Advertisement

Education Quality Audit as Applied in Hong Kong

  • William F. Massy
Chapter
Part of the Higher Education Dynamics book series (HEDY, volume 30)

Abstract

Academic audit emerged in the UK circa 1990 and is being applied in a growing number of venues across the world. This paper describes the variant, called “Education Quality Audit,” applied by Hong Kong 's University Grants Committee (UGC) in the mid 1990s and again 2002. The UGC's policy problem was how to discharge its obligation to Government and the public to assure the quality of teaching and learning without disempowering the institutions, infringing their autonomy, or spending too much in relation to the results achieved. Its solution was to evaluate the maturity of the universities' “education quality work” (EQW): that is, the organized activities dedicated to improving and assuring educational quality. EQW includes the assessment of student learning, and also educational goals, curricula, teaching methods, and quality assurance. Audit differs from external assessment in that it does not directly evaluate the quality of educational provision. Such evaluations are important, but they are difficult for external bodies to achieve in university education. Audit asks whether the entity itself makes the requisite measurements and what it does with the results. It assumes a delegation of responsibility to the institution and verifies that the delegation is being discharged effectively. The audit mantra is, “Trust but check.”

Keywords

Education Quality Quality Process Quality Work External Quality Assessment Generally Accept Account Principle 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgement

I am indebted to David Dill, Ralph Wolff of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges my colleagues on the Hong Kong UGC and the Region’s two audit panels, Steve Graham of the University of Missouri System, and Paula Short of the Tennessee Board of Regents for their help and encouragement in the development and application of the education quality audit method.

References

  1. Boyer, E. L. (1991). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  2. Dill, D. D. (1992). Quality by design: Toward a framework for academic quality management. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 37–83). New York: Agathon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dill, D. D. (2000). Designing academic audit: Lessons learned in Europe and Asia. Quality in Higher Education, 6(3), 187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ECS (2003). Accountability – Next generation models: Quality improvement model. Denver, CO, USA: Education Commission of the States.Google Scholar
  5. French, N. J., Massy, W. F., Young, K. (2001). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Higher Education, 42(1), 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. French, N. J., Ping, K. K., Massy, W. F., Sui, H. F. H., Young, K. (1999). Research assessment in Hong Kong. Journal of International Education, 10(1), 46–53.Google Scholar
  7. Harvey, L. (1999). Quality in higher education. Paper at the Swedish Quality Conference, Goteborg, November.Google Scholar
  8. Massy, W. F. (1997). Teaching Learning Quality Process Review: The Hong Kong programme. Quality in Higher Education, 3(3), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Massy, W. F. (2000). Energizing quality work: Higher education quality evaluation in Sweden and Denmark. Technical report. National Center for Postsecondary Improvement, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  10. Massy, W. F. (2003). Honoring the trust: Quality and cost containment in higher education. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  11. Massy, W. F. (2004). Academic audit for accountability and improvement. In J. C. Burke (Ed.), Achieving accountability in higher education: Balancing public, academic, and market demands (pp. 173–197). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. Massy, W. F., French, N. J. (1999a). Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review: What the program has achieved in Hong Kong. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Massy, W. F., French, N. J. (1999b). Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review: What has the programme achieved in Hong Kong? Presented at the 5th Conference of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education, Santiago de Chile, 2–5 May.Google Scholar
  14. Massy, W. F., Graham, S. W., Myrick Short, P. (2007). Academic quality work: A handbook for improvement. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  15. Meade, P., Woodhouse, D. (2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of the New Zeeland Academic Audit Unit: Review and outcomes. Quality in Higher Education, 6(1), 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Trow, M. (1994). Academic reviews and the culture of excellence. Stockholm: Kanslersãmbetet.Google Scholar
  17. van Vught, F. (1994). The new context for academic quality. Paper for symposium “University and Society”, Vienna, 9–10 June.Google Scholar
  18. Wahlén, S. (1998). Is there a Scandinavian model of evaluation of higher education? Higher Education Management, 10(3), 27–41.Google Scholar
  19. WASC (1999). Newsletter 4. http://www.fullerton.edu/wasc/Newsletter4.htm. Accessed 12 June 2009.
  20. Westerheijden, D., Brennan, J., Dill, D., Shah, T., Verkleij, A. (1999). A campaign for quality: Hong Kong Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review. Hong Kong: University Grants Committee.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • William F. Massy
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations