Working Group C(Prof. Sanae MAEDA)

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Working Group C(Prof. Sanae MAEDA)"

つかさあざみ
5 years ago
Views:

1 The Creation of Quality Assurance Systems in Higher Education in East Asia Learning from Case Studies in North America and Europe Sanae Maeda Introduction The topic assigned for this report is to introduce examples of quality assurance in higher education in North America and Europe, as well as to offer opinion for accreditation systems in East Asia. Given the extremely broad scope of this topic and my research expertise in accreditation systems in the U.S., I decided to focus the report primarily on external quality assurance agencies. I. Trends in Institutional Accreditation in the U.S. The American higher education system has been a worldwide paragon of success, and has often been modeled by numerous other countries. Starting in the 1980s, however, a decline in academic achievement became a concern, as is well known. Congress and other decision-making bodies began to take a critical look at the effectiveness of the accreditation system, which up until then had been a major contributor to maintaining high standards in higher education. This criticism was based on whether accreditation activities were indeed resulting in acceptable success as a basis for distributing federal grants. This then led to the scrutiny of the evaluation of student achievement as an element of the accreditation process starting in the 1990s when amendments were made to the Higher Education Act. Under the current Higher Education Opportunity Act as well, in light of higher education institution and program missions, accreditation agencies are required to have standards to measure the level of success of student achievement. In response to requirements by the Federal Government, accreditation agencies have carried out a variety of reforms starting in the 1990s indicating that the focus should be shifted from evaluation based on input to achievement-based evaluation of higher education institutions. Let s take a closer look at some examples of institutional accreditation agency activities. 1. North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA) In addition to traditional accreditation programs, this agency also runs the Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP), which aims to raise the quality of educational institutions that have already been accredited. AQIP not only conducts site visits once every seven years but also requires program participants to submit an annual report covering nine distinct categories to encourage continual improvement. 2. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) Before conducting an accreditation visit, SACS uses an off-site review process to determine whether the educational institution meets SACS core requirements and standards. They also require the submission of a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) to ensure that the institution is taking measures to improve the quality of the education it offers.

2 3. Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) WASC organizes its accreditation standards into four categories. Its accreditation process focuses on academic achievement and is divided into three stages: proposal, capacity and preparatory review, and educational effectiveness review. The second and third stages are conducted in the form of accreditation visits. The full process takes a minimum of three years to complete. Trends in the U.S. accreditation system, based on the reforms mentioned above, can be summarized as follows: Accreditation agencies place a heavy emphasis on improvements in education in performing their evaluations. Accreditation agencies expect universities to validate improvements in education by means of learning outcome assessments. When taking measures to improve education, it is up to each university to decide the areas and methods of the measures. Whether a university meets basic requirements and whether they are taking measures to improve education are evaluated separately. The effectiveness of the latter does not affect the accreditation status. This distinction makes the progress of the quality assurance process visible, and it facilitates in the creation of measures to improve education. The accreditation agency staff and the higher education institution work together in cooperation in the accreditation process. Finally, it is quite noteworthy that as Federal Government requirements regarding accreditation agencies become more stringent, evaluation methods used by these agencies for accreditation have actually grown to be more diverse. This gives evidence to the fact that the approaches to improving education are indeed varied. The series of changes that have occurred in accreditation in the U.S. contains many aspects that serve as useful references in improving quality assurance systems. At the same time, accreditation in the U.S. has not provided much insight in the case where multiple countries are working in partnership. This is because accreditation emphasizes the equivalence of programs offered at a main campus with programs offered at remote locations, and it operates under the policy that the agency that accredits the main campus will evaluate remote-location programs with consistency. II. Quality Assurance Trends in Europe A Focus on Quality Assurance Agency Registration and Recognition Quality assurance in Europe is founded upon the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), created in 2005 by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), and is based on the Bologna Process. The ESG is divided into three main areas: internal quality assurance within higher education institutions, external quality assurance of higher education, and external quality assurance agencies. The primary emphasis is placed upon internal quality assurance, stating

3 that external quality assurance of higher education and external quality assurance agency activities are characterized as being based upon the effectiveness of internal quality assurance. The fact that external quality assurance of higher education and external quality assurance agencies are each covered in separate sections suggests that the different nations of Europe do not necessarily have the same external quality assurance systems. The document also proposes that external quality assurance agencies should be evaluated every five years and that a registration system for European quality assurance agencies should be started. Such a system would make it easier to locate reliable external quality assurance agencies in various areas of expertise. This suggests that Europe is planning to strengthen accreditation using external quality assurance agencies across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In 2008, the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) was started according to recommendations made by the ESG. As of November 2010, there were 24 EQAR-registered quality assurance agencies conducting quality assurance activities in accordance with ESG guidelines. If the number of registered agencies continues to steadily increase, a consistent quality assurance system spanning all of the EHEA could possibly be achieved. Currently, however, there is a broad spectrum of quality assurance systems for higher education institutions across Europe, ranging from countries that use an audit system, to countries that use accreditation, to countries with no quality assurance systems other than establishment approval. A close eye will need to be kept on EQAR to see if they can still be effective while embracing this diversity. The establishment of a quality assurance registration system was considered by the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) about ten years ago. At the time, however, the concept was still premature, and in its place the Guidelines of Good Practice (GGP) were established, which are still followed autonomously today by member agencies. A number of examples have been reported where accreditation agencies of countries with similar linguistic and cultural backgrounds have come together through INQAAHE meetings and have autonomously established mutual recognition based on the GGP. There is also the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA), which establishes mutual recognition among accreditation agencies. While all the activities outlined above are being performed based on close partnerships, there remains much that could be learned from Europe s experience in the area of accreditation. For example, how are registration systems and mutual recognition related and how do they differ in terms of effectiveness? And, to what degree should differences be tolerated when recognizing accreditation agencies in different countries? Conclusion What should be learned about quality assurance in the U.S. and Europe and applied to the situation in East Asia? While this continues to be a topic to be researched, I would suggest the following points: National Quality Assurance Have higher education institutions base their own quality on academic achievement.

4 Accordingly, attempt to create internal quality assurance systems as a result of improvements in education. (Due to space constraints, this could not be mentioned above.) As a prerequisite, work toward consensus of all faculty and staff of a university regarding quality. In other words, foster a quality culture that strives to provide high-quality education. Have quality assurance agencies support the creation of internal quality assurance systems at universities, and create evaluation systems that promote this. Quality Assurance in East Asia Investigate how useful it would be to reference Europe s experience in mutually recognizing differences in quality assurance systems based on historical backgrounds, such languages, religions and cultures. Also, research what challenges we face that are distinct from those confronted in Europe. Have the governments of each country firmly take responsibility for establishing their own higher education system standards.

5 東アジアにおける高等教育の質保証システム構築について - 欧米の事例から何を学ぶか - 前田早苗はじめに今回報告者に与えられたテーマは欧州米国における質保証の事例紹介とともに東アジアにおけるアクレディテーションの在り方について提言を行うという非常に幅広いものであったそこでこれまでアメリカのアクレディテーションシステムを対象としてきた報告者の研究経歴から主に評価機関に焦点を当てて考察を行った 1 アメリカ合衆国における機関別評価の動向アメリカの高等教育は世界で最も成功をおさめ各国のモデルともなってきたが 1980 年代に入ると学生の学力低下が問題視されるようになったことは周知のとおりである高等教育の水準の維持に貢献してきたアクレディテーションの有効性についても連邦議会等から批判が出されるようになってきたその批判とは果たしてその活動が連邦政府の奨学金の配分根拠としてふさわしい成果をあげえているかというものである 1990 年代から高等教育法の改正のたびにアクレディテーションプロセスにおける学習成果の評価のあり方がクローズアップされるようになってきたのはこのためである現行の高等教育機会法においてもアクレディテーション団体は教育機関またはプログラムの使命に照らして学生の学習成果がどの程度成功を収めているかを測定するための基準を持つことが義務付けられている政府の要請を受けてアクレディテーション団体は 1990 年代からインプット的な評価から教育機関の成果評価へと重点を移すべく様々な改革を行ってきた機関別アクレディテーション団体の活動から例をあげてみよう 1 北中部地区基準協会 (North Central Association of Schools and Colleges (NCA) ) オーソドックスなアクレディテーションプログラムに加えすでに認定を得ている教育機関を対象にした教育質改善プログラム (Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP)) を実施している AQIP は 7 年に 1 回の訪問にとどまらず 9 つのカテゴリーについて毎年報告書の提出を求めることで教育機関の継続的な改善を目指すものである 2 南部地区基準協会 (Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) ) 訪問評価の前にオフサイト評価によって教育機関として備えるべき主要な要件や SACS の基準に適合しているか否かを確認するプロセスを設けるとともに教育改善に焦点を当てた質改善プラン (Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) ) の提出を求めている 3 西部地区基準協会 (Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) ) アクレディテーション基準を4 項目に整理するとともに評価プロセスを学習成果の評価を中心に据えた3 段階 ( 申請 (Proposal) 基盤的能力評価(Capacity and Preparatory Review) 教育有効性評価(Educational Effectiveness Review)) に分け第 2 段階と第 3 段階で訪問評価を行うこのプロセスは最短でも終了まで3 年を擁する

6 これらの改革からアメリカのアクレディテーションの動向を次のように整理できるアクレディテーション団体は教育改善に重点を置いた評価を行っている教育改善の検証は学習の成果評価によって行うことを大学に求めている教育改善のための取り組みは領域方法とも大学の意思で決定できる大学としての基本的な要件を満たしていることと教育改善に取り組むことを別次元に分けている教育改善への取り組み状況をアクレディテーションの地位には反映させていないこの区別は質保証のプロセスの進行状況を可視化するとともに大学が教育改善に取り組みやすくしているアクレディテーションプロセスでアクレディテーション団体のスタッフと教育機関の協力体制が取られている最後に非常に興味深いことはアクレディテーション団体に対する連邦政府の要請が強まった事がアクレディテーションの評価方法の多様化を促している点である教育改善のためのアプローチは多様であることを物語っているアメリカのアクレディテーションにおける一連の変化は質保証システムの充実を目指す際に参考となる点が多いただしアメリカのアクレディテーションは国境を越えた複数の国の連携には示唆を与えてくれないなぜならアクレディテーションの基本が本校で提供されるプログラムと遠隔地でのプログラムの同等性を重視し本校を認定した団体が一貫して評価を行うという方針を取っているからである 2 ヨーロッパにおける質保証の動向質保証機関の登録承認の視点からヨーロッパの質保証の中核をなすのはボローニャプロセスに基づいて欧州高等教育質保証協会 (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education(ENQA)) が 2005 年に作成した欧州高等教育における質保証のための基準およびガイドライン (Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area(ESG)) である ESG はヨーロッパの高等教育の質保証を高等教育機関による内部質保証外部質保証外部質保証機関による質保証の3つに分けてヨーロッパ基準とガイドラインを作成しとりわけ内部質保証に重点を置き外部質保証および外部質保証機関は内部質保証を尊重して実施することとしている点に特色があるまた外部質保証と外部質保証機関を別のパートにしてそれぞれ記述しているのは現在のヨーロッパ各国が必ずしも同様の外部質保証システムを有しているのではないことを示しているといってよいだろうただし外部質保証機関については 5 年周期で評価を受けることヨーロッパの質保証機関を登録する制度を発足させることも提言されており登録制度によって専門性を備えた信頼できる外部質保証機関がどこであるかを容易に明らかにするとしていることから欧州高等教育圏 (European Higher Education Area (EHEA)) を通じて外部質保証機関による評価の充実を予定していると考えられる 2008 年には ESG の提言に沿ってヨーロッパの質保証機関登録制度としてEQAR

7 (European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education) が開始された 2010 年 11 月現在で 24 の質保証機関 (quality assurance agency) が ESG を順守した質保証活動を行っているとして EQAR に登録されている今後も順調に登録機関が増加すれば EHEA 全体での整合性のとれた質保証システムが実現するかもしれないしかしヨーロッパ各国の質保証システムはさまざまであり教育機関の質保証システムとして監査方式を取っている国アクレディテーションを実施している国設置認可以外に質保証システムを持っていない国がある EQAR がこのような違いをも包含して効力を発揮できるか否かは注視する必要がある質保証機関の登録制度は 10 年ほど前に質保証機関の国際ネットワーク (International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)) でも実施が検討されたことがあるしかし当時は時期尚早であるとしてグッドプラクティスのガイドライン (Guidelines of Good Practice(GGP)) を策定しメンバー機関が自主的にこれを順守することで今日に至っている INQAAHEの会議では言語文化などの背景が近い国の評価機関同士が GGP を利用して自主的に相互承認 (mutual recognition) を行った例がいくつか報告されているまた欧州アクレディテーション協会 (European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) がアクレディテーションを実施している機関に限定して相互承認を行っている以上にあげたいずれの活動も緊密な連携のもとに行われているが登録制度と相互承認はどのような関係があるのか効果にどのような差があるのか国を越えて評価機関を承認するにはどのような差異を容認できるのかなど今後ヨーロッパの経験を学ぶことが重要な課題となろうおわりに東アジアにおける質保証にとって欧米から何を学びとるべきであろうか私にとっては研究の課題であり続けているが以下に列挙してみたい国内の質保証に関して高等教育機関は自身の質について学生の学習を中心に据えるしたがって教育改善から内部質保証システムの構築に取り組む ( 紙幅の関係で上で言及できなかったが ) その前提として質について大学の構成員の合意を図るすなわち良質の教育を提供しようという質の文化 (quality culture) を醸成する質保証機関は大学の内部質保証システム構築を支援し促進する評価システムを構築する東アジアの質保証に関してヨーロッパにおける言語宗教文化などの歴史的背景による質保証システムの差異を認め合うという経験は東アジアにおいてどの程度参考になるのかまた東アジアにはほかにどのような困難があるのかについて確認をする政府は自国の高等教育制度の水準についての確固たる責任を持つ

学位研究17号

学位研究17号 1715 3 The Student Transfer and the Articulation System in Chinese Higher Education HUANG Meiying Research in Academic Degrees, No. 17 March, 2003the article The Journal on Academic Degrees of National