Leadership educators should create a robust program assessment and evaluation culture at the launch of a leadership program. Ideally, such a culture promotes an ethos of continuous quality improvement and evidence-based decision-making. The data and information it yields form the basis for understanding the program’s achievement of goals and its impact. It helps educators to determine how well the content is advancing student learning and how program results satisfy the interests of key stakeholders. An evidence-based plan that measures learning, satisfaction, and program efficiency can play a critical role in promoting the program and providing funding justification to donors. This chapter presents a systematic assessment framework that thrives on a culture of continuous quality improvement and can be implemented within a single program or across multiple programs.
Gama Perruci and Sadhana W. Hall
Leadership programming is at the core of leadership education, training, and development. In this chapter, we describe how to conceptualize and develop co-curricular leadership programming. First, steps should be taken to identify and understand the target population for the program. Then educators should assess the available resources and assemble a team of similarly motivated individuals to assist in the development process. From there, research should be conducted to help further conceptualize the program. Finally, educators should establish initial program goals and SMART student learning outcomes for their program to ensure that the needs of both the students and the educators will be fulfilled by the proposed design. The chapter provides a systematic path forward based on seven core pillars of program design.
Angela Yung-chi Hou
Because Asian quality assurance agencies are either governmental institutions or affiliated with government, evaluation use and impact on accreditation outcomes in higher education institutions is an important concern in Asian society. Higher Education Accreditation & Evaluation Council in Taiwan (HEEACT), a leading national accreditor in Taiwan, carried out program and institutional accreditations over four-year universities and colleges since its establishment in 2005. Over the past decade, two cycles of program accreditations and one institutional review have been completed. Hence, the public demand to assess the impact of quality assurance on higher education institutions and to realize its use in quality policy making is getting stronger and stronger. The purpose of the chapter is to explore the impact and implication of accreditation on Taiwan higher education via a survey of academics and staff. There are several major findings in the study. First, accreditation outcomes greatly affected both fully accredited and partially accredited institutions, particularly on faculty recruitment and academic program development. Second, the respondents from the accredited institutions tended to be more satisfied with the current QA policy. Third, the attitude toward evaluation use as a requirement of the Excellence Project and application for self-accreditation differed between the respondents in the fully accredited and partially accredited institutions.
The objective of this study is to discuss major characteristics and issues in the quality assurance of higher education in East Asia from international and comparative perspectives. It focuses on analysing key characteristics of national frameworks of quality assurance of higher education in major systems such as Japan, China and Korea, and major challenges and issues facing these countries. The first section makes a brief introduction to higher education systems and recent reforms on higher education in selected systems in Japan, China and Korea. The second section reviews recent changes and challenges to the quality assurance in these systems at both the policy and practice levels. The study reveals that more similarities can be found in the formation of quality assurance mechanisms in East Asian countries and societies despite their different higher education origins and traditions. However, the specific national contextual factors have also led to a varied picture of how different East Asian countries and societies respond to the growing demand for greater accountability and further enhancement of higher education; closer societal engagement; and the challenges and tensions that emerge during the process.
The Tuning Educational Structures in Europe project (2000–), co-financed by the European Commission and by the universities directly involved, is a grass-roots response to the Bologna Declaration. It was inspired by the idea that system reforms, a prime responsibility of national governments, should be complemented by structural reforms regarding the way in which study programmes were offered, which is the responsibility of higher education (HE) institutions and their staff. Tuning designed a structure which allowed for the development of a toolbox to support the modernisation of degree programmes by offering a methodology for reform and international benchmarks at subject area level. It requires the change from expert-driven education to a student-centred approach which includes active learning. Tuning was indeed successful in involving many hundreds of universities and thousands of academics in developing its toolbox. However, the paradigm shift is still far from a widespread reality as a Tuning impact study and other studies have showed. Recently Tuning launched a new initiative to support the benchmarks with detailed assessment frameworks offering a basis for the transnational measurement and comparison of learning.
Ellen Hazelkorn, Hamish Coates and Alexander C. McCormick
This chapter puts the discussion of the book’s theme – quality, performance and accountability – into context, and introduces the ideas, structure and contributions of this book. It explores the book’s rationales and the three framing ideas. Next, it surveys the five parts of the book, and its 42 chapters that follow. The chapter concludes with suggestions for future progress in this field.
Tianli Yang and Nian Cai Liu
Higher education in China has experienced dramatic changes in the past thirty years, including massification, marketization and university ranking. Rankings have become more and more relevant and important to Chinese higher education, and have a major impact on the performance of Chinese universities and on quality assurance and accountability. This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section describes Chinese national university rankings and the performance of Chinese universities in those rankings. The second section focuses on global university rankings, particularly on the performance of Chinese universities in global rankings. The third section discusses the impact of university rankings on Chinese higher education, particularly on quality assurance and accountability of Chinese higher education.
David M. Kaplan, Julie Palmer, Katina Thompson, Susan Dustin, Christina Arroyo, Sanjeewa Perera and Robert D. Marx
Once a job is evaluated and designed the process for filling the position begins. Decisions to be made include: determining the labor needs both now and in the future, where to advertise the job, whether to look internally first, what kind of special considerations might be made, and the criteria for selection. While this may sound simple, there is a mountain of research that demonstrates biases – both conscious and unconscious – that get in the way of making the best selection decisions. Included in this chapter are several exercises that enable students to experience the challenges of hiring employees, including special cases where diversity, overqualification, and group roles in decision-making processes are potential issues.
Edited by Ellen Hazelkorn, Hamish Coates and Alexander C. McCormick
Dominic Orr and Alex Usher
Performance-based funding (PBF) is an example of the instruments of governance introduced to higher education systems during the last two decades in the context of higher education expansion. Through changing the incentive structure, it aims to intensify the focus of higher education institutions (HEI) on their performance, including fostering student performance. Despite the evidence that PBF systems appear to have a low system-wide impact on HEIs, they are still politically significant because they emphasise certain types of performance over others and therefore have a norm-setting function. In this context, the chapter reviews the indicators being used to measure student performance and closes with a discussion of future challenges for PBF systems aiming to more closely reflect changes in students’ pathways to success.