Extended Editorial: Quality in Higher Education Author Survey

Introduction

As Editor of Quality in Higher Education, I initiated a survey of previous contributors to explore their views on the quality of higher education and how things had changed in their experience. Not wanting to constrain the responses in any way, contributors were asked three open questions and invited to make whatever comments they wanted with no limit on length. The questions were:

1. In your experience, has the quality of higher education improved or deteriorated during the time you have been researching higher education? (Please give reasons for your answer.)

2. Do you think that students have a better or a worse learning experience now than when you first started researching higher education? (Please give reasons for your answer.)

3. To what extent have quality assurance proctesses affected the quality of higher education?

Fifty previous contributors provided responses and I thank them for their time and effort. They remain anonymous and are all assigned a number (which is used henceforth as an identifier for their quoted contributions). The country or countries they refer to in their comments and their institutional or agency auspices are provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Respondent number, country(ies) referred to in responses and whether in a quality agency or higher education institution

No.	Countries	HE or agency	No.	Countries	HE or agency
1	Barbados	Agency and HE	26	USA	HE
2	Gulf	HE	27	Australia	HE
3	Dubai	Agency	28	USA	HE
4	Slovenia/Europe	HE	29	Europe, Middle East, Africa	HE
5	Japan	HE	30	Italy	HE
6	UK and Iraq	HE	31	Estonia	Agency and HE
7	Developing countries	HE	32	UK	HE
8	Kyrgyzstan	HE	33	Iran	HE
9	Russia	HE	34	Canada	HE
10	Sub-Saharan Africa/Ghana	HE	35	Latin America	Agency
11	England	HE	36	USA	HE
12	England/Netherlands	HE	37	Norway	HE
13	Bangladesh	HE	38	Australia	HE
14	Azerbaijan	HE	39	UK	HE
15	Ethiopia and parts of Africa	HE	40	Austria	HE
16	Mauritius	HE	41	Sweden	HE
17	Namibia	HE	42	Ireland	HE
18	Norway	HE	43	UK	HE
19	Ethiopia	HE	44	Australia	HE
20	Turkey and UAE	HE	45	Germany	HE
21	Taiwan	HE	46	Italy	HE
22	Norway	HE	47	Turkey (and US)	HE
23	Zimbabwe	HE	48	US and UK	HE
24	New Zealand and Indonesia	HE	49	Jordan	HE
25	Japan	HE	50	Turkey	Agency

There was a fourth question on research assessment processes but this didn’t work because there are not many countries that have formal research assessment processes and the question created a degree of confusion in as much as responses ranged from views about peer review, through funding practices to comments on national research assessment procedures such as the United Kingdom (UK) Research Excellence Framework.

The following analysis takes each of the three questions separately. The approach has been to sort the responses by theme but to let respondents speak for themselves to show the nuances behind their reasoning. This has resulted in a long document with extensive quotes.

Has the quality of higher education improved or deteriorated?

The first question led to a very mixed response, with some enthusiastically saying things had improved, others were of the opposite view and many provided a mixed response, with some improvement and some deterioration. The COVID pandemic also muddied the water. A simple numerical analysis conceals enormous variations in what respondents meant by ‘improved quality’ and what aspects of higher education have improved or not. Not surprisingly many wanted to explore the concept of quality before answering or to provide a context for their responses.

Quality assurance processes and national policies

One of the elements highlighted in responses was the introduction of quality assurance processes. A respondent from Taiwan thought the improvement in the quality of higher education in Asian nations over the past decade was ‘due to the establishment of QA [quality assurance] framework. External QA and internal QA exercises have been stipulated in the national laws or regulations’ (21). This has been augmented by the governments allocating more funding ‘in so called excellence initiatives in both teaching and research’ (21). A view from Bangladesh is that the quality of higher education is ‘undergoing a positive change…through the implementation of a quality assurance framework preceding the transition to an outcome-based education system in an effort to situate Bangladeshi universities within the global higher education landscape while finding a place in international league tables’ (13).

A respondent with a broad geographic view in Australasia had little doubt that ‘in the period I have been investigating quality of higher education and based on five countries, it is my experience that the overall quality of higher education has generally improved’. The reasons included the effects of the assurance, accreditation and standards agencies in New Zealand, Australia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea ‘appear to have improved the overall institutional quality especially of those whose top leaderships…had committed themselves to lead the changes to meet the quality and accreditation requirements positively and directly’ (24).

The higher profile for quality assurance is, arguably, paying off. A view from a respondent who has worked in Europe, the Middle East and Africa suggested that the quality of higher education has improved systemically as ‘institutions are now more familiar with notions such as standards, performance indicators, compliance, enhancement and are therefore more structured and able to ensure the quality of their operations’ (29).

An agency-based respondent with considerable experience in Latin America thought that the growing concern about quality, however it is defined or measured, ‘has made institutional management more effective’. Furthermore,

increased enrolment has made many institutions look closer at their students and try to engage with them. At the same time, it has created greater challenges (élite students learned even despite the teaching and learning strategies in place), but quality assurance efforts has contributed to paying more attention to many of these challenges. Management practices have improved, even though initially there was a risk of ‘managerialism’, but things have improved, mainly through QA and a better understanding of the need for quality. (35)

A very experienced respondent suggested ‘UK higher education has become more sophisticated in efforts to improve quality’ (43).

The model which became prominent in the 1990s (reflecting CNAA practice) of using validation, monitoring, and review, has become embedded, as has the academic infrastructure developed in the 90s and early 2000s (e.g., credit, qualifications frameworks, learning outcomes, programme specifications, etc.). Much of this is also to be found in Northern and Western Europe. It is also reflected in Bologna expectations and the ESG [European Standards and Guidelines]. Arguably, this has improved ‘how we do things’ in terms of internal and external accountability. (43)

The respondent adds that there is also an emphasis on enhancement which has ‘helped to throw the spotlight on learning and teaching and students’. However, it is questionable ‘how refined the linkage is between enhancement and improvement, though Scotland, for example, has made progress in addressing this’. Furthermore, the shift from audit to provision of information and data reflecting the focus on ‘the student as fee payer/loan borrower’, has led to ‘quality’ becoming ‘more forensic’. Whether this change ‘is essentially motivated by enhancement or improvement principles per se is again a moot point’ (43).

On a wider front, ‘North and Western Europe have generally become adept at putting QA systems in place and becoming more sophisticated (complex?) in their ways of doing quality’ (43). Eastern Europe, Middle East and South-East Asia are being encouraged ‘to buy-in into the ESG, Bologna, and “Western ways”’ but they are ‘at the (relatively) “early adopter” stage of QA’, which means that ‘an enhancement/improvement ideology is also largely under-developed’ in these other regions.

This is in part reflected in the comments from an Austrian researcher.

What I clearly do experience is a global trend towards convergence of quality assurance frameworks and mechanisms, driven very much by geopolitical ploys (such as EU-SHARE and its slightly colonialist approach of exporting the Bologna process to the ASEAN region; but also SPHERE, which does the same for the EU’s neighbouring states); the still increasing allure of global rankings which make all institutions focus on very similar ‘success’ factors; and again the pandemic, which in my perspective led to an unprecedented sharing of ‘good practices’ or strategies all across the globe. There is… a big difference between quality and quality assurance; however, if you count the improvement of formal aspects (including standardisation of procedures, more guidelines and regulations) as an improvement in quality, then I would answer ‘yes, we have seen an improvement’. On a more personal note, I feel that most QA efforts are still missing the point and do not contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning, research or even third-mission activities. But then, I am not sure this was something that was within the reach of QA, regarding the way it is set up. (40)

A respondent from Japan cited government led changes and noted the official line that ‘According to university surveys conducted by accreditation agencies, universities are aware that the quality of universities has improved’, since institutional accreditation was introduced in 2004, ‘because of external eyes and increased communication within universities and with society’ (5). Furthermore, government action has pushed universities ‘to stress student learning outcomes, internal quality assurance, and student-centred learning’, as well as requiring faculty [staff] development to improve teaching. ‘Universities now have implemented training programmes and workshops’, as well introducing ‘syllabi and course evaluation’. There are multiple reforms and awareness of and actions for ‘better quality’ have been changed, ‘which (I hope) eventually lead to substantial improvement of the quality of graduates and institutions’ (5).

A second Japanese respondent also shifted the response from a personal to an official line.

The Japanese government claims that the quality of the Japanese universities has been declining in particular in research…. The government’s major concern is the decrease in the number of young researchers and publications. It seems that government has largely accepted the following explanation of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT)…The main factors… are the decline of state expenditure in basic research, the increase of academic staff’s non-research tasks, the decline of young researchers’ posts and their poor working conditions with insecure contracts. It is worth mentioning that both government and the MEXT do not use the results of the dual external quality exercises in Japan. (25)

A respondent, based in Turkey, saw positive and negative aspects of the introduction of assurance processes. The increasing interest in both mandatory or voluntary QA schemes in institutions is ‘mostly top-down in nature’.

Going through these schemes causes distress sometimes, yet the structural influence of the schemes, the awareness raised during self-evaluation stages, and evidence-based approaches contribute to the quality of institutions. When the practices serve more for compliance with pointless paperwork rather than focusing on improving practices by dialogue and discussions to collegially self-regulate, faculty members get frustrated, they are already busy and have to meet increasing demands with research requirements, students’ ever-changing profiles, adaptations to digitally enhanced teaching and learning environments, etc. (20)

An alternative view suggests that the quality of higher education in Turkey is mediocre. Reasons for this are centralisation of higher education in the country, which stifles flexibility and local autonomy and progress; ‘a bunker attitude’ with little cross-disciplinarity or collaboration; little closing of the loop because of lack of interaction; insufficient attention paid to student learning outcomes, indifference to the quality of teaching and lack of professional development; and inadequate resource allocation to higher education with little investment in facilities—technology, laboratories, state-of-the-art classrooms. ‘These realities have an adverse affect [sic] on quality—rather than looking outward, programs turn inward and isolate themselves’ (47).

The agency view is very different. ‘My answer is absolutely yes’ (50) quality is improving. The purpose of the establishment of the Turkish Higher Education Quality Council (THEQC) is to evaluate the quality in higher education institutions and to spread the quality culture…

awareness is increasing day by day in universities, including students. Quality commissions have been made compulsory in universities, new student quality societies are being established every day, universities carry out processes that close the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, and THEQC every year improves quality studies and Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle in the dimensions of management processes, quality assurance system, education and training, research and development, social contribution. (50)

These three comments about Turkey, in a nutshell, illustrate the problem of evaluating quality developments.

A degree of ambivalence was also shown by a respondent reflecting on Ethiopia.

Improvements have been made in the standards of curriculum, building the qualification of academic staff, learning facilities and infrastructures, funding allocated to higher education institutions, procedures of evaluation and feedback for teaching and learning, well-formulated legal framework that govern higher education sector, national policies that are favourable to the development of higher education. Another positive development is that the issue of quality has also been receiving better attention among policy makers, practitioners, researchers and academic staff and students.

However, the quality of higher education appears to have been challenged by the declining competence of students entering higher education institutions, capacity of institutional leadership and management, societal and institutional value system that supports quality and hard-working, relevance of degree programmes to societal development agendas, and standards of graduates and graduate employability.

The adequacy of learning facilities at higher education institutions has been constrained by the rapid and seemingly not carefully planned expansion of enrolment. I would argue that Ethiopia has experienced a widening quality gap with other higher education systems in Africa and globally. (19)

The major problem is political interference, which not only overstates progress but overlooks ‘major quality problems’, such as, ‘politically motivated large-scale expansion of new public universities that are built in strategically unsound locations’ and which are ‘poorly equipped to provide decent education’ (19).

A respondent from sub-Saharan Africa had a rather bleak view.

I have no reason to suggest that the quality of higher education has improved in recent times…. massification of higher education, globalisation, ‘cost-sharing’ and transnational education partnerships…unfortunately have posed (and still continue to pose) teething challenges to higher education provision and thereby rendering concerted efforts at implementing strategies to improve higher education provision and delivery, especially for the under privileged and the marginalised, less potent and/or for want of a better word fruitless. (10)

A view shared by an Australian respondent.

Overall, ‘research’, international rankings, corporatization, commodification of degrees, growth for growth’s sake, the fiction of a post-industrial ‘knowledge economy’, political correctness and the hierarchy of credentials attributable to college or university prestige have been far more influential that they have a right to be. The focus on transparency, integrity and quality has been seriously obscured. (27)

A view from Namibia, suggests that despite some belief that the quality of higher education has decreased as a result of the loss of autonomy of the professoriate, to the contrary:

In my view, the quality of higher education has improved. There are new systems that have been put in place with technology enhancement. However, it is the new challenges that emerged, which make us feel that quality has gone down. Previously, quality has been entrusted in the hands of the professor and whatever the professor was doing was believed to be of higher quality. Nowadays there are also many stakeholders in higher education, each with their different expectations. These stakeholders have become quality conscious. There is also loss of trust in what the professor is producing. Furthermore, stakeholders demand for quality higher education have become prominent. Challenges caused by massification of higher education, internationalisation and globalisation, marketisation of higher education, and public vs. private good have put pressure on higher education. All these give perception that quality and standards have gone down, but in actual sense quality has improved, it is the demand for quality higher education that keeps shifting the goal post, as quality is not an end in itself but the means to the end. (17)

A German view was not so much on improvement driven by assurance processes but on whether adequate solutions had been found to new challenges, such as, increase of participation in higher education, changing modes of knowledges acquisition and sources of knowledge. Looking at the past two to three decades ‘one can sum up that higher education managed to successfully meet the challenges it was faced with without taking too much advantage of the potential granted by present reforms’ (45). Which led to the conclusion, that ‘higher education possesses a certain institutionally preserving nature which, at times, runs counter to the dynamics of external changes’ (45).

Transnational education (TNE) involves a different perspective on quality and two respondents involved were positive that quality was improving. A respondent from an agency in a Gulf state was of the view quality that higher education has been improving because of ‘Improving regulatory processes and systems’, maturity of existing international branch campuses and the ‘entry of higher quality institutions’ (3). And a researcher from the same region agreed about the improvement because ‘the expansion of TNE has slowed and become more subject focused and relevant to the context in which it is being delivered’ (2). Furthermore,

host nations have become more established and less dependent on foreign degree providers, thus creating a greater sense of balance and parity in the partnership model. We have a greater understanding of student needs and expectations (although this is clearly on ongoing concern) and learner focused delivery models improve the student experience and value of the outcome. (2)

Learning and teaching

Several respondents focused on teaching and learning and discussed quality improvement in that context. An Italian respondent linked assurance to improved pedagogy.

I think the quality of higher education in Italy increased over the time. Most specifically, I observed an improvement in the effects of quality assurance procedures—that are very young in Italy, the first major evaluation round just finished. I believe the latter have been able to positively impact the quality of HE, especially in terms of teaching and learning activities. (30)

A respondent referring to Sweden stated ‘I think teaching quality has improved significantly. There is a higher awareness of the importance of scholarship and evidence in relation to practice, and more concern for the student perspective’ (41). Similarly, a Norwegian response maintained that ‘there is a visibly stronger emphasis on education and pedagogy’ (22), which is reflected in Bologna debates as well.

It seems pedagogical competences, learning environments, student centred learning, shift from teaching to learning, and so forth seem to have entered the consciousness of policymakers as well, and also become more explicit debates among academic staff. So, from where I stand, there seems to be a stronger emphasis on pedagogy and how to facilitate student learning. Whether that in turn in fact increases quality—hopefully. But at least there does seem to be more explicit emphasis on learning. Here I have obviously taken a view of quality as a more transformational process of students and their knowledge and competence. (22)

A second Norwegian response endorses the shift in attention given to learning.

During the last ten years, there has been an increasing attention from policymakers towards (improving) the quality of teaching and learning. Several whitepapers address ideas about high quality teaching—and most likely this reads as teachers’ capacity to address various forms of student-active teaching and learning. Moreover, in this context, the role of digital technology has been highlighted. Furthermore, the digital infrastructure in Nordic HEIs [higher education institutions] is solid. That said, issues related to faculty staffs’ digital competence remain unsolved, and I’m not sure if the digital infrastructure provides good teaching as such. The pandemic and the ‘emergency remote online teaching’ have raised some awareness on these matters, but it is my impression that the discourses on teaching quality here are mainly addressing technical competencies more than pedagogical competencies when it comes to digital competencies among faculty staff. (18)

One USA-based respondent is of the view that in his experience of liberal arts universities in the 1970s and 1980s, the ‘teaching in the humanities was high-quality’ and ‘continues to be high-quality today’. Furthermore, ‘since 2000 I have been part of a mid-size non-flagship public university, and I continue to be impressed with the quality of instruction and the dedication of faculty to their students.… So, I would say that quality was high in 2000 and it has remained high since then’ (28). A respondent from a similar institution in Canada had a very different view ‘It has deteriorated. Students are less well prepared and curricula have been dumbed down’ (34).

Another respondent with experience in the UK and USA noted.

When I moved to the UK 30 years ago, the quality seems extremely high compared to the system I came from in the USA. Then the government started to add more and more regulatory measures to ‘improve the quality of the student experience’. The evidence that this has happened is unclear to me and if ​anything, all the regulatory effort took away from the development of academic work in general and research and teaching in particular. (48)

A respondent with experience of both the UK and Iraq is of the view that ‘As for traditional (face-to-face) education. I do not think that there is a new improvement. I think there are no clear indications of its improvement. It seems to remain as it was in the past’ (6). Another British respondent, taking a wider view of quality processes, has concerns:

The intrinsic nature of quality of education as a goal in and of itself has changed, the quality of an educated person does seem to have fallen. The instrumentation of higher education has increased and metrics of very little intrinsic value have become benchmarks which are structuring rather than reflecting the nature of higher educations. I think the Teaching Excellence Framework, grade inflation and league table have done this. (11)

An Australian academic taking a much longer view is scathing about university teaching, which he regards as the result of financial cuts made by institutions:

The nature of higher education has changed radically in the past 20 years, some of it for the better, some for worse. Teaching undergraduates has become 50-60% carried out by part-time/adjunct/associate/casual/sessional/contingent lecturers, many of whom are underqualified for the courses they teach, have their teaching assignments offered at short notice, receive minimal help from tenured staff, and are unable to have a sense of being ‘career scholar-teachers’…. They have minimal agency in course design and are largely hacks. This is no good for these diligent casual lecturers, and no good for students. In short, too much undergraduate teaching is carried out by non-scholars…. Some undergraduates complete their degree studies without encountering any full-time scholar researcher in their field. (27)

A view from Norway is that there is more focus on teaching and learning ‘Two factors have had impact—increased political attention to quality which have been followed by new regulations [and] funding opportunities’. Furthermore, higher education institutions ‘have become more systematic in their approach to quality development and student-active approaches to teacher & learning’ (37). This sentiment was echoed by a respondent with wide geographic experience: ‘from a learning perspective, theories like student-centred learning have gained momentum, learners have now more autonomy for their own journey and have a say in their progress as opposed to simple recipients of an educational act’ (29).

An Estonian respondent thought aspects of higher education had improved, such as the institutions’ standing in international rankings, and other aspects had deteriorated because of lack of resources to fund teaching properly. ‘I especially think that assessing students' work is the weakest, because there is not enough working time meant for this work’. There has also been a great opportunity to develop online teaching ‘but too much online teaching is not good for people’s mental and physical health and learning outcomes’ (31).

One respondent (referring to Turkey and the UAE) was of the view that more needed to be done to adapt to new ways of teaching. ‘We gradually serve a more visually-oriented generation. This situation requires us to re-evaluate our teaching styles and their learning. When institutions do not allow budget for quality discussions on these topics, quality of education suffers’ (20). An Iranian respondent maintained that the quality has improved, although it ‘was only the beginning of the 21st century that the QA agencies announced their decision to include indicators for assessing the quality of the TL [teaching and learning]’ (33). A respondent from Namibia similarly noted that pedagogy has undergone ‘drastic changes with the shift from teaching to learning, as well as technology enhanced learning’, it appears that ‘quality assurance has not moved at the same rate, as traditional practices are still prominent’ (17).

For one UK respondent, learning and teaching was about holistic development of students. Labour markets are more and more focused on transferable skills, and increasingly seek graduates who ‘are able to transition and re-convert as professionals’ rather than graduates who just ‘fit in the boxes’. This reflects a wider view that ‘education is expected to build social and responsible citizens’ (39).

Widening participation

An Australian, taking a broad view argued, that improvement depends on how quality is defined, in the wider context of increased access and participation in higher education.

a. If it is defined as fitness for purpose e.g., meeting employers’ demands for skilled workers, quality has generally improved.

b. If defined as quality through transformation i.e., more students have been educated then quality has generally improved.

c. If defined as quality as ‘excellence’ then it is much less clear, because excellence also needs to be defined. (38)

This implies a quite widely held view that widening participation threatens the integrity of a university education. For example, a basically positive Australian view also had some reservation, in particular to the impact of widening participation:

It is always tempting to look back through rose-coloured spectacles and say that things have got worse ‘since my day’. The answer has to be contingent on circumstances. Some aspects have improved dramatically, notably inclusion of previously disadvantaged groups, the support offered to students, and the growing concept of ‘students as partners’. This is evident in continuing high student satisfaction. The top-end quality has not reduced e.g., in the education of engineers, doctors and other professionals. Widespread inclusion and the extension of higher education to previously marginalised groups has sometimes meant a drop in complexity in some areas. (44)

A USA-based respondent was of the view that the quality of higher education ‘has remained about the same’ with ‘good things’ and ‘limiting things’ but

a main limitation has been the huge expansion in participation rates in most countries. On the one hand, this is in itself a good thing but it also means a major increase in the number and proportion of students with limitations in their ability to benefit. I also think that the disparity of quality has increased (at least in the US) such that some institutions that make teaching and learning a priority have indeed improved while the majority have not. (36)

An Italian respondent noted that the ‘quality of higher education improved during the period of my research project in this field’ but had concerns about student intake ‘I think the preparation of the students is decreasing in the years due to the lower level of their competences when they arrive at the university course’ (46).

Widening participation, among other things, also led an African respondent to conclude quality ‘has rather deteriorated’. The major reasons include:

the excessive focus and political direction assumed by governments toward the creation of student access at the expense of quality, the poor quality of students being admitted as a result of the deterioration of quality at the lower levels of the education system, the limited budget assigned to academic tasks and facilities that have direct impact on quality (e.g. teaching and learning, books, labs, etc), the lack of qualified and experienced staff in the system, the commercialization of higher education which has brought many bogus institutions (especially private ones) into the scene. (15)

An alternative view from Asia Minor endorsing wider access is tempered by language concerns.

The increased technological affordances made the participation of students with diverse backgrounds and demographics possible. This diversity had a positive impact on the quality as it allowed a variety of contributions to the knowledge construction. On the other hand, in most cases, English medium has been used for instruction, which sometimes caused issues due to the insufficient language proficiency and academic literacy. This is often the case for both English speaking students and those whose first language is not English. And I argue that language is a key factor that affects the quality of education. (20)

Exploitation of academics

A respondent referring to the United Kingdom felt ‘that the quality of higher education has deteriorated’ (39). There were three reasons for this view. First, that ‘university managers are becoming more bureaucratic’ they don’t really know the ‘academic job’ and they manage staff ‘through creating endless committees and meetings’. Added to that, ‘the bullying culture is pretty strong in the five universities I have worked with. This is counterproductive to the quality of HE’. Second, ‘academics have been exploited heavily in the sense that their workload doubled during the pandemic due to the switch between face-to-face teaching to online/blended teaching’. Third, academics are underpaid for the long hours they have to spend to prepare teaching and research, which will ‘drive talented academics to leave academia’. This is made worse by a feeling that the sector is ‘money driven’, ‘lacks innovation’ and ‘favours compliance’, with ‘’increasing tension between admin staff and academics’, which will ‘drive talents to leave this sector’ (39).

A respondent whose research focuses on implementing quality assurance in developing countries suggested that the research showed that ‘universities were unable to reach stakeholders at a personal level to own the process and act accordingly’. The result is that front-line staff, ‘who are in direct communication with students and curricula, continue to follow quality assurance as a top-down mandate—not as their own property’ (7). There is, especially in public universities, insufficient administrative staff to handle institutional accreditation.

Instead, these universities drag faculty members to serve on different committees that feed information to the internal quality assurance system. Doing so has added an additional burden of responsibility for the faculty members who are already exhausted with too many subjects to teach and numerous students to advise. In other words, the study suggests that quality assurance backfires when resources are scarce, and faculty members, the essential assets of public universities, are taken away from their primary responsibilities—teaching and research—and are involved in administrative duties. In short, in the context where I have conducted multiple research projects, quality assurance has emphasised symbolic actions and processes, which have had a limited effect on learners’ experiences. (7)

The workload placed on academics increased considerably during the world-wide pandemic discussed further in the next section.

Do students have a better or a worse learning experience?

Learning experience has improved

The majority of respondents from around the world. although by no means all, considered the student learning experience had improved. What is interesting is not the numbers but the reasons.

Pedagogy

There were various reasons for the improvement view. Key amongst them was the growing interest in and understanding of pedagogy at national, institutional and programme level. A Norwegian view:

Institutions and staff are more aware of research on student learning, and are more active in developing practices that align theory/research with practice. Things can be further improved—surely—but there is significant improvement in teaching methods, feedback practices and a more holistic approach to quality. (37)

Similarly, an Australian respondent thought things were better ‘because we are seeing greater understanding of a diversity of teaching approaches, access to online environments, and a better adoption of universal-for-design principles’ (38). This was reflected in a comment from the USA.

We know a lot more about good practice here through NSSE and similar efforts and I think most institutions have implemented teaching/leaning centers or the equivalent. Course redesign has helped here a lot, making things more student-centered. But … institutional inertia makes it hard to sustain systematic change… in the US, the highest quality learning experiences are undoubtedly in small liberal arts colleges and in applied studies fields in two-year colleges. The worst are in major research universities (with the exception of the Ivy League schools). (36)

Reflecting on experience in Barbados a respondent referred to a decade-old institutional policy that required all new academic staff to undertake the Certificate in University Teaching and Learning. ‘This requirement was introduced to reduce the instances of qualified staff… who were ineffective at the teaching and learning process.’ This requirement is not the same for pre-existing academic staff, ‘so, in a way outside of natural attrition, that has hindered the overall effectiveness of this policy’ (1).

Another view is positive but warns about bias and routinisation.

There is a reasonable case for arguing that in the UK and elsewhere (to a varying extent across the world) the emphasis on improving curriculum design, development, and delivery in QA processes has changed and improved the learning experience. The same thought applies to learning, teaching and assessment. All this has been underpinned by more focus on professional development for staff (and students) at national level (e.g., Higher Education Academy) and institutional level (e.g., Educational Development Units). In most countries student representation and student feedback have changed the student experience and the status of students. Regarding the former however, this can sometimes be reduced in effectiveness by variable take-up or even by cultural constraints where representation becomes political e.g., Palestine; Lebanon. Regarding the latter, failure to close the loop or to do so in a timely manner can make this ritualistic. Students are quick to point this out. (43)

An African view thinks improvement is the result of exposure to a variety of teaching and learning materials, activities and system improvements. ‘The knowledge and resources outside the classroom are also abundant, unlike the old days. There is better teacher-student rapport and improved level of accountability institutions are assuming’ (15). However, it is questionable ‘how much students have benefitted from such opportunities’ given the level of student engagement.

Transnational education has specific concerns but an agency-based respondent definitely thinks ‘that students have a better learning experience. Campus facilities have improved significantly over the years, with students being offered a well-balanced experience between academic and recreational activities’ (3). In addition, the ‘quality of offering has also improved’, including the ‘range of programmes made available, internship opportunities, career support, etc.’ (3). A view endorsed by a researcher of transnational education provision.

[T]he learning experience has improved as HEIs have become more accountable and able to demonstrate impact and relevance of their degree schemes. Students have more awareness of what to expect and what will benefit them and institutions are responding in kind. (2)

However,

The whole client/customer issue, and indeed the level of expectation on the part of the student, has increased and this has certainly altered the student experience. I am not sure that this is for the better. The increased focus on skill development and connection to the world after graduation is, I think, helping to better prepare students and increase the value of their education but this has led to a more transactional approach to education. (2)

Technology

A view from Namibia also reflects the changing approach to pedagogy but also adds technology as a factor.

In my view students have better learning experience now than ever before. There are new ways of doing things brought about by advancement of knowledge including application of learning theories and approached such as student-centred approaches. Access to information has also improved with advancement in information and communication technologies. This is despite challenges for students from poor economic background and rural areas where there are no proper internet connectivity and IT devices, particularly Africa. Despite these challenges, in general student learning experience has increased than ever before, and it keeps improving with technology enhancement. (17)

This is also reflected in other countries.

Kyrgyzstan faced many challenges transferring from offline to online; however, now I see that many institutions started to provide hybrid learning experience, which includes best practices from both offline and online formats. Now students have learned how to use learning systems, how to access international learning platforms, and, in general, I see positive changes. (8)

The students’ experience [in Iraq] is now in a new situation as well. On the one hand, students currently lack the various learning skills that usually require their attendance in the classroom. On the other hand, students' abilities for distance learning have increased. Of course, the students' aspirations are probably not fully achieved, but they have clear skills in ‘higher education technology’. (6)

The efficacy of technological developments is dependent on their introduction and motivation of users.

Some students found their learning experience improved although again this depends on how the use of technology in teaching was introduced [and] whether the students were amenable to explore their technology capability. Other students found such changes to their learning intrusive and an annoyance, especially if the institution or the teachers involved introduced the changes poorly. (24)

A rather more cynical view from Australia suggests that:

Most of the developers of online learning I have encountered have no personal experience in actual interactive classroom teaching or tutoring (at all). Most have been trained in media, educational/learning/instructional design, web applications and tools and so-called learning analytics. (27)

There is a concern that technological developments, while offering more opportunities for students, can be problematic for learning, as for example, this comment from Azerbaijan.

Even though online education might offer some good outcomes for students and academic staff, such as developing self-determined learning habits in students and optimising usage of time and other resources for teaching staff, they are still lost in identifying opportunities for themselves. Other aspects that weaken the learning are the socialising impact and peer-to-peer learning environment that are dominant in face-to-face education. For example, many students tried to combine many activities during their classes ‘behind the screens’, namely, they try to connect with their peers through social networks, watch TV, eat while listening to the classes. This kind of multitasking impacts their learning. Many rely on the class recording to watch and understand the material later on, which rarely happens. However, again, it provided many learning opportunities; they have completed many online classes and courses. The other question now is whether the universities are ready to recognise their micro-credentials… (14)

Control

Another reason why the learner experience has improved is that students have more control of their learning, or more participation that influences the learning experience. As a respondent, speaking of developing countries, notes, ‘students have more ownership for their own learning journey, and more flexibility in choosing their own learning strategies and pace’. New pedagogic strategies, assessment theories and the use of technology ‘are engaging students more in the learning process’ (7). A similar view of a better experience is that

Students have started to give their feedback more loudly especially in the Arab world. Before students had little to no intervention in the learning process. Students also started to meet and work with students from all over the word and exchange ideas and experience through participating in Erasmus +, Hiver program, etc. (49)

The question arises as to whether students want control of their learning.

The stronger emphasis on student learning and how to facilitate this in a productive manner likely should lead to a better learning experience. But, as studies on student learning show, there is also variation in how students manage this…. But, better and worse, does that mean more learning vs less learning, or whether they like it or not? For those less motivated who primarily want to obtain a degree with minimum effort, an emphasis on more student active learning forms likely requires more work so their subjective experience might be not ‘better’. But, overall, I am an optimist, I think there is a stronger emphasis on learning and learning experiences and that there is potential here. (22)

A Swedish opinion was somewhat cautious, suggesting that ‘individual students may experience more extremes in their experiences, because they are more varied, and there is a range of capacity in teachers and programmes to accommodate diversity’ (41). A respondent from Zimbabwe acknowledged that student learning experience has improved ‘because of improved involvement and participation without fear of quality assurance issues and other issues that affect their learning and teaching’ (23).

A comment from Japan is that the learning experience is better because students have had, over the past few decades, more support not only with learning (writing support and scholarship) but also with counselling and career support. ‘They also have more opportunities for internship, volunteer, study abroad, exchange programmes, and so on, which could be counted as academic credits’ (5).

One view from the UK was that the more supportive and responsive learning environment has a downside.

They have a different experience and, in some ways, better but have lost some of their responsibility for their learning. This makes them demand service, which is less effective for transformative learning. Handouts, recorded presentations, 24-hour access to tutors by email have contributed to this as well as the NSS [National Student Survey]. (11)

An Austrian respondent concurred with the focus on learning but wondered if student-centred learning has become more about satisfaction than enhancement of learning.

I have experienced a huge boost in efforts across the globe in trying to improve students’ learning experiences, including major marketing efforts to show them how much institutions care. But this is exactly what it says: it is a matter of how students experience their learning (or to be more accurate: their time enrolled in higher education), which has little to do with the actual learning processes. Institutions relying on paying students (and with not enough profit available from domestic students) have invested in this for a long time; but even public institutions have, in the light of enough political pressure and a general change of mindsets and priorities, increasingly aimed to be more ‘student-centered’, whatever that means. I am far less sure if we discount students’ subjective perspective (‘satisfaction with their learning experience’) and focus more on learning…. I am never quite sure what changes faster, the way how we deliver ‘education’ to students (which is an increasingly far cry from the independent and autonomous ways students were allowed/required to obtain knowledge when I was still a student); or the students’ own preferences and abilities: I guess most students value different things within their learning experience than those 20 years ago; which, if I am a bit self-critical, is partly invisibilised by the ways we investigate their viewpoints via our questionnaires. (40)

A view from Germany also raises motivational issues.

I would not say they are either better or worse but rather qualify them as different learner experiences. The reforms, especially the Bologna process, led to stronger extrinsic student motivation, at least in some countries. Thus, students based their actions more on passing exams rather than on deep learning – though these effects diverge strongly depending on discipline. At the same time, higher education still focuses on building competencies that go beyond mere knowledge acquisition and address, i.e., analytical competencies and the ability to reflect.

Research

Three respondents were of the view that while, the learning experience had improved, research tended to demand more attention than pedagogy. An Italian view:

I believe students currently experience a better learning environment in comparison to the situation in force twenty years ago or so. However, I also believe that the strong attention placed on research activities, as well as its linkages with institutional funding, limited this impact. (30)

A UK respondent acknowledged that

The increased knowledge of staff regarding appropriate higher education pedagogy seems to have made some useful changes for students, the increase in the student voice would seem a good thing, and yet the increased pressure to publish has had the opposite effect on the student experience. (46)

A similar view from the UAE notes that institutions started to look into ways of making learning more interactive, ‘which is an important development’ and there is a better ‘understanding of how teaching and learning occurs’. The process ‘is slow but at least towards the right direction’. However, compared to 20 years previously, institutions demand more research output, ‘which affects the quality of teaching’ and thus ‘the quality of students’ learning experiences negatively’ (20).

Learning experience has not changed

Despite these positive assertions there were comments from North America contending that students’ learning experience had essentially remained the same.

So based on my own experience in the classroom I would say that the experience of students is neither better nor worse today than when I started teaching in 1976. However, ….the teaching of calculus has changed a lot since the 1980s…and this makes me think that students today have a better learning experience in calculus courses. (28)

In many ways curricula may now be more relevant to students than in the past, but this has been at the expense of a core of knowledge that students should have. For example, few now could identify the major combatants in WW2. In sum, given the number of factors that must be considered, students may or may not be having a better learning experience now compared to in the past; however, the results of the learning experience are of lower quality than in the past. (34)

This latter comment reflects concerns about widening participation, discussed above.

A view from Latin America simply argues that past and present learning experiences are not comparable

When I first started researching higher education, it was an élite system, with limited number of students, most of which dedicated their full time to studies. The learning experience was mostly an academic exercise, with students and academic staff dedicated to it. Now, students are much more heterogeneous, most of them with a part-time dedication, with teachers that are also hired part-time. These students are concerned with many issues, both personal and social, and therefore, their learning experience is more down to earth. The range of learning experiences is much wider, but then, and now, it has a transformative impact on students, which is highly valued even by those who abandon it without a degree. It is different, but not necessarily less good. (35)

A respondent from Turkey bemoaned the lack of progress in learning and teaching.

To some degree it is worse—exacerbated (or exposed?) by the pandemic…. However, if we forget about the pandemic, then the response would be: not worse, but not better either. The implication here is that instruction simply has not changed; it was mediocre to begin with and continues down that same path. The problem being that globally, quality education continues to evolve and this is where university students in Turkey are at a disadvantage…. The problem is that the conversations and innovations that are taking place in more forward-thinking places do not seem to be finding their way to our campuses—this does not make it worse, but certainly not better. The point being that Turkish students get a fairly good 20th century education; the problem is that we are not there anymore. (47)

Learning experience has worsened

Some respondents thought that the learning experience had got worse. Again, various reasons included expansion, strategic and policy decisions and the global pandemic.

In my experience, the teaching and learning experience for students in my early career (1970s) in a British Polytechnic was far better than in later years when the institution became a university. The reasons for this were that innovations in teaching and learning developed in the 1970s and implemented were slowly watered down and evaporated by the end of the century. Students were less motivated than the highly engaged polytechnic students, the numbers on the courses grew and the personal engagement between staff and students deteriorated. Assessment of students became more routinised rather than creative and feedback suffered due to high student numbers. The CNAA-driven quality system of the 1970s was far better at encouraging innovative learning than subsequent system-wide quality assurance processes imposed on the sector. Institutional student feedback that dug down into what was going on in the institution was effective at closing the loop and making faculties address student concerns. This close analysis was lost with the introduction of system wide inadequate surveys (NSS) that were more for external consumption than internal improvement of the learning experience. (32)

Another United Kingdom-based respondent noted that the experience has been much the same although some students have become more demanding than in the past, However, there is a widespread feeling that due to high fees, ‘university education is not value for money’ (39).

There were also sceptical voices from Africa about strategic decisions that had not delivered improvements.

although some conscientious efforts are being considered and implemented to improve the learning experiences of Ghanaian students at tertiary and higher levels of learning… these strategies have not taken hold or do not tend to yield the intended or desired results [because of massification and other developments]. (10)

The learning experiences of students in Ethiopia may not have shown signs of significant improvements. In my opinion, some of the issues that pose obstacle to improved student learning experiences include the central assignment of students to fields and universities, lack of programme-specific entrance exams administered by higher education institutions (a national higher education entrance exam exists), weak engagement of students in the planning and evaluation of education, lack of flexible study paths, shortage of practice-based learning opportunities, slow implementation of competence-based curriculum, slow transition to student-centred learning, limited space for students to influence institutional decisions, lack of institutionalised student feedback mechanism, and absence of alumni surveys. The traditional summative student assessment practices in place have been unsuited to systematically assessing whether learning outcomes have been achieved and the transformation in the cognitive competence, knowledge and skills of students. Additionally, the feedback mechanisms available to students have seldom led to visible improvements in the organisation and implementation of education. (19)

Concern is expressed by one respondent about changes in the learning setting.

I think the experience of higher education is much worse as we have moved away from an intensive on-campus experience to a situation where most students are working as well as studying, where there is little campus collegiate life, and where online interaction has greatly replaced personal interaction. There is less chance for incidental learning and for mutual support. I believe this is reflected in the worrying statistics for student mental health. This trend has been obvious for probably thirty years but has been accentuated by COVID. (44)

Pandemic

The worldwide pandemic has given some respondents pause in their confirmation of improved quality. A view from Zimbabwe, for example, ‘Yes, the quality of higher education improved during the time I have been researching higher education. Unfortunately, it has recently started to deteriorate since the onset of the Covid 19 pandemic’ (23). A respondent from Mauritius argued that ‘the quality of higher education has deteriorated. With the impact of COVID-19 and remote learning, students are missing on the soft skills aspect’ Furthermore, ‘Face-to-face teaching and learning was far better. The tutors had close interaction and monitoring whereas in online learning very poor monitoring’ (16). An Iranian respondent had no doubt, ‘Of course, during the past two years due to Covid-19 and the forced choice of e-Learning in every higher education system around the world, the learning experiences of students have worsened drastically’ (33). ‘The impact of COVID has been particularly severe for institutions unused to online delivery and in those cases, it appears that quality has been compromised as staff struggle with double teaching (both face-to-face and online)’ (44). A respondent from Barbados thinks COVID had a negative effect on an improving situation ‘particularly as there are some sub-groups of our society that have either no or limited access to the Internet and to technology, both software and hardware’ (1). An American view:

I believe that the Covid-19 pandemic has created a tremendous impact on higher education. Many colleges have turned into in-distance learning or hybrid learning methods. I am passionately in favor [sic] of traditional face-to-face teaching and learning; therefore, I believe that recent online teaching has negatively influenced quality in higher education…. [It] reduces interaction and communication among students and between instructors and students as well as students’ active participation in learning…. Of course, I believe in the merit of online opportunities, but they should be used as complementary, not as a substitute for in-person teaching/learning. (26)

In Russia, the pandemic not only raised issues about on-line learning but has renewed old concerns.

These two years with the Covid-19 have been very difficult. We realised that a fully online learning mode is possible, but it does not make the life in academia easier or more enjoyable (neither for students, nor for faculty). Consequently, the majority of students and instructors estimated their learning/teaching as less effective and expressed a desire to return to the traditional classroom. All students who live and study under the Covid-19 restrictions have a worse learning experience….

The recent studies (including my research) show that the COVID-19 pandemic questioned the quality of higher education and put the whole system of higher education in the spotlight. Before the pandemic it seemed that we are improving but numerous studies conducted during 2020–2021 exacerbated existing problems (access to higher education, gender gap, well-being, etc.). (9)

A respondent from Azerbaijan was also sure that the quality of higher education has deteriorated during the pandemic ‘because teaching and support staff were not ready for online education. Moreover, managing the audience, making an impression, and engaging students in online activities are challenging for many teaching staff’ (14). Azerbaijani universities, it is argued, ‘were not proactive in estimating the possibilities of IT in higher education,… there was no built-in system to provide full support for online teaching and learning; some universities were even using their Facebook pages for teaching’. Even now, despite warnings, the leadership of universities is doing very little and this ‘will expand the gap between the quality of higher education provided in the third countries and western countries’ (14).

Similarly, although with a more optimistic conclusion:

In my experience, the quality of education in Kyrgyzstan drastically deteriorated during the last two years due to COVID-19 pandemic. It turned out that developing countries like Kyrgyzstan were not ready for the transfer from offline to online. We faced a lot of problems in Kyrgyzstan (in general) including, but not limited to, lack of digital knowledge both from teachers’ and students’ sides and inability or maybe even unwillingness to study distantly due to lack of equipment, self-discipline and so on. However, people were able to adapt, to learn, to train and now the situation has changed in a positive way. (8)

A respondent from Ireland agreed about the problems. ‘Since the pandemic started in March 2020, there has been upheaval. The pivot to online has impacted negatively on the learning experience and relationship between teacher and students…and less opportunity to learn from peers.’ However, there are positives ‘HEIs have learned to use digital technology more effectively’ (42). Another respondent noted that because of the pandemic ‘It is clear that e-learning, including MOOCs, has improved somewhat, due to the increase in its use and reliance on it to achieve educational outcomes parallel to traditional education’ (6). A similar more positive outcome was reported from Taiwan.

Faculty members are encouraged to adopt innovative pedagogies to enrich student learning experiences during the pandemic as well as to ensure their learning outcomes. Moreover, universities provided more ICT training for teachers to develop their digital capacity in order to engage students. (21)

Another view suggested positive outcomes of the pandemic.

We have seen a significant shift in quality assurance processes and these, in many countries, have become much more responsive and relevant to the context at hand. This has caused much greater transparency—to the benefit of all. I think we have seen a real change over the pandemic with QAA’s placing increased emphasis on online learning and assessment and we have seen wholesale and rapid change that would previously have taken years to develop. Quality assurance is more contextually focused now and its inclusion of external stakeholders provides an opportunity to further connect higher education and the wider community it serves. (2)

To what extent have quality assurance processes affected the quality of higher education?

Most respondents were of the view that quality assurance had affected the quality of higher education in some way or other, although not always in the way intended. As will be illustrated the tension between accountability and improvement remains.

Broadly positive

A comment from Barbados is clear there has been a positive impact.

The quality assurance processes have significantly affected the quality of higher education over the years as academic and administrative staff have become more aware of the importance of quality, and the elements of quality. In addition, in the Anglophone Caribbean, there has been a push to establish external quality assurance agencies, many of which have mandatory registration requirements for higher education institutions. This push has meant that institutions have had to meet minimum quality standards to maintain registration status.

Further, over the years many higher education institutions have also formally established internal quality assurance mechanisms such as quality assurance reviews of programmes led by external academics…. There has also been the move by most institutions to have quality policies and supporting structures and benchmarks to assess, maintain and enhance quality. (1)

The idea that quality assurance has initiated response from institutions is also evident in an agency response from Turkey. ‘Universities now see more clearly the importance of running the system and closing loops. It is important to meet the requirements of our age and to train qualified graduates. It is important that they are universities that research, produce and serve the society’ (50). A similar comment from Iraq ‘I realise that these processes may be routine in some cases. Or they are complex or not appropriate to the requirements of education in other cases. But these processes greatly helped to get rid of irregularities or inappropriate procedures in higher education’ (6). An Australian view is that quality assurance processes ‘have raised the floor of provision and awareness of the importance of careful documentation. In my… institution, a lot of attention was paid to the rationale for processes and those which were not necessary were stripped out’ (41). Another equally positive perspective:

My response to this question is yes, quality assurance processes have affected the quality of higher education, particularly in my Ghanaian context, enormously. As a result of the emergence of Quality Assurance as a discipline, quality control measures are now being instituted and pursued by higher education institutions and their regulatory bodies to help improve and safeguard the quality of higher education provision and delivery across the country. (10)

Some responses link quality assurance to improvement in learning ‘It helps people, for example in the Middle East, think more effectively and carefully in enhancing the learning process to end up with excellent learning outcomes’ (49). Endorsed by a comment from Mauritius ‘Quality assurance is always a watchdog to enable tutors to do better. The constant upgrade in quality assurance definitely help us to remain focus’ (16). A similar view from America.

As a participant-observer I would say that ‘outcomes assessment’ requirements created by accreditation agencies have stimulated a good deal of change in US universities. Quality assurance in the 1980s was largely a matter of self-assessment and occasional external departmental review. Since then, accreditors (e.g., Middlestates Accreditation Association) have required documentation of learning goals and measurement of outcomes that has been positive on balance. Programs sponsored by the National Science Foundation aimed at improving the effectiveness and quality of undergraduate science education, including project-based learning, have had effect as well. (28)

And from Germany.

quality assurance processes represent important factors to address problems in a more evidence-based manner. Due not least to quality assurance processes, explicating learning outcomes, bringing them into accordance with learning and teaching methods and thinking about factors of study success as well as didactic qualification have become a matter of course. In this sense, quality assurance has a mobilizing function. (45)

A rather less positive view about the impact on teaching and learning from Japan

The short answer would be ‘limited’; the mechanisms have not been effective for quality improvement in teaching and learning for about two decades. The following external and internal factors explain it…. Quality assurance mechanisms fail to connect to the larger picture of changing socio-economic, technological and cultural elements that shape student expectations and satisfactions, teaching methods and so on. They rather take higher education quality as a static and endogenous object, isolating it from the external environment. For instance, labour market trends (in relation to transition to secure, decent work) is not effectively incorporated in the mechanisms. (25)

A comment on developing countries points to a matter of resources.

Another problem that surfaced in my research is the capacity of a quality assurance agency. For instance, some QAAs have too small structures and limited capacity to oversee the quality assurance system at the national level. As many universities submit their self-assessment reports (SARs) to a QAA, the study found that QAAs were backlogged given the small structure coupled with limited expertise. The small staffing structure deprived accrediting universities of not receiving adequate feedback on their SARs. The study reveals that lack of funding and budget limitation has exacerbated the problem even further as QAAs are unable to hire new staff and provide per diem for peer reviewers. (7)

Institutional response

For some, the introduction of quality assurance processes is an opportunity and the effectiveness depends on how institutions respond. A comment from the USA suggests quality assurance is not a powerful motivator.

On balance, they have helped but they are weak levers in contrast to where resources are allocated. The biggest impacts occur where QA processes cannot be ignored because they are mandatory or government run. US accreditation, for example, only has an impact where institutional leaders welcome the particular feedback given and want to make changes. The best that can be said is that QA processes provide the necessary information to inform change; the change itself must come from within when institutions actively embrace QA processes and act on the results. (36)

A similar but rather more acerbic view of institutional response:

Quality Assurance processes have been seen in several different ways by HEIs. Some considered them as helpful, others thought that they were simply nuisances that have to be tolerated and yet others were simply overwhelmed and became comatose. Thus, the extent of QA processes on the first group of HEIs is highly positive and generally resulted in improvements in the various indicators including ranking and profitability. While the extent of QA processes on the second group of HEIs is negative and vapid.… The third group of HEIs spend their time seeking and making excuses resulting in their loss of accreditation, inability to meet the quality requirements and finally bankruptcy. (24)

A view from Azerbaijan emphasises the need for a collective response rather than an imposed reaction.

Suppose the quality assurance process is properly defined by all stakeholders of a specific higher education institution. In that case, it is agreed upon, and the quality assurance is collective and shared responsibility of all of them it is likely to have a more significant impact on the quality of education. However, when some powers inside the education institution impose it, and others have no clear understanding and commitment, there will be low quality of the achievements. Especially in this part of the world, quality assurance must be the primary responsibility of the university leadership, who needs to have a deep understanding and commitment. Additionally, achieving the results requires university commitment to investing in educators constant training and development. (14)

A similar response from Turkey suggests personal, rather than systemic, motivation to change.

The University, like every university in Turkey, has a Bologna commission (some are more active than others). The primary role that this commission plays is ensuring that new and revised academic programs and course syllabi meet a certain standard…. Where the system slows considerably is the actual examination of learning outcomes—the so-called closing of the loop. This is not carried out in a systematic manner…our Rector has been strongly supportive of programmatic accreditation for all programs; this indirectly forces such programs to pay attention to teaching and learning. When I ask my wife, who has been at a public institution for six years, whether similar activities are carried out, she laughs off such ideas. My personal feeling…is that quality manifests at the classroom level not because of an over-arching initiative, but rather that a faculty member has somehow been exposed to such an approach as a faculty member or Ph.D. student outside of Turkey. In sum, even at universities that have administrators and faculty members who “get it”, working it down to the classroom (as everyone knows) is a considerable challenge. (47)

An Italian view is that, while positive, closing the loop requires external input. ‘Procedures improved over time…. However, to experience better and more robust impact in higher education, it would be necessary to act on universities’ governances, missions and their funding’ (30).

Administrative task: compliance and trust

Inevitably the issue of administrative burden, disconnect with academic staff and the lack of trust in the system surfaced in the comments.

On the other hand, quality assurance also has led to a certain bureaucratization with a focus on structural features and a checking of criteria. This is especially true for quality assurance processes with a predominantly legitimizing function, where either linking quality assurance results to fund allocation or formal approval of study programs on the basis of quality assurance procedures have been increased in the past years. (45)

An Austrian view.

I still do not know many reliable studies on the impact of quality assurance (in particular IQA) on the actual quality of higher education. But there is also no doubt in my mind that QA has internationally contributed to better administrative and support processes (including improvements on transparency, fairness, efficiency—or even leading to such processes in the first place), and considering the sheer number of students enrolled nowadays and the complexity of most higher education systems, also in legal terms (data protection, to just name one rather recent far reaching development), this is quite an achievement. Which comes at a price, of course, not least regarding the over-emphasis on such formal aspects. (40)

Disconnect is evident in comments from Norway.

I am not so sure of the impact. Indeed, we have seen the national agency conducting accreditations over the years and there are many institutions that have received useful feedback on how to improve. For most academics and students though, I am not sure how connected they are to quality assurance. My view is that, for them, quality assurance is still a matter for the admin. (37)

I believe quality assurance processes have affected the quality of higher education to some extent, since there has been attention to these issues. That said, these processes are often very generic and loosely coupled with the nature of the disciplines, and they are also very often led by administrative staff. (18)

A reflection from the United Kingdom.

On my various quality travels, most notably in Eastern Europe, Middle East, and South East Asia, a high percentage of HEIs are and have been using a variety of quality models drawn from business and industry…. Often this reflects an emphasis on such an approach to QA by a national Ministry or agency, or perceived need to satisfy external stakeholders, or both. While there is a case for the view that this helps with management processes, and a desire to satisfy internal and external customers, I am yet to be convinced that such an approach provides the best way forward as a basis for academic quality assurance. In my experience the engagement of front-line academics is minimal, the involvement of students is more or less absent, and the impact on academic quality at best limited. (43)

A Japanese comment refers to the burden on overworked academic staff.

Accreditation has emphasised student learning outcomes in addition to compliance matters. Higher education has implemented active learning and multiple student assessment methods or teacher evaluation. They have become ‘busy’ to respond to accreditation and government requirements, and faculty members have become overwhelmed with administrative tasks and teaching. On the other hand, the energy and time space for research has been dropping and the research production and quality has deteriorated. (5)

A UK response emphasises routinisation. Quality assurance has had an effect to ‘a small extent, as it has been treated as a box ticking exercises by the sector’ (39). Another UK respondents states that ‘over the past 15 years …the nature of the ‘quality burden’…has shifted …to a colossal emphasis on and external requirement for the collection, storage, and publication of data and information for use by all sorts of ‘stakeholders’ (43). Furthermore,

the emergence of a ‘quality revolution’ in higher education, and the globalisation of a quality debate, suggests a positive effect on the quality of the design, delivery, and experience of higher education. However,… though we may have all these procedures and processes in place, and an emerging quality bureaucracy in HEIs, if front-line academics are experiencing a ‘quality burden’, and if we cannot show that this all makes a positive difference (improvement for students and staff) then what is the point? (43)

A similar view also brings in the issue of trust.

I believe that quality assurance processes have supported institutions to increase their capacity and capability of managing the quality of their operations. However, QA has at some point intensified the inspection/control/checkbox component (as mechanisms of compliance and accountability), which has almost stigmatised the HEIs feeling overburdened by heavy processes with little apparent value (mechanisms of enhancement) for the quality of education, and its teaching staff that felt already overworked. More and more countries have therefore been shifting between a hard power to a soft power approach of QA, but there is more to be done with shifting away from the control of governments, recognising the increased maturity of national QA systems and trusting that the institutions themselves can manage their internal systems or, if need be, have a slow transition making use of risk-based approaches as safety nets. (29)

A respondent from Ethiopia argued that external quality assurance (since 2005) and internal quality assurance (since 2009) ‘have had mixed impact on the quality of higher education’.

On the positive side, quality assurance processes have contributed to the improvements in awareness about quality and standards; quality has become a crucial theme in higher education strategy; higher education institutions have gained the experience of undergoing and conducting various quality evaluations; higher education institutions established various structures frameworks for monitoring quality internally; institutions have gained the tools to identify their strengths, good practices and areas in need of development; improvements in institutional practices as a result of feedback from peer reviews; more studies that delve into quality problems and mechanisms of enhancing standards are being undertaken.

On the negative side, the impact of quality assurance processes on the quality of higher education has remained far less than expected. Some of the factors that account for this may include the increasing distrust between higher education institutions and the quality assurance agency; resistance of academic staff to quality assurance; institutional quality assurance policies and tools developed for quality assessment are not used in practice; allegations of corruption in accreditation evaluations; absence of the practices of rewarding quality and high performance; widespread deception and dishonest reporting by higher education institutions during external and internal quality evaluations; and the increasing violations of the regulations governing quality (particularly among higher education institutions operating in the private sector). Higher education institutions have been undergoing quality assurance processes principally to fulfil formal requirements rather than out of genuine motivation to develop the standards of their operations.

Perhaps the three most important explanations for the limited impact of quality assurance processes on the quality of higher education in Ethiopia have been:

1. The information obtained from quality assurance processes and evaluations are rarely systematically linked to institutional development works.

2. The existing legal frameworks and requirements concerning quality assurance have failed to facilitate the capacity development for internal quality management at higher education institutions.

3. The quality assurance system (external and internal) has been designed based on the principle of distrust in the intention (motive), capacity and openness of higher education institutions. (19)

Need for change and stronger link to enhancement

There are some who question the shelf-life of quality assurance, not least because processes have become more about compliance than enhancement.

My institution has been involved in forms of voluntary and mandatory QA for over15 years. Recently, the quality schemes have turned to compliance, and there is unrest and definitely a need to have a different approach in which we focus more on what really matters regarding teaching and learning as an institution. (20)

Although they have made higher education professionals more aware of the purpose and intent of higher education, it remains unclear what the direct effect of quality assurance has been, outside the added time and cost to higher education institutions and staff to comply with the QA systems. The question remains would the quality have improved more or less if those resources were directly applied to the learning experience and the learning environment.

It is my view that far too little critical thought has been applied to the systems of quality assurance and not enough attention has been paid to what constitutes a quality development process. (46)

An agency view from a Latin American perspective.

I think that, at least initially, quality assurance had a strong impact on higher education institutions, especially those in the middle range of quality (the good ones did not think it did them any good, although they slowly learned it did, and the really poor ones did not have the resources to improve—and at least a large number of these were closed or merged with other institutions). Quality was specified in terms of actual inputs, processes and outcomes, institutions started relying more on information to make evidence-based decisions, learning outcomes were revised, and teaching and learning strategies also were improved.

After 25–30 years of implementation, quality assurance is becoming a much more routine exercise, more bureaucratic, less concerned with substantive issues and concentrating on formal measures. Its success is it worst enemy: QA agencies have difficulties to accommodate diversity, to understand that resources and processes can be very different depending on the type of students and the programs they offer. There is still a strong academic drift, demanding doctoral degrees even to teach professionalized programs, or asking institutions to devote time and resources to research, without specifying what they mean by this, and expecting them to publish in renowned journals, when their focus is different. (35)

A comment from Barbados also argues for change in focus and style.

As higher education continues to move more into emergency remote teaching, blended learning, and online learning, even HyFlex learning, we need to revisit the underpinning quality assurance mechanisms to keep pace. For example, there is an established norm that institutional accreditation does not cross geographical boundaries, but higher education institutions have been crossing those boundaries for many years now through the varying forms of online education. As such, external quality assurance agencies must move away from this restricted concept of institutional accreditation.

Additionally, internal quality assurance practices must evolve from being only about the assurance of quality to the enhancement of quality. This would mean a shift to a more supportive role. (1)

On the other hand, a view from Italy where processes have been in place for only a few years:

I think that quality assurance processes are only now beginning to be perceived as a tool for improvement. Until recently they were interpreted only as a bureaucratic aspect to be addressed. A bit like what happened in companies with the implementation of ISO 9001 at the beginning of the standards diffusion. (46)

One respondent asked the question

Would it be timely to consider the resilience of higher education institutions as an important dimension of quality? This notion arises from the recent large-scale and unprecedented impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic; the sizeable number of higher education institutions around the world that operate in areas affected by war, armed conflict and political instability, and natural catastrophe; and the increasing reconsideration of the nature of work and working life and other transformations in the operative environment of higher education institutions. (19)

A researcher focusing on developing countries sees no connection to improvement.

The research documents a disconnect between quality assurance and quality improvement which gave way to faculty resistance and superficial engagement with quality assurance. The research highlighted that many universities have failed to rationalise quality assurance activities as a means to improve quality. For instance, several participants reported that universities often neglected the importance of explaining why certain expectations were added in faculty members' portfolios, or why students should carry out teaching evaluations, and how the information will feed into the larger system to improve quality. This information gap, caused by poor sensemaking and sensegiving, contributed to the challenge. (7)

An Iranian respondent also had reservations, ‘due to socio-political structure of higher education in developing countries the QA processes have NOT affected the quality of higher education’ (10). A Slovenian view, ‘in my country, quality assurance and accreditation processes affect immensely the quality of higher education delivered, but not in a positive way, since they create horizontal and vertical stratification among higher education institutions’ (4). A UK view on quality processes, ‘I think they reflect the quality of demand rather than the inherent quality of education’ (11).

An African view also questioned the link to improvement.

There have been fundamental changes in terms of raising awareness and creating the necessary QA structure in many systems…. However, the impact in terms of quality enhancement still remains limited. This has been mainly due to the little attention given in creating sustaining awareness schemes, poor leadership commitment, poor systems of accountability in implementing QA outcomes, and little ownership at the level of instructors and students. Although the impact of quality assurance processes takes a lot of time to bring changes in a given system, lip services and current gaps in terms of moving towards building a quality culture at many institutions and in many countries is a real source of worry. (15)

Another view focuses on quality culture and suggests that quality assurance processes don’t have a direct impact but that ‘QA processes work more as a means to develop a quality culture that promotes the willingness of academic staff to make use of QA procedures to innovate their teaching, learning and assessment and their overall attitudes towards higher education’ (13). An Australian perspective is sceptical of the impact of quality assurance on educational outputs.

The basic point is that there is nothing wrong with attending to processes and conditions that are presumed to improve learning and academic climate as such, but the test of the extent to which these initiatives make real differences to academic environments and improves high quality outputs from lecturers and researchers have not been adequately researched and documented. Decisions to put more and more effort into quality assurance needs to be made accountable for the measurable effects they make.… Quality assurance in HE has become an industry that does not appear to see itself as needing to engage in serious quality control. (27)

A comment from Norway also refers to the assurance-enhancement disconnect

I am not so certain quality assurance and academic development-oriented quality enhancement are so strongly connected at all. They have entirely different purposes and functions. I’m in the camp where I think QA has traditionally been more about accountability. This is not to say that QA agencies cannot have roles where they also facilitate more emphasis on pedagogy or learning emphasis or student experience emphasis. But this is now what I perceive traditional modes of QA to be about. (22)

Finally, a reflection on the disconnect from a substantive research perspective.

We do not have sufficient insight in key questions around quality improvement, the effectiveness of QA systems and mechanism, etc. That is somewhat disappointing after 40-some years of research on the theme. But this is not a critical comment on Q(A) research only, for this likely applies to many other higher education research themes as well. A striking finding in our analysis of 17,000 abstracts of HE journal contributions…was that the topic of quality assurance (and accountability) clustered with the topics of ‘strategy and mission’ and ‘university rankings and performance’ (and ‘teaching economics’). This could signal a lot of attention to the macro- and meso-level dimensions of Q(A) research. Interestingly, this cluster of topics was quite remote from the cluster of topics that focused on teaching and learning (the educational ‘stuff’). It looks like only few researchers have indeed connected Q(A) to what happens in the realm of teaching, learning and assessment. (12)

Conclusion

When I started researching quality in higher education in 1990 the idea was given little credence. The view in universities in the United Kingdom and elsewhere is that it made no sense because universities were ‘quality’; the two notions were inextricably intertwined. Digging a little further and most universities in the 1990s were not about teaching, students are here to learn from leading scholars in their disciplines. Why would we ask students for their views: we know what’s best for them? At that time, widening participation was still something to be wary of. Despite initial expansion in the 1970s, the boom in access to university only took off in the 1990s (or even later) in most countries. Quality assurance rose from the unmentionable to dominate higher educational policy during the ‘quality revolution’ in the decades either side of the Millenium.

Of course, forms of quality assurance predate these developments. Professional accreditation had been in existence for more than a century and a half: the UK General Medical Council is a regulatory body established under the Medical Act of 1858, for example, and the American Medical Association (established 1847) exerted effective control of medical education from 1900, when the US regional accreditors evolved on a voluntary basis.

What the responses to the survey show is that the quality revolution has fossilised the taken-for-granted-excellence-no-matter-what-we-do attitude prevalent in higher education prior to the 1990s and opened the way for more reflection on practice and reconceptualisation of outcomes. Rather than a cosy club, the expanding higher education sector had, worldwide, become aware of its major role in economic and social development.

What these responses also show, though, is that quality assurance isn’t just about awakening institutions to a revised set of responsibilities but has developed a life of its own, a life that questionably fails to match academic expectations, that leads to over-management of higher education resulting in less concern with delivering a good learning experience and more concern with compliance, ratings and funding.

As to definitions of quality: respondents frequently contextualised their responses by explaining what they meant by quality or what aspect of quality they were discussing. Clearly, widening participation is seen by some as compromising quality as excellence and some even hinted that support for students and student satisfaction has contributed to ‘dumbing down’. Quality as consistency is reflected in quality assurance procedures and administrative attention to detail but is far from evident in the quality of the learning experience. Quality as fitness-for-purpose is evident in the evolution of institutions, to be more aware of and address social and economic expectations. For many, this aspect of quality enhancement is the most significant effect that quality assurance has had. However, fitness for purpose is not evident in improvements sought by front-line academics in enhancing the student learning experience. Quality as value for money did not materialise in the comments except on the one negative occasion. Quality as transformation was a key element, evident in the frequent references to a more reflective approach by institutions, particularly concerns with pedagogy, student support and well-being and skill development. Quality assurance processes though have little direct impact on transformation. At best they encourage or enable the development of a quality culture, at worst the focus on compliance and accountability that stultifies transformative potential. In the end, enhancing transformative quality is dependent on the acts of specific academics or enlightened leadership that encourages transformative approaches, despite the impediment of an overbearingly administrative quality assurance straitjacket.