6 Assessment Update • November–December 1999 • Volume 11, Number 6

MANY COUNTRIES HAVE IN-troduced or revised their proce-dures for external scrutiny of

institutional arrangements for quality assurance in higher education, and for assessment of the quality of specific edu-cational programs. Reactions within theacademy range from frustration vergingon anger through reluctant compliance toacceptance that some improvements maybe necessary and beneficial. Nevertheless,the worldwide trend toward higher ratesof participation, especially when alignedwith the knowledge and information rev-

olutions, is transforming the higher edu-cation scene. Increasingly, externalscrutiny is being justified on thesegrounds, that is, on the grounds of in-creased complexity and diversity.

Many institutions, at least initially, re-sponded to the external forces by focus-ing on the immediate task, that is, on theimpending accreditation, quality assess-ment, or quality audit. The strategic re-sponse has shifted progressively towardreviewing, revising, and strengthening in-ternal policies, processes, and procedures.

Not only should this focus reduce thestrain of external scrutiny, but it is alsoperceived as a means of redressing thebalance and enabling institutions to playa more positive and active role in the de-bate and in the development of practices.

Creating Effective InstitutionalCultures

Creating effective institutional policies,processes, and procedures for quality as-sessment, assurance, and enhancementwill be facilitated if attention is paid to the

culture of the institution. The thesis is thatinstitutions with a strong tradition of de-volved responsibility, and with shared vi-sions of agreed-upon goals and means ofachieving them, differ from those wherethe ethos is either strongly centralist ordeterminedly individualistic. Yet the ex-pectation, in Britain and elsewhere, is thatwhatever the institutional ethos, prevail-ing culture, or preferred style of manage-ment is, robust internal systems forsetting, monitoring, reviewing, and en-hancing arrangements will operate effi-

ciently, effectively, and expediently. More-over, these systems should address abroad, common agenda to satisfy exter-nal reviewers.

Regardless of which approach it fa-vors, the institution needs to secure ad-herence. Adherence, in turn, depends onfactors such as involvement, commitmentat various levels, clarity of communica-tion, allocation of responsibilities, rein-forcement, and support. The dual, eventriple, allegiance of faculty to their acad-emic guild, department, and institutionintroduces further complexity and addssubtle nuances to some of the determin-ing factors. Yet the challenge revolvesaround a small number of key issues,such as the following:

• Do faculty accept the need for thepolicies, procedures, and processes?

• Do they believe that the policies,procedures, and processes are work-able and that they produce worthwhilebenefits?

• Are the policies, procedures, andprocesses framed in an acceptablemanner, including being in an accept-able language?

• Do they fit with the way we do thingshere? If not, how is any culture changedetermined, defined, and progressed?

Illustration

The foregoing discussion indicates thatthere are several possible ways of creat-ing effective institutional approaches toquality assessment, management, and en-

Creating Effective Internal Processes for Quality Assessment, Management,and DevelopmentGeorge Gordon

This focus on reviewing, revising, and strengthening internal

policies, processes, and procedures not only should reduce the

strain of external scrutiny, but it is also perceived as a means of

redressing the balance and enabling institutions to play a

more positive and active role in the debate and in the

development of practices.

*

Assessment Update • November–December 1999 • Volume 11, Number 6 7

(continued on page 13)

hancement. I now focus on one illustra-tion and approach, namely the case of theUniversity of Strathclyde in Glasgow.This example is offered partly because Iknow it well, having worked at the Uni-versity of Strathclyde for more than thirtyyears, and partly because in recent yearsI have been closely involved in the devel-opment of the university’s quality assur-ance system. Strathclyde is also one of the five European universities that BurtonClark used as case studies for his recentbook, Creating Entrepreneurial Universi-ties (1998).

Designated as a university in 1964, theUniversity of Strathclyde’s origins can betraced back to the end of the eighteenthcentury when a professor of the Univer-sity of Glasgow expressed in his will thata new university be established in the cityas a “place of useful learning.” That mottostill guides the University of Strathclyde.There are now five faculties: arts and so-cial sciences, business, education, engi-neering, and science. The university hasmore than 16,000 full-time students. An-other 40,000 participate, both on campusand at a distance, in programs of lifelonglearning.

In the late 1980s, Strathclyde adopteda devolved management structure for fi-nancial and academic affairs, with the fivefaculties being given powerful roles. Cen-tral steering came from the group of se-nior officers, from the senior forums ofthe institution (from the senate as the aca-demic body and from the court as thegoverning body), and from a small num-ber of new committees. Foremost amongthese committees was the university man-agement group (the senior officers of theuniversity, the senior lay officers of thecourt, the five deans, and the student pres-ident). This body handles the day-to-daymanagement of the university and formu-lates policy papers for consideration bythe senate and the court.

Of more specific relevance to qualityassurance was the establishment in theearly 1990s of the Academic Quality As-surance Group. This small committee,chaired by the director of academic prac-

pected to act on major items for im-provement within agreed-upon (and usu-ally short) time lines.

In every institution of higher educa-tion in Britain, these experiences have influenced the evolution of effective in-ternal processes and policies for qualityassurance, management, and develop-ment. At Strathclyde, quality assessmentharmonized broadly with the culture ofdevolved responsibility, although atten-

tion had to be paid to items such as goodcommunication, consistency of practice,monitoring and evaluating policies andpractices, and learning from experience.Departments led and owned the process,with the relevant academic vice dean,faculty subcommittees, and the AcademicQuality Assurance Group providing ad-vice and support.

In general, the subtle interplay of cen-tral steering and devolved responsibilityis heightened when the focus of attentionswitches to institutional policies, proce-dures, and practices, that is, the provinceof quality audit. The academic vice deanshave provided the vital conduit that en-ables a two-way flow of ideas, issues, anddevelopments. Through this process of it-eration, the university developed a seriesof guidelines and codes of practice cov-ering a wide range of aspects of the aca-demic endeavor. These were assembledinto a single document, Teaching andLearning: A Guide to University Policyand Procedures, which was approved bythe senate in December 1997. This docu-ment and the detailed analytical account(also approved by the Senate in Decem-ber 1997) that constituted the formal self-assessment for the quality audit in 1998drew together the evolutionary work that

tice, consists of the academic vice deanof each faculty, the academic registrar,the student president, and the vice princi-pal. The senate’s response to the firstquality audit report on Strathclyde hadsuggested a reexamination of the justifi-cation for interfaculty diversity of policyand practice.

That view reflected the prevailing ethosat Strathclyde, that is, an ethos of sub-stantial responsibility devolved to de-

partments and individual academics. An-other historic feature was the sizeableproportion of the university’s qualifi-cations recognized by professional in-stitutions and subject to their recurrentaccreditation procedures. When externalquality assessment and audit were intro-duced, Strathclyde responded by buildingon existing traditions and practices anddeliberately adopting approaches thatmatched the evolving institutional cul-ture.

In Scotland, the initial cycle of qual-ity assessments has been completed. AtStrathclyde, between 1993 and 1998 vir-tually every academic program was ex-ternally assessed. Additionally, the wholeinstitution has been quality audited ontwo occasions, most recently in March1998. Audit and assessment reports arepublished.

Both processes are guided by clearframeworks. Institutions or subject areas,as appropriate, are required to submit acritical self-assessment. There is then avisit by a group of assessors or auditorsto test practice and discuss policies, pro-cedures, and practices with samples ofstaff and students. Assessors observeteaching and look at student work. Re-ports are drafted by the auditor-assessorsand published, and institutions are ex-

Creating effective institutional policies, processes, and procedures

for quality assessment, assurance, and enhancement will be

facilitated if attention is paid to the culture of the institution.

*

Assessment Update • November–December 1999 • Volume 11, Number 6 13

least one hundred students are re-quired for testing. When one hun-dred students are tested, at least tenstudents are assigned to each task.This helps to ensure adequate cover-age of skills and subskills and en-hances the reliability of group scores.ETS notes that if separate scores areto be reported for subgroups (suchas for females and males or for busi-ness and education majors) theremust be at least one hundred stu-dents in each subgroup.

Although assessments that relyon constructed-response formatsgenerally produce lower-reliabilitycoefficients than traditional multiplechoice or recognition measures, ex-perience with Tasks indicates thatacceptable levels of agreement canbe achieved when scoring proce-dures carefully follow the scoringrubrics developed by ETS. The CoreScoring Manual provides detailedinstructions for planning and con-ducting local scoring sessions. Otherscoring options include local scoringwith an ETS consultant and scoringby ETS. Additional informationabout the effective use of Tasks ispresented in Peter Ewell’s book APolicy Guide for Assessment: Mak-ing Good Use of the Tasks in Criti-cal Thinking. This book is availablefrom ETS. ■

Gary R. Pike is assistant vice chancellor for student affairs anddirector of student life studies at the University of Missouri–Columbia.

had taken place in the 1990s and collatedit in a form that could be communicatedwidely within the university community.

As a consequence of the developmen-tal process, changes have happened at all levels. In departments, long-standingpractices and processes of monitoring,

evaluation, and review have been strength-ened and made more explicit. Objectiveshave been specified, and innovation andexperimentation have been encouraged.Regular reports are made to the appropri-ate committee at the faculty level on awide variety of quality-related issues, andthe dean of each faculty reports annuallyon quality assurance to the universitymanagement group.

Faculties have chosen to strengthen theroles of key committees and have addednew ones, such as subcommittees forteaching and learning. Likewise, the rolesand remits of central university commit-tees and groups have been amended andextended to sharpen their effectiveness and capacity to demonstrate connectivityacross the institution’s system for qualityassurance. All of this has occurred withoutdiluting the aim of a people-based systemthat is effective, insightful, and lean.

The 1998 quality report praised the effectiveness of communication and the involvement of the whole academic com-munity in the university’s quality assur-ance system. Next, attention is turning toa fairly substantial agenda of improve-ments and enhancements that will need tobe moved forward to maintain that posi-

Internal Processes(continued from page 7)

tion. The journey will continue to involvewidespread participation and two-way di-alogues that use the organizational struc-ture of the institution and match theshared culture. Of course, it is not just amatter of dealing with the agenda set bythe latest scrutiny. Internal quality sys-tems also have to be responsive to the nu-merous changes that are affecting highereducation, and sufficiently robust to sat-

isfy the expectations associated with newdevelopments, such as those that have re-cently emanated from the QAA. Com-mitment, communication, involvement,reflection, and experimentation are likelyto be key ingredients of effective devel-opmental strategies. ■

ReferencesClark, B. R. Creating Entrepreneurial

Universities: Organisational Pathwaysof Transformation. Oxford, England:IAU Press, Pergamon, 1998.

Quality Assurance Agency. “QualityAssurance: A New Approach.” HigherQuality 1998, 4, 2–12.

This article draws on a paper the author presented at the AAHE Assessment Conference in Cincinnati,June 1998.

George Gordon is professor and director of academic practice at theUniversity of Strathclyde, Glasgow,Scotland.

It is not just a matter of dealing with the agenda set by the latest

scrutiny; internal quality systems also have to be responsive to

the numerous changes that are affecting higher education,

and sufficiently robust to satisfy the expectations associated

with new developments.

*

Copyright of Assessment Update is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.