legal Entity: incorporated as a non-profit association in Victoria, Australia  2003 – March 2009: Hosted by Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA)  2009: Legal Entity in the Philippines  2009 handover: hosted by Shanghai Educational Evaluation Institute (SEEI) The Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN)

To be a self-sustaining Network, a first point of reference for advice or support, efficient in operation and open in information sharing. Vision

To enhance the quality of higher education in Asia and the Pacific region through strengthening the work of quality assurance agencies and extending the cooperation between them. Mission

To promote good practice in the maintenance and improvement of quality in higher education in the Asia-Pacific region To facilitate research in the region into the practice of quality management in higher education and its effectiveness in improving the quality of higher education in the region To provide advice anf expertise to assist in the development of new quality assurance agencies in the region To facilitate links between quality assurance agencies and acceptance of each other’s decisions and judgments To assist members of APQN to determine standards of institutions operating across national borders Purposes

PURPOSES (continued) To permit better-informed international recognition of qualifications throughout the region To assist in the development and use of credit transfer schemes to enhance the mobility of students between institutions both within and across national borders To enable members of APQN to be alert to dubious accrediting practices and organizations Where appropriate, represent the region and promote the interests of the region, e.g. vis-à-vis other networks and international organizations

dissemination of information through newsletters, documents, journals and books, whether in paper-based or electronic form Training and development through seminars, workshops, conferences and staff movement Methods

Bhutan Brunei Maldives Russia.. Membership: 75 members from 28 countries/territories and 5 observers from 5 countries

APQN MEMBERSHIP 1.28 Full members Intermediate members 3. 6 Associate members 4.28 Institutional members 5 Observers

APQN MEMBERS Australia (4) Bangladesh (3) Brunei Darussalam Cambodia (2) China (3) Chinese Taipei Fiji (2) Hong Kong, China (5) India Indonesia Japan Kazakhstan Korea, South (2) Laos Macau, China Malaysia (2) Maldives Mongolia (4) Nepal New Zealand (3) Pakistan (14) Philippines (2) Russia (3) Samoa Singapore Sri Lanka (2) Thailand (2) Timor Leste Vietnam (6)

Other Countries/Territories Afghanistan, Bhutan, Cook Islands, French Polynesia, Iran, Kiribati, Korea, North Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Myanmar, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Palau, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tokela, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu.

APQN Organisational Structure

CURRENT APQN BOARD APQN BOARD President Vice-President Secretary/Treasurer Elected (4) Co-opted (max. 4) Appointed COUNTRIES OF REPRESENTATION ON APQN BOARD Australia New Zealand China Philippines India Samoa Indonesia Sri Lanka Kazakhstan Thailand Malaysia

APQN CONFERENCES AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS 2005 Hong Kong (First APQN Board Meeting) CONFERENCES AND ANNUAL GENERAL MEETINGS Wellington (in conjunction with INQAAHE Annual Conference) Shanghai Kuala Lumpur Chiba Hanoi Bangkok Bangalore

DIVERSITY IN THE REGION 1.Stages of development 2.Quantity of HEIs and programs in the country/territory 3.Quantity of QAA 1.QAA system: 1.Absent 2.Emerging 3.Established 2.From 1 to > Single, multiple

DIVERSITY DIVERSITY ( DEEWR Report 2006) Variations in QAA arrangements in the region: Establishment Ownership Legal basis Governance Funding Level of independence

DIVERSITY DIVERSITY ( DEEWR Report 2006) Variations in: Level of QA (institution, program, QAA) Nature of QA process (mandatory, voluntary) Aspects considered for QA Role of HEI in constituting review team Role of QAA staff in on-site visit Extent of public disclosure of QA outcomes Implications of QA outcome Appeals mechanisms Post-QA follow-up

BUILDING ON COMMONALITIES AND STRENGTHS BUILDING ON COMMONALITIES AND STRENGTHS (Australian DEEWR Report)  Diversities in QA practices to suit the national contexts but agreement on common core principles of QA  Promotion of policies and practices that are strong points of the region  Regional approach to build on commonalities and strengths which do not contradict international developments but help the region to move forward in the international QA scenario

COLLABORATION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS  UNESCO-OECD TOOLKIT: UNESCO-APQN Regulation the Quality of Cross-Border Education, 2005  Australian DEEWR-APQN Study: Quality Assurance Arrangements in Higher Education in the Broader Asia-Pacific Region, 2008.

Framework for Higher Education Quality Assurance Principles in the Asia Pacific Region A: Internal Quality Assurance B: Quality Assessment C: Quality Assurance Agencies (Chiba Principles)

COLLABORATION WITH MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS: NIAD-UE INFORMATION PACKAGE NIAD-UE Information Package providing basic and specific information on the QA systems of higher education in Japan, China, and the United Kingdom (launched in Bangkok, back- to-back with the 2010 APQN Conference and Annual General Meeting)

COLLABORATION BETWEEN MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS MoC: SEEI-HKCAA (2006) MoC: AUQA-NAAC (2006) Consultancy: PAASCU-ACC (2006) MoA: NAAHE-MQA (2010) Japan-ASEAN Information Package Seminar n Tokyo (2010): QA Systems of GDETA (Vietnam), MQA (Malaysia), NAAHE (Indonesia), -NIAD-UE (Japan), ONESQA - (Thailand) and PAASCU (Philippines)

COLLABORATION BETWEEN MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS MoU, MoC between QAAs in the region: Australia New Zealand Malaysia China India Hong Kong

GOOD PRACTICES IN QA IN THE ASIA- PACIFIC REGION (Australian DEEWR Report) Some major influences:  INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice (GPP), 2007  Membership criteria of APQN  UNESCO-OECD Guidelines on Quality Provision in Cross-Border Higher Education, 2005

SWOT Analysis of Quality Assurance in the Asia-Pacific Region linked to international standards: analysis of common issues and opportunities for collaboration Australian DEEWR Study

Strengths Strong commitment and interest in QA at Ministerial level Broad similarity in underlying approaches in QA between countries Presence of regional QA body in APQN UNESCO-OECD Guidelines on CBHE INQAAHE Guidelines of Good Practice Lessons from Bologna Process High degree of cross-border provision and collaboration

Weaknesses Considerable diversity between actual QA practices Considerable differences in capacity of QA agencies Weaknesses in dealing with QA of distance and CBHE Lack of a strong Asia-Pacific regional identity.

Opportunities Reach agreement on principles for QA Build capacity of QA agencies Share best practice and learning Raise awareness of benefits and relevance of QA to education systems Economies of scale and enhanced effectiveness and efficiency through a regional QA approach

Threats Insufficient commitment and resources to resolving QA issues A focus on national approaches A developing understanding of the benefits of QA and regional cooperation in QA

EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF APQN : 2008 Evaluation review of the APQN EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF APQN : 2008 Evaluation review of the APQN (BY BATEMAN & BATEMAN) as recipient of World Bank Development Grant Facility (DGF) Criteria used: 1.Efficacy 2.Initial outcomes 3.Governance and management 4.Efficient financing 5.Sustainability

Evaluation review of the APQN Evaluation review of the APQN (Bateman & Bateman, 2008) “The APQN has demonstrated that it has delivered capacity building outcomes across the region within many of the countries/territories that have less developed QA systems. However, the task is not complete and recommendations are framed with view of further developments and reaching out to all nations within the region.”

Th ank You