Editorial

Citation

Dalrymple, J. (2007), "Editorial", Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 15 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae.2007.12015baa.001

Editorial

There is increasing interest in the field of quality in education and much of the interest focuses on the issue of standards. The focus on standards reflects that recognition that, in a globalised world, the free movement of professional people depends on the recognition in all jurisdictions of the attainment and competence of professionals educated and trained in any other jurisdiction. In that way, professionals are able to offer their services in the global market without hindrance of jurisdictional barriers.

This system of mutual recognition is far from being realised at present, and the impediments to realisation lie in both national and international environments. In the USA, this has been achieved by the development of a coherent system of accreditation of tertiary education providers. In Europe, it has been recognised by the European Union that the free flow of services, in particular, depends on the attainment of mutual recognition. Traditionally, jurisdictions dealt with professional migrants on a case by case basis because the number of migrant professionals was relatively small and individual competence and attainment could be ascertained before the applicant was permitted to practice in their new chosen jurisdiction. However, for the free flow and exchange of goods and services, such jurisdictional impediments cannot be dealt with on a piecemeal basis. Consequently, the European Union has embarked on the so-called “Bologna process” that seeks to bring some standardisation to the education and training of professionals that enables mutual recognition of professional education qualifications.

More recently, a number of developing countries, e.g. Pakistan have embarked on an internal revolution in the system of higher education and training. The relatively relaxed approach to the regulation of higher education had resulted in a range of different institutions offering higher education and conferring academic awards and distinctions on successful candidates. However, the relaxed regulation enabled the same award or distinction to be conferred after a variety of number of years of study, probably at a variety of different levels of rigor and delivered by staff with a variety of levels of knowledge, qualifications and experience. The internal Pakistan market for graduates was able to understand and recognise the value of the various awards and distinctions, while the remainder of the world depended on, for example, the British Council, for advice on the “value” of a particular qualification from a particular institution. This clearly placed Pakistan graduates at a distinct disadvantage on the international market for services and undermined the position of the excellent Pakistani institutions in the international education market. The introduction of regulation and greater alignment with the international standards will enable Pakistan’s excellent institutions and their graduates to compete in international markets, whilst the standards will be raised throughout the higher education system within Pakistan through the development of the Higher Education Commission. I became familiar with the work in Pakistan when I attended the “First international Conference on Higher Education Quality” held at the University of the Punjab, Lahore, in December 2006, to deliver a keynote address on “Quality in contemporary higher education”.

In this issue we have managed to develop the theme of standards in higher education from a number of perspectives. We learn of the issues in maintaining standards in developing countries, in this case in Cambodia. Standards of an educator’s profile is important, which another article seeks to develop. Maintaining and monitoring admission standards is important as developed in another article. We carry two articles which seek to emphasise the complexities involved in getting reliable student feed back. Another article takes a global overview of education and discusses how the different characteristics of primary, secondary and tertiary education are interrelated. All these are supplemented well by the book reviews which address the governance theme.

In the first article, Ching-Yaw Chen, Phyra Sok and Keomony Sok undertake to study the quality in higher education in Cambodia by bench-marking five universities with Shu-Te University in Taiwan. The authors claim that a useful insight was gained into the perceived importance of quality in higher education that can stimulate debate and discussion on the role of government in building the standard quality in higher education.

In the following article, R. Krishnaveni and J. Anitha attempt to develop a comprehensive model of professional characteristics of an educator. By adapting the model and practice of these characteristics, the authors hope that it will be possible to bring about standards and desired outputs that help the teaching profession establish its high standards.

In the next article, Steven Pharr and John J. Lawrence examine the efficacy of admission requirements as predictors of academic success. The paper documents a potential problem for schools that have, or are considering, significant curricular revisions.

In the next article James S. Pounder attempts to develop an analytical framework for answering the question: Is student evaluation of teaching (SET) worthwhile? The paper is one of the few to attempt to make sense of the myriad of studies on teacher evaluation and to develop a framework to facilitate analysis of the effectiveness of the SET system.

In the next article Te-King Chien attempts to establish an 11-step “improvement decision model” to enhance learning satisfaction. The author concludes that the model can effectively assist teachers to enhance their instructional materials and elevate students’ learning satisfaction.

In the final article Katharina Michaelowa studies the impact of primary and secondary education on higher education quality based on worldwide data on education. The overview highlights the relevance of lower levels of education not only to train students, but also to create a sufficiently large pool of capable students who could contribute to national prosperity.

Continuing the issues in academic governance theme, in the book section, Gary Marks reviews a book edited by Ian McNay on managing the current inexorable, and at times chaotic, moves to mass education. Gary emphasises uniqueness of each individual national context, sees the need for a similar volume appropriate to stimulate relevant debate as university participation edges towards universal levels.

In the other book review Adele Flood looks at the book by David Watson and Elizabeth Maddison on “managing institutional self-study”. Adele alludes to the tension in each academic between the “romantic” dreams and “managerial” realties of higher education. Ultimately, management systems to satisfy external drivers and managers are inevitable as universities have become agents of teaching and research responsive to government demands. As much as any academic would like to return to the halcyon days, the realist knows there is no going back.

Finally, the team hopes that the articles included for your consideration in this issue will provide inspiration for reflection, individually and collectively, to review some of the perspectives on and practices for quality in education.

John DalrympleFor the Editorial Team