We have the IR 4.0, we have education 4.0 and we have also TVET 4.0. Yet others are already thinking of Education 5.0. Japan is on to Society 5.0. The regulators aka government are demanding the HEIs licensed, overseen and funded by them to change to these trends. What of quality assurance? Is there a QA 4.0? How does QA 4.0 address or align with the Education 4.0?
One line of thinking about QA is for it to be more flexible i.e. allow HEIs to design and deliver programmes differently. The obvious assumption here is that QA bodies restrict their freedom. True. All QA bodies impose minimum requirements to be observed by HEIs to assure high quality experience for students. There is always flexibility to do more (and differently) but not less. Doing more within the minimum seems to be the objective of most HEIs. Most QA bodies will draw a line going below the minimum but they allow varying levels of flexibility in meeting the minimum. QA agencies are probably less flexible on the achievements standards otherwise also called learning outcomes. There are more flexible on the provider standards — practices, processes, systems and structures which are deemed to support high quality student outcomes. It is in the latter innovation opportunities are plentiful
The second line of thinking is to allow the HEIs to assure quality through their own internal quality assurance — more autonomy. While there is across the board support for this type of autonomy, the balance between internal quality assurance (HEIs) and external quality assurance is one that must be carefully calibrated based on strength of IQA and need for EQA. There is no one size fits all here. Every country must design one that fits its trust in the accountability of HEIs. History, culture, laws, norms and stakeholder voice shape this decisions. In Malaysia, HEIs are held accountable for the minimum quality of higher education by Ministry of Higher Education and Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) through the approval and a accreditation process respectively.
The third line of thinking is for the QA to be go beyond formal qualifications and traditional HEIs. Higher education is no more the preserve of HEIs. So QA bodies must be able reach out to any bodies that offer HE and with no offer of a formal award. This nontraditional providers — MOOCs, online training providers etc. should be subject to QA to raise their profile and value for the learners.
A fourth line of thinking is that QA bodies which have traditionally relied a lot on the process and inputs, to shift emphasis to outputs and outcomes. It means the performance of the HEIs become a key point of assessment — completion, progression, attrition, graduation, employment, publication, citation, grants secured, innovation, inventions and community services. Accountability for performance rather than just management and governance is the new call.
A line of thinking related to the 4th is that some processes must be given more importance in assessment — market studies (robust data analysis to determine needs) , flexible designs (more choice for students, personalization, different deliveries, work and learn etc.), industry engagement (the knowledge content, technologies, soft skills, new skills, beyond industry thinking) , teaching and learning strategies (collaborative learning, group learning, active learning, gamification, blended, flipped, real problems, authentic assessments etc.).
A fifth line calls for QA bodies as mediators of quality or recognition of value should develop means to assess and recognize all forms of learning beyond formal learning. QA should enable and assure informal and non-formal learning so that it can be reliably used by employers and HEIs as part of the lifelong learning idea.
A sixth line of thinking is for QA bodies to adopt more online technologies to integrate their accreditation processes while also making it more transparent, responsive and efficient. Reengineering and automation are key calls here.
Some of the above mentioned lines of thought predate IR 4.0, but it certainly has risen in importance or urgency due to this change. What QA bodies should do is not to see Education 4.0 as diminution of QA. In fact, the reverse is true. As the diversity of institutions increases, as diversity of deliveries rise, as the complexity of higher education multiplies and need for close match between HEIs and industries becomes critical, QA must rise and change in tandem to assure all parties that the value, integrity and vision of HE is preserved despite the added complexities. Modern QA or QA 4.0 is not about stripping minimum safeguards, lowering expectations about the supply chains, leaving HEIs to their own means or allowing prerogatives to override protection. On the contrary, it is about strengthening the minimum standards. Producing grads and waiting for employers to judge them as some argue is quality control. Making sure that the grads are fit for purpose is what QA is all about. In Edu 4.0, QA has a big role to assure that HEIs are doing the right job, right. For this QA must be a tough questioner - of vision, mission, intentions, plans, actions, outcomes, CQI, change and performance so that HEIs can see themselves on a mirror. (from my Sept 2019 FB Post).
