Quality Monitoring in Two Institutions: a comparison

Abstract

There are different perceptions of the meaning of quality in higher education, however, internationally, quality, whatever its focus, has become the vehicle through which accountability is addressed. Accountability is associated with efficiency and effectiveness, with definitions of quality based on dimensions of high standards, zero defects, value for money and fitness for purpose. None of these definitions directly encompasses the core activities of learning and teaching. To do this in a rapidly changing world requires a focus on transformation and innovation, with quality monitoring concerned with improvement and enhancement. This paper examines the internal quality monitoring processes in two institutions (one in NZ and one in the UK) in order to consider how these processes may be contributing to transformation. It is concluded that there is a need to reconceptualise ‘effectiveness’ if institutions are to focus internal quality monitoring on transformation. Emphasis needs to be given to self‐regulation and innovation, in particular through delegating responsibility for quality to teaching teams and fostering improvement processes. Quality and innovation must be linked to budgets.