International Accreditation and Certification Based on Global Quality Assurance Standards

Prof. Khalid Mahmood Faculty Consultant CPSC, Manila, Philippines

1. INTRODUCTION

The current interest in international accreditation and certification of technical education and vocational training programs is motivated by a number of factors, not the least of which is the increasing need for mobility of technician workforce across the globe. The future economic growth and competitiveness in this age of globalization, hinges upon the training of a highly skilled, innovative, motivated and critical thinking workforce, which can be produced by a relevant and dynamic system of Vocational Education and Training. Although the accreditation bodies of several countries have made significant progress towards harmonizing their educational systems and processes, most of the countries in Asia-Pacific region are still not an active participant in this activity. One reason may be the lack of an international organizational structure to promote and facilitate accreditation of TEVT programs across national borders. Those institutions that are flexible and can quickly address the changing conditions will succeed in the world of the future. The education systems that do not, will shrink, and perhaps even disappear. Globalization of TEVT education also increased initiatives aiming at internationalization. These developments created a lot of unrest and concern in the TEVT education community all over the world. Students and their families increasingly are concerned with issues such as recognition of qualifications and credit-transfer between institutions and countries. Employers, other stakeholders in the community and the general public have difficulties in identifying the quality of programs and institutions in an increasingly diversified landscape of TEVT education.

In addition to the traditional form of cross-border education - students traveling abroad to study - new developments in cross-border education, such as the emergence of e-learning, for-profit providers, joint campuses, branch campuses, transnational consortia, are increasing. Massification of education provision and participation continues to challenge existing institutions, policies, funding arrangements and regulatory frameworks in many countries. These new developments are challenging existing national quality assurance and accreditation frameworks and agencies, thus increasing the pressure to make new efforts for consumer protection both at national as well as international levels. At the same time, increasing student and professional mobility across borders has put the issue of mutual recognition of academic and professional qualifications higher up on the agenda of CPSC.

2. IMPACT OF MODERN TECHNOLOGIES ON TEVT

Modern trends that characterize new information and communication technologies, production and transportation technologies impact technical and vocational education and training extensively. The challenge here is for TEVT to innovate and modernize its curricula to focus on the moving target of technology. This is by no means an easy task. TEVT institutions cannot go it alone without support from the rest of the stakeholders and Colombo Plan Staff College (CPSC), which embody the center of excellence in technician education.

A major challenge to labour today and more increasingly so in the future is the shifting of occupational structures towards higher technology industries. For example in the developed economies the largest increases in employment do occur in professional, technical, administrative and managerial occupations with substantive declines in lower educated, lower skilled and manual labour. Therefore there is a need for more effective national strategies to facilitate economic growth and to encourage closer links and collaborations between TEVT institutions in Asia-Pacific countries through International Accreditation and Certification, strengthening and making TEVT education more relevant with Global Quality Assurance Standards.

3. NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND POTENTIAL

The changes just outlined challenge existing policy frameworks and their consequences may be perceived by many as threatening, but it is very important to also see the new potential opportunities and benefits lying behind them. Under the right conditions, cross-border provision, commercial education services and non-traditional delivery modes can open up learning opportunities and enlarge educational participation. In the global growth of knowledge-based economies, global qualifications can improve the opportunities of individuals and the prosperity of communities and nations. The movement of skilled labour across national borders and new competencies produced by student mobility and internationally oriented qualifications can produce huge benefits for the internationalizing professional labour market. Cross-border education and the diversification of teaching and learning modes may contribute to the improvement and innovations in technical and vocational education systems. Commercial provision of educational services in itself creates new economic activity as well. These economic opportunities and benefits are testimony to the growing economic importance of technical and vocational education in the global knowledge society and can provide added value to the more familiar but still relevant advantages of academic cooperation, intercultural exchange and international understanding. New policy frameworks should try to create conditions under which these potential benefits can be maximized and the risks minimized.

4. DIMENSIONS OF VARIATION IN QUALITY ASSURANCE

There are important differences among countries and regions of the world in their approaches to quality and quality assurance. The first element responsible for wide variation in quality assurance systems is the definition of the notion of quality itself. Of course, the definition of the concept of quality has important strategic consequences as it defines the purposes and contents of quality assurance mechanisms, the actors involved and the role of quality in public steering of the TEVT education system.

	The traditional academic concept of quality as distinctiveness, exceptionality or exclusivity.
	Quality as conformance to specification or standards, a notion that has its origins in the manufacturing industries. This definition shifts the debate to the definition of the notion of 'standards', which is a very sensitive notion because of its connotation to perceived dropping levels of student achievement in a number of countries. Very close to this definition is the so-called perfection approach, where quality is defined as the absence of errors.
	Quality as fitness for purpose. This is the most widely used definition, because it is linked to the issue of the objectives of TEVT education.
	Quality as effectiveness in achieving institutional goals. This is a variation on the ‘fitness for purpose' model, but it stresses the centrality of issues such as efficiency in use of resources and management. Sometimes it is also called the value for money approach.
	Quality as meeting customers' needs. This introduces a demand-oriented and ‘customer satisfaction' approach in the quality debate.
	Quality as transformation. This notion, added to the list of Green, stresses the importance of the transformative capacity of TEVT education on both students and the society in general.

It is clear that in most cases different definitions are used simultaneously. This leads to a great deal of confusion and ambivalence. Relative weights of definitions in policies and in institutional quality assurance frameworks are often responsible for a lack of international understanding in this field.

A second important dimension of international variation in quality assurance mechanisms concerns the purposes or functions of the quality assurance system. In general, four purposes can be distinguished.

	Improvement of education. In this function, the quality assurance system serves primarily to give feedback to the teaching staff of institutions in order to have them the curricula, contents, infrastructure, delivery modes, etc. of TEVT education improved. This is probably the purpose of quality assurance most widely referred to. In many cases improvement also means renewal and innovation. Linked to the definition of quality as transformation, in this approach the quality assurance process leads to processes of institutional innovation.
	Accountability. Governments looking for a more efficient and effective use of resources, demand some kind of accountable return for the investments made in TEVT education. Institutions are seen as having the public duty to report on the quality obtained with the public resources invested. Especially in countries moving to a relationship of institutions and the state based on notions such as self-regulation and institutional autonomy, the concept of public accountability is used to indicate the most important function of quality assurance.
	Public information and market transparency. Closely related to the previous one, this function stresses the right of the public of potential students (‘customers') and their families or employers and other stakeholders for detailed information on where standards are highest, success rates are best, facilities are well developed, etc. Quality assurance thus helps to improve market transparency. In this function, the quality assurance mechanism must lead to some kind of public reporting, including publication of rankings of institutions.
	Steering of the TEVT education system in resources and planning. In some countries, quality indicators are used in order to differentiate between institutions in allocation of resources or in decision-making processes concerning the allocation of programs. The last purpose clearly is present in accreditation procedures, but also in countries without accreditation procedures examples can be found of the use of quality indicators in decisions concerning the planning of programs.

Each of these functions demands a specific focus, which influences the architecture and methodology of the quality assurance mechanism and processes. It is not certain that a specific approach, which serves well a specific function, also is the appropriate one for contributing to another function. Also the variability on this dimension is responsible for a great deal of international confusion.

The third important dimension of the variability of quality assurance mechanisms in higher education concerns the methodology used. There is considerable variation in methodologies in international systems of quality assurance, but in most cases some key methodologies for the assessment of quality are used.

	In many countries, quality assurance is based on a kind of self-evaluation. Self-studies are a widely used methodology because of their cost-effectiveness and, more importantly, because of the high degree of ownership and acceptance by the academic community itself. Especially when the quality assurance process has to result in improvement of the internal functioning, self-evaluation by the academics themselves is a very crucial step in the whole process.
	Peer review by outside experts, often combined with one or more site visits is a powerful external complement to the internal self-evaluation. Its strength is that it stimulates the internal process by confronting it with outside views. In some cases, external review also is used as a method to introduce some kind of comparison or even benchmarking with surrounding institutions.
	In many countries both internal and external reviews are complemented by statistical information and performance indicators, produced by the institutions themselves, external agencies or resulting from surveys of students and graduates. In some countries, this methodology is even further developed into real student testing by the implementation of specific comparative student assessment initiatives.
	A quality assurance audit typically is a methodology used in countries where the institutions themselves control the quality assurance process. The audit then is a meta-review of the functioning of the quality control mechanisms itself and often is the responsibility of the governmental level.

Of course, quality assurance mechanisms and procedures differ on other important dimensions. Important dimensions of international variation are: the responsible agency or unit; the voluntary or compulsory nature of participation; the focus on research or teaching or a combination of both; the focus on the review of programs, disciplines or institutions themselves; the way and target-audiences of reporting (confidential, public, including ranking, etc.); the range of follow-up activities; the decision-making processes affected by the results of quality.

5. TOWARDS A GLOBAL QUALITY ASSURANCE MODEL

Notwithstanding the variation in approaches, there is a tendency of convergence in international quality assurance systems. Van Vught & Westerheijden (1994b) even have spoken of the emergence of a ‘general model of education quality assessment'. They make a plea for integrating the strong elements of various approaches. Also El-Khawas (1998) speaks of convergence and an emerging consensus. She sees the current period of experimentation to be superseded by a trend towards stable structures and settled routines. Given the similarity in approaches and methodologies, Woodhouse (1996) also sees a trend of increasing international convergence. Harman (1998b) on the contrary thinks it is likely the current experimentation to continue given the increasing impact of globalization and growing international competition.

Indeed, one can expect that the overall globalization of TEVT education will affect quality assurance systems and mechanisms. As with other consequences of globalization, such as the global standardization of curricula and program contents. Though, also an extreme cultural relativism may not be very stimulating in this regard. There certainly are some general characteristics of academic quality assurance valid in different systems all over the globe. Because of the stress on self-evaluation, quality assurance in TEVT education has already a strong element of self-determination and, hence, variety in it. The quality assurance model has a strong potential for diversification in TEVT education. International communication on quality assurance is developing rapidly, as is indicated by the emergence of networks, scholarly journals, conferences, organizations, etc., promoting international understanding, mutual exchange of ideas and convergence of approaches and models.

6. CHALLENGES FOR GLOBAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEMS

The quality assurance model prevailing in most parts of the world is not the final answer. There are a number of shortcomings, which has to be adjusted in order to make it functional in the future environment of international technical and vocational education. The current development of quality assurance schemes all over the globe is a very important phenomenon, but one can wonder whether its ‘general model' is suited to address future challenges in TEVT education. The further development of quality assurance systems will have to address important challenges, which result from fundamental educational developments.
One of the vital issues in quality assurance is the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the quality system, more specifically the question regarding the results obtained in relation to costs and resources mobilized. Of course, there are undeniable results: the improvement in TEVT programs, the increasing awareness that high-quality TEVT education is not the concern of one person alone but that of a department or academic collectivity, the manifest use of quality and performance indicators in the management of institutions, an enlarged confidence from the public, the employers or the state, etc. are only some of the often cited outcomes and benefits of formal quality assurance procedures. On the other hand, a great deal of experimentation in quality assurance has taken place at the detriment of efficacy and efficiency. Questions can be asked about the costs, the administrative burden on staff and departments caused by the increase of bureaucratic procedures and paperwork, the amount of ‘window dressing' activity involved the increased stress among academic staff, or unintentional side-effects. Explicit quality assurance mechanisms imposed from above could have eroded or destroyed old, informal academic mutual control systems. The expansion of quality control has been accompanied by changes in the management of TEVT institutions and the subsequent rise of a class of TEVT managers and bureaucrats with limited support in the academic profession, which perceives them sometimes as a threat to their professional status and autonomy. It is clear from numerous studies that the success and beneficial outcomes of quality assurance programs are dependent upon the acceptance and support from the academic community on all levels. If not managed carefully, this issue can cause problems especially in countries borrowing quality assurance schemes from others and imposing them from above on institutions and departments.

The issues of effectiveness, efficient use of resources and acceptance by the academic community are also linked to the focus in most quality assurance schemes on formal procedures and institutional characteristics and not on contents and outcomes. Self-evaluation and peer review methodologies concentrate on whether certain quality-supportive procedures have been respected, particular formal criteria have been met and specific standard attributes of the institutional environment have been acknowledged. The common assumption that control on these formal characteristics and criteria is the best way to test the quality of the technical and vocational educational process, is questionable. Educationalists contend that in assessing the quality of a learning program more attention should be devoted to the actual learning-taking place. This implies a plea for more outcome-based quality assessment procedures. In some countries, there are promising developments in the direction of student performance indicators, but this is a sensitive topic especially in countries unacquainted with some kind of central competence on qualification frameworks in TEVT education. Putting the focus on what students actually have learnt instead of making abstract assumptions on the impact of specific instructional characteristics on quality, is not an easy enterprise, but it seems to be a necessary move in order to improve the suitability and efficacy of quality assurance models.

Another closely related issue is the homogenizing of quality assurance systems. In most countries, there are only one prevailing quality assurance systems operational. This implies that there is only one set of definitions; concepts, methodologies and criteria at work in that context. Despite the emphasis on self-evaluation and autonomy included in most quality assurance models, this contains the risk of encouraging compliance to that standard set of criteria, and, hence, to uniformity and homogeneity. One of the disadvantageous side-effects of quality assurance then could be that the traditional objective of excellence in TEVT education, often strongly supported in the academic community itself, no longer is seen as valid, since it could imply standards and criteria which depart from the norm. Given the increasing diversity in TEVT education and the general lack of definite answers and fixed solutions, this could be a problem in the future. And it will be an even greater problem in an internationalizing environment, where differentiation is even much stronger.

Indeed, one of the more fundamental challenges certainly concerns the impact of internationalization and globalization of TEVT education on quality assurance systems. Current quality assurance models are very ‘domestic' in scope and confined to educational activities of institutions within national boundaries. We have already mentioned the fact that internationalization policies and practices of institutions seldom are subject to the regular quality assurance procedures. We also saw that most student mobility programs and existing schemes of credit recognition and transfer, do not involve any quality control. Even in accreditation models, accrediting agencies generally rely on the internal quality assurance procedures of the institution itself when dealing with transnational study (El-Khawas, 1998). One can say that nowadays internationalization and quality assurance are two separate fields of action in TEVT education. One of the purposes of this paper is to bring them together.

Another fundamental but related challenge to quality assurance is provoked by the increasing importance of distance education and distributed learning via new, often electronic delivery modes. The recent commotion and controversy on the issue of the accreditation of distance education providers show how sensitive and difficult this issue is. The most common answer to this challenge has been the reformulation of procedures designed for conventional educational settings, rather than developing new and more appropriate assessment models (El-Khawas, 1998). Accrediting agencies and quality assurance organizations make only minor adaptations to their procedures and instruments in reaction to the growing importance of distance education and the establishment of ‘virtual Institutions'. Policies and practices of traditional TEVT education need not necessarily be the point of departure for a quality assurance approach in distance education. Developing a genuine global quality assurance framework for new delivery modes forces us to go back to what learning actually is, the needs of the learner and what is being achieved in the learning process (Phipps, 1998). Shifting the focus in global quality assessment to the actual learning process and to outcomes and student performance possibly could open up avenues of research and development in global quality assurance that also are relevant for new delivery modes. This is also important in the context globalization, since many of those developments are international in scope and reach.

REFERENCES

1. El-Khawas, E. Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Recent Progress, Challenges Ahead, Paper Presented at the 1998 UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in Paris. Washington: World Bank, 1998. 
   
   
2. Gehmlich, V. Fit for the Global Job Market: a University Perspective, Paper for the IAUP Conference 1999.  
   
   
3. Guiang, Alcestis, M. Leadership Challenges in Establishing Regional Accreditation Council for TEVT, Paper Presented on International Conference on New Challenges for Leaders in Technology Education, 05 December 2003. 
   
   
4. Harman, G. The Management of Quality Assurance: A Review of International Practice, 1998. 
   
   
5. Kerre, B. Wanjala. Technical and Vocational Education in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities in the 21st Century, Ph.D Dissertation, Kenya: Moi University. 
   
   
6. Key Issues Related to Quality Assurance, Accreditation and Recognition of Qualifications, 3-4 November 2003. Norway:Trondheim, 2003. 
   
   
7. Nyborg, P. International Student Mobility: the Nordic Experience, European Journal of Education, Vol. 31, No. 2. 1 (2) 193-203, 1996. 
   
   
8. Peace, Lenn, M. The Globalization of Accreditation: Trade Agreements and Higher Education, College Board Review, Vol. 178, pp. 6-11, 1996. 
   
   
9. Review of Quality Assurance and Accreditation System in UNESCO Member Countries. 3-4 November 2003, Norway: Trondheim.