Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Design and Implementation to Impact of Quality Assurance: An Overview of Some Studies into what Impacts Improvement

  • Published:
Tertiary Education and Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Attention shifted in recent years from design and implementation to use and usefulness of quality assurance. Scientific studies focus increasingly on quality assurance’s impact on curricula and individual teachers. Which factors influence follow-up activities and what is their relation to improvement of education? One factor that we single out is teachers’ experience of quality assurance and how that influences the climate for quality work in higher education institutions, against the backdrop of the social context in which quality assurance was introduced. The article critically analyses a number of studies on the topic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Auditcommissie Kwaliteitszorg in het Academisch Onderwijs in Vlaanderen (1998). Aandacht voor kwaliteit in de Vlaamse universiteiten [Audit committee quality assurance in university education in Flanders]. Brüssel: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (1991). Leadership and management effectiveness: A multi-frame, multi-sector analysis. Human Resource Management, 30(4), 509–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E.L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities for the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, C., & Rozsnyai, K. (2002). Quality Assurance and the Development of Course Programmes. Bucharest: CEPES-UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cashin, W.E. (1990). Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use (IDEA Paper No. 22). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University, Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

    Google Scholar 

  • Centra, J.E. (1993). Determining facuity effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Directorate-General XXII (DG XXII). (1995). Information note on the results of the European pilot project for evaluating quality in higher education. Brussels: European Commission, DG XXII, Education, Training and Youth.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education (1999). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. Bologna.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frazer, M. (1997). Report on the modalities of external evaluation of higher education in Europe: 1995–1997. Higher Education in Europe, 12(3), 349–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frederiks, M.M.H. (1996). Beslissen over kwaliteit [Deciding on quality]. Utrecht: De tijdstroom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1995). The relationship between quality in research and quality in teaching. Quality in Higher Education, 1(2), 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (1999). Improving teaching, learning and assessment. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 23(2), 147–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goedegebuure, L.C.J., Jeliazkova, M., Pothof, F., & Weusthof, P.J.M. (2002). Alle begin is moeilijk: Evaluatie van de proefaccreditering HBO [Beginning is hard: Evaluation of HBO accreditation pilot]. Enschede: CHEPS, Universiteit Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosling, D., & D’Andrea, V.-M. (2001). Quality Development: A new concept for higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A.G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1182–1186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hativa, N. (1996). University instructors’ ratings profiles: Stability over time, and disciplinary differences. Research in Higher Education, 37(3), 341–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendry, G.D., & Dean, S.J. (2002). Accountability, evaluation of teaching and expertise in higher education. International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 75–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulpiau, V., & Waeytens, K. (2003). Improving quality of education: What makes it actually work? A case study. In C. Prichard & P.R. Trowler (Eds.), Realizing qualitative research into higher education (pp. 145–169). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeliazkova, M. (2001). Running the maze: Interpreting external review recommendations. Quality in Higher Education, 8(1), 89–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeliazkova, M., & Westerheijden, D.F. (2000). Het sichtbare eindresultaat [The visible end result]. Den Haag: Algemene Rekenkamer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeliazkova, M., & Westerheijden, D.F. (2002). Systemic adaptation to a changing environment: Towards a next generation of quality assurance models. Higher Education, 44(3–4), 433–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. (2000). The authority of the student evaluation questionnaire. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(4), 419–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keils, H.R. (1995). Self-study processes (4th ed.). New York: ACE/McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P., & Kwan, K.P. (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 411–425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, B. (1998). A European Union perspective on follow up. In J.P. Scheele, P.A.M. Maassen & D.F. Westerheijden (Eds.), To be continued…: Follow-up of quality assurance in higher education (pp. 39–63). Maarssen: Elsevier/De Tijdstroom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knight, J. (2002). Trade creep: Implications of GATS for higher education policy. International Higher Education, 28(2), 5–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laughton, D. (2003). Why was the QAA Approach to teaching quality assessment rejected by academics in UK HE? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(3), 309–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magin, D.J. (1998). Rewarding good teaching: A matter of demonstrated proficiency or documented achievement? International journal for Academic Development, 3(2), 124–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H.W., & Roche, L.A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. The critical issues of validity, bias and utility. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1187–1197.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAlpine, L., & Harris, R. (2002). Evaluating teaching effectiveness and teaching improvement: A language for institutional policies and academic development practices. International Journal for Academic Development, 7(1), 7–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeachie, W.J. (1997). Student ratings. The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52(11), 1218–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministerie van Onderwijs & Wetenschappen (1985). Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit [Higher education: autonomy and quality]: Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1985–1986, 19253, nr. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasser, F., & Fresko, B. (2002). Faculty views of student evaluation of college teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(2), 188–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. (2000). Feeding the beast or improving quality? Academics’ perceptions of quality assurance and quality monitoring. Quality in Higher Education, 6(2), 153–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramsden, P., & Martin, E. (1996). Recognition of good university teaching: Policies from an Australian study. Studies in Higher Education, 21(3), 299–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D.F. (2004a). Accreditation in the framework of evaluation activities: A comparative study in the European higher education area. In S. Schwarz & D.F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area (pp. 1–41). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D.F. (Eds.). (2004b). Accreditation and evaluation in the European higher education area. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stensaker, B. (2004). The transformation of organisational identities: Interpretations of policies concerning the quality of teaching and learning in Norwegian higher education. Enschede: CHEPS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trow, M. (1974). Problems in the transition from elite to mass higher education. In OECD (Ed.), Policies for higher education (pp. 51–101). Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trowler, P. (1998). Academics responding to change. New higher education frameworks and academic cultures. Buckingham: SRHE & Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Wende, M.C. (2001). Internationalisation policies: About new trends and contrasting paradigms. Higher Education Policy, 14(3), 249–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dyke, N. (2005). Twenty years of university report cards. Higher Education in Europe, 30(2), 103–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Os, W. (1999). Bruikbaarheid en effectiviteit van studentenoordelen over het onderwijs [Usability and effectiveness of student judgements about education]. Enschede: Universiteit Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F.A., & Westerheijden, D.F. (1993). Quality management and quality assurance in European higher education: Methods and mechanisms. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the Commission of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vught, F.A., & Westerheijden, D.F. (1994). Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education. Higher Education, 28, 355–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaamse Raad (1991). Memorie van Toelichting bij het decreet betreffende de universiteiten in de Vlaamse Gemeenschap [Memorandum of explanation of the decree on universities in the Flemish community] (No. Stuk 502 (1990–1991)—Nr.1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlk, A. (2006). Higher education and GATS: Regulatory consequences and stakeholders’ responses. Enschede: CHEPS, University of Twente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroeijenstijn, A.I. (1989). Autonomy and assurance of quality: Two sides of one coin. Paper presented at the International Conference on Assessing Quality in HE, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroeijenstijn, A.I., & Acherman, J.A. (1990). Control oriented versus improvement oriented quality assessment. In L.C.J. Goedegebuure, P.A.M. Maassen & D.F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education (pp. 81–101). Utrecht: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vereniging van Universiteiten (VSNU). (1999). Quality assessment made to measure: Protocol for external assessment of educational programmes 20002-2005. Utrecht: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachtel, H.K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 191–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.F. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D.F. (1990). Peers, performance, and power: Quality assessment in the Netherlands. In L.C.J. Goedegebuure, P.A.M. Maassen & D.F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Peer review and performance indicators: Quality assessment in British and Dutch higher education (pp. 183–207). Utrecht: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D.F. (1997). A solid base for decisions: Use of the VSNU research evaluations in Dutch universities. Higher Education, 33(4), 397–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerheijden, D.F., & Sorensen, K. (1999). People on a bridge: Central European higher education institutions in a storm of reform. In B.W.A. Jongbloed, P.A.M. Maassen & G. Neave (Eds.), From the eye of the storm: Higher education’s changing institution (pp. 13–38). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weusthof, P. J. M. (1994). De interne kwaliteitszorg in het wetenschappelijk onderwijs [Internal quality assurance in university education]. Utrecht: Lemma.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands

    Don F. Westerheijden

  2. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Veerle Hulpiau

  3. Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

    Kim Waeytens

Authors
  1. Don F. Westerheijden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Veerle Hulpiau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kim Waeytens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Don F. Westerheijden.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Westerheijden, D.F., Hulpiau, V. & Waeytens, K. From Design and Implementation to Impact of Quality Assurance: An Overview of Some Studies into what Impacts Improvement. Tert Educ Manag 13, 295–312 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880701535430

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13583880701535430

Search

Navigation