This issue includes an extended editorial on the results of an author survey exploring views on the quality of higher education and the impact of quality assurance processes.
Following the extended editorial are six research papers on training programmes, outcomes-based assessment, virtual external assessment visits, financial aid, the effect of socioeconomic situation on academic performance and module evaluations.
Anca Greere offers a very practical approach to developing a training programme for quality assurance in higher education. Quality assurance systems are, she maintains, constituted on a continuum of ‘compliance-assurance-enhancement-excellence’, a view that implies a controversial hierarchy founded on compliance. The main aim is to determine underlying principles that ensures a positive experience that is flexible and adaptable. Of key importance is conducting a thorough needs analysis to ensure the training is appropriate.
Abdul Rauf, Kriszta Rostás and John Canning analysed lecturer perceptions of assessments of students in universities of applied sciences (UAS) in the Netherlands in the wake of concerns expressed about quality and standards in the sector. The qualitative study with 19 participants teaching at ten different institutions revealed that relating assessments to learning objectives is not yet embedded into the culture and mindset of business studies teachers. While there is no claim that UAS have failed to embed these processes into their central quality assurance practices, the lack of awareness about outcomes-based assessment needs to be investigated further. The authors suggest professional development of staff via formal courses.
Arnau Bàguena, Esther Huertas and Marti Casadesus explore a blended approach to institutional evaluation. During the pandemic, many external quality assurance agencies organised virtual external assessment visits to higher education institutions. The authors argue that much can be learned from the experience and they surveyed participants of 100 external assessment panels. The results show that satisfaction with the virtual process is very broad. External assessment panel members were highly satisfied with virtual visits. Internal panel members were also satisfied but to a lesser extent than external peers. However, the physical visit to the facilities is still highly valued, which suggests some sort of hybrid model might be most appropriate. There were few statistically significant differences between programme and institutional accreditation processes, which suggests that future developments would be similar in both cases.
Patricia Hernández-Medina and Gabriel Ramírez-Torres evaluated the impact on dropout and graduation of the financial aid programme aimed at discounting tuition fees at one of Venezuela’s private universities. The unique 40-year-old programme of discounts to students is based on an evaluation their economic situation. The programme only discounts tuition fees, without considering accommodation, living expenses, transportation and books. The study compared 936 students who received financial aid and 4675 who did not. The results showed a significant decrease in early course student departures for students who received a tuition fee discount. However, the decrease is far lower for late student departure. Taking into account not only the tuition fees but also the direct costs of the educational process (living expenses), even if students receive the highest discount (50% of tuition fees) and work while studying they would still not cover the total direct costs of education. Thus, the authors favour widening the support for students of a lower economic status.
Nancy Palacios Mena and John Fredy Ariza Bulla studied the relationship between the socioeconomic conditions of higher education students in Colombia and their academic performance before and during the pandemic. Results show that, before the pandemic, mother’s graduate education, among other things, had a positive impact on student performance as did having a computer and internet connection at home and studying at a public institution, especially at a high-quality accredited establishment. During the pandemic, the effect of technological assets and belonging to a high-quality accredited establishment increased. The positive effect of the mother’s education remained. The results highlight how important socioeconomic variables are in determining academic performance in a pandemic, which translates into larger educational gaps in the future.
Student evaluations of teaching have multiple purposes, including public accountability, performance management and the improvement of teaching and learning. However, it is the latter that is regarded as important aspect by students and academic staff. Elena Zaitseva and Anna S. Law explore concerns about homogeneity and relevance of questions by bringing the student voice into the process of module evaluation. They wanted to understand the similarities and differences in priorities of different demographic groups and create a bank of questions that module leaders could use to customise their evaluations. They conclude that student involvement in the process of devising questions is beneficial for students as they have an authentic opportunity to provide their feedback and it is beneficial for staff as the results of the evaluation potentially lead to increased awareness and insights about student learning approaches and processes.