Các vấn đề và xu thế đảm bảo chất lượng và giáo dục đại học tiếng anh

ISSUES AND TRENDS IN QUALITY ASSURANCE AND HIGHER EDUCATION-Planning in a Global Context John N Hawkins Co-Director APHERP EWC-UCLA US & UC System Vietnam Presentation BACKGROUND   QA can bring out both enthusiasm & cynicism “Internal-External” shifts     b/w HE & host society Private, inner world of HE & social context Often stimulated by forces outside HE Many terms: QA, evaluation, review, audit, monitoring, QM, TQM, etc Conceptual Considerations   Context: international, national, institutional, basic units Methods a General Model?      National coordinating body Institutional self-evaluation External peer review Published reports Policy, action follow-up Conceptual Considerations    Impact of QA: system, institution, program, department (basic units), individual Values & QA: challenges existing values: academic, managerial, pedagogic, expected outcomes Politics of QA: distribution of power, decisions, transform HE, institutional autonomy The Rise of QA      Rise of “evaluative State” (Neave) In context of “romantic view of HE” Kerr Expansion of HE Diversification of HE Changing relations b/w HE & State   Bottom-up=incremental change External State involvement=“fundamental change” (Clark) Emergence of National QA      Accreditation in US long-standing QA in Europe, Asia, LA more recent Diversity in QA approaches Licensing by States (US & India) important Some argue (Trow) QA has done nothing to improve HE Diverse Purposes of QA         Accountability of public funds Improve quality of HE provision Inform funding decisions Inform students & employers Stimulate competitiveness b/w HEIs QC of new privates Assign status and rankings Others? Mechanisms of QA      Rewards: links to funding (yes or no?); formal status allocation (accreditation); income; influence; intangible Changing policies & structures: everyday life of HEI; fundamental change (PSRI at UCLA; ELP), DC, corporatization, RCM External affects Internal Changing cultures (demise of “happy anarchy” Others: changing boundaries, factor favor QA & Institutional Change       QA is everywhere Massification+diversity=information demand QA used for branding purposes State uses it for control Funding is increasingly conditional Shift on “control-autonomy” continuum toward control QA & Institutional Change    HEI no longer immune from QA: professorial dilemmas QM is one result: make sure these ideas permeate the organization; data collection and storage; accountability We now have an “evaluative culture” for better or worse Values of Master Plan II  Governance structure   Statutory coordinating body (CPEC)   For on-going planning Student choice among segments   Independent lay board for each segment Facilitated by portable Cal grants Affordability  Assured through fee and financial aid structure and state funding commitment Master Plan Challenges I  Social and economic changes/globalizaton     Greater demand for higher education Increasingly global economy More diverse society immigration Demographic challenges    Issue of access some groups still left behind Differential participation rates Ethnic/racial diversity not keeping pace Master Plan Challenges II       Declining State financial support Preserving affordability Proposals to change or abolish Master Plan coordinating agency (CPEC) Maintaining mission distinctions Transfer and joint doctoral programs require coordination across segments Challenge of distance and virtual education New K-University Master Plan I      Original Master Plan focused on HE New Master Plan seeks to coordinate all levels of education Appoint new CEO for K-12, Statewide Differentiation lines blurring between three segments (UC, CSU, CCC) Reword university research mission “primary but not exclusive” agency for research New K-University Master Plan II   Create new coordinating commission for K-University (curriculum, assessment, transition) Coordinate new admissions procedures with focus on equity and rigor (use of non traditional criteria; declining role of SAT for example) New K-University Master Plan III      Simplify transfer policy between segments Promote more equitable faculty incentive systems-balance between teaching and research System wide effort to improve K-12 teaching Stabilize fees at university level Integrated accountability system Strengths of Master Plan      Fidelity to the original design and values Effectiveness in meeting preset outcomes Longevity For its time changed the paradigm of higher education in terms of access, equity, interdependence Remains to be seen if new plan will be as innovative Case Study: UCLA WASC ReAccreditation     Began June 2006 On-going through 2009 Based on new “theme” approach In the context of UCLA’s Increasing Commodification-Federalization 2005-06 Research Expenditures by Fund Sources Total $3.182 billion Federal Funds $1.791 billion (56%) State General & Restricted Funds $474 million (15%) Other Funds $917 million (29%) November 2006 What Is It?    WASC-regional organization that provides umbrella re-accreditation for UCLA as whole UCLA must meet WASC standards and criteria Benefits: right to administer federal financial aid; opportunity for self reflection and review; improvement of mission Three Processes Preparation of an Institutional Proposal which describes UCLA’s plans for RA A Capacity and Preparatory Reviewfocus on UCLA’s organizational capacity Educational Effectiveness Reviewstudent and institutional learning Structure and Governance     Directed by joint effort of Academic Senate and Administration & Chancellor Planning and implementation conducted by committees and working groups of faculty, administrators, staff, students Proposal Steering Committee draft institutional proposal WASC RA Steering Committee coordinates process Three Theme Workshops/Reports Capstone Experience: senior integrative research experience Interdisciplinary education and research: crossing disciplinary boundaries Educational technology:enhance student academic learning experience Conclusion      WASC site visits over three year period WASC response to written reports WASC response to UCLA “culture of evidence” WASC final report Re-Accreditation usually with suggestions for improvement