Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

Presented as a quality assurance training model, the professional reflections and summary conclusions outlined below are derived from knowledge and expertise developed during a variety of quality assurance training programmes (organised between 2013 and 2020) with different objectives, different participant profiles, spanning different national contexts. Whether commissioned by higher education institutions for capacity building, required by an agency for method briefings and refreshers, or generated by sector needs for continuous professional development, the successive training programmes gave opportunity to explore specific content requirements, interactive techniques, development procedures, networking dispositions and sectoral sensitivities, thus determining iterative adjustments in design and delivery. Depending on the context and culture participants operate in, their priorities will be different, as will the expectations and biases with which they approach the training. The model proposed outlines how such differences may influence training design and delivery to determine a successful training experience in the eyes of both trainer and participant.

As staff development comes to occupy a more central position in strategic planning, it becomes of paramount importance that any training sessions that staff engage with, for development purposes, are responsive to individualised organisational needs and aim to consolidate strategic directions, positive attitudes and professional values, with recognisable benefits for the wider academic community.

This shift in perspective also reveals heightened awareness about the suitability of institutional roles and corresponding staff profiles to take forward such commitment and drive necessary change. Evidence suggests that a display of hybrid academic-professional competences can lead to more empathic interactions with key stakeholders and will strengthen institutional management functions and consolidate quality cultures (Greere & Riley, Citation2014 ; Froyen et al ., Citation2014 ; Sursock, Citation2015 ). These drivers are generating a more systematic approach to capacity building and professional staff training; one that supports higher education in its endeavours to better articulate and formally underpin the concept of quality and its diverse manifestations at institutional and national levels. Interest in such approach has been noted for agencies (Blackstock et al ., Citation2012 ) and institutions (Sursock, Citation2011 ) alike and is more recently explicitly coupled with corresponding strategic investments (Gaebel & Zhang, Citation2018 ).

With the completion of several accreditation or licensing cycles in various national contexts, the compliance approach is recognised as rendering less value for both institutions and implementing authorities (King, Citation2018 ). External quality assurance, as a mechanism to allow the demonstration of accountability in relation to public funding, is documented as steadily moving towards a developmental, enhancement-led direction (Kelo, Citation2014 ), with students and other external stakeholders taking greater interest in levels of educational performance above a given baseline, be that even a high baseline in international comparisons. Emerging expectations of excellence highlight the transformative and exceptional facets of the quality definition (Schindler et al ., Citation2015 ) and encourage unstifled innovation to effectively fuel societal advancement. Equally, internal quality assurance is exhibiting increasingly inclusive, maturing approaches promoting models of distributed empowerment and shared ownership, with institutional leadership embedding bottom-up initiatives and embracing stakeholder engagement (Greere & Riley, Citation2014 ). Institutions are demonstrably less reliant on external directions and more confident in their capacity to exhibit autonomy as they define, design, develop and monitor their own fit-for-purpose internal systems (Gover & Loukkola, Citation2018 ), by reframing quality assurance to reverse perceptions of bureaucracy and give priority to continuous enhancement. These developments are arguably also the result of recurrent calls for embedding, promoting and fostering institutional quality cultures, through a holistic approach (Ehlers, Citation2009 ) and the strategic commitments demonstrated within the higher education sector towards such aim (Gover & Loukkola, Citation2018 ).

More systematic approaches to quality in higher education have been at the forefront of academic debate for over two decades (Harvey & Williams, Citation2010 ). During this time, attempts at providing institutional frameworks to address strategic goals of formalising quality assurance processes in the interests of consistency, comparability and continuity have dominated development planning. Organisational restructurings aimed at effectively implementing such frameworks have allowed for specific (individual or collective) quality assurance roles and responsibilities to be included, without any typical solution observed (Loukkola & Zhang, Citation2010 ). Commonly, individual quality assurance roles could either be assigned or delegated to professionals with particular expertise in administrative processes or academics with an existing management portfolio, frequently drawn from senior levels (Sursock, Citation2011 ). In some instances, the taking on of specific institutional quality assurance tasks may have been the result of an immediate appointment with minimum preparation or training; and only external quality assurance requirements to guide internal action. Furthermore, the challenges facing such quality assurance roles would be amplified if institutional directions aimed to cater exclusively to external expectations prioritising compliance (Newton, Citation2002 ), as a tick-box exercise, and promoting tactical quick-fixes to the detriment of well-articulated, longer-term plans that align with and strategically support the assumed mission, vision and values of the institution (Gordon, Citation2002 ). More misguided institutional approaches could even fail to recognise the adequacy of existing procedures over newly promoted external solutions and exert pressure to implement change where this might be insufficiently justifiable or even contextually inappropriate. Equally detrimental could be situations where quality assurance appointees would work in isolation, with leadership demonstrating disengaged or uninterested attitudes, thus undermining efforts to shape a system that could have traction within the community (Sursock, Citation2011 ). Consequently, gaps in quality assurance expertise coupled with any such disempowering institutional reactions (Seyfried & Pohlenz, Citation2018 ) to external quality assurance requirements could make quality assurance responsibilities difficult to manage, despite high commitment levels.

Subsequently, in 2020, the malleability of the training model was tested and validated in quality assurance training sessions designed and delivered for the Tbilisi State University in Georgia and the British Accreditation Council in the United Kingdom, determining its application by international relocation, in the former instance, and by extension of scope towards further education, in the latter instance. Some specific emphases or minor variations in content were recommendable due to the on-going COVID-19 pandemic (for example, increased priority in internal quality assurance given to aspects of parity and sustainability for online experiences, protection from major changes and mental health support) but these could be classed as contextual adjustments, which the model pertinently accommodates.

Across the five years, the author co-led on the design and delivery of six five-day cross-institutional quality assurance professional development training sessions, two four-day institution-based capacity building training sessions and eight two-day quality assurance method-specific trainings. The six iterations (2013/1x, 2014/2x, 2015/1x, 2016/2x) of the International Quality Assurance Programme brought together international delegates in senior quality assurance positions, either in providers or agencies, to further enhance their understanding of quality assurance realities, including in cross-national settings, and to offer advanced solutions for practice, both as external and internal quality assurance arrangement. On average, there were 22 participants per session, over 120 participants from a total of 33 countries across all six continents, allowing for rich cultural and contextual debates. Each session collected feedback from participants, which was analysed and subsequently used to refine the content and delivery of the next session. The two capacity building trainings (2014 Saudi Arabia, 2017 Qatar), commissioned directly by higher education institutions and catered to the specific institutional and national contexts, were targeted towards academic or administrative staff preparing for increased engagement with internal quality assurance arrangements. The total number of participants was in the range of 70 across both sessions. The model presented below is a direct derivative of combined conclusions from all these sessions and is based on a cycle of programme design, programme delivery, programme monitoring through observations and feedback and continuous refinements.

Initially, multiple quality assurance training events delivered between 2013 and 2017 in support of activities offered by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the United Kingdom generated empirical observations of participant reactions in-session, coupled with post-session participant feedback. The observations and opinions captured qualitatively were consistently used to support iterative adjustments made with each new session regarding the content determined to be of interest, the training activities and interactive methods for delivery, as well as the messages with most impact taken away by participants as lessons learned.

The validity and reliability of the practical insights discussed throughout the article are safeguarded by the breadth and depth of experiences that the model draws on. The components of the model have been trialed and tested in a variety of training settings, with diverse participant profiles, allowing for relevant adjustments and validation.

The article explores areas with practical relevance for quality assurance training programmes and systematises practice-based experiences into a training model highlighting effective design and delivery strategies. The model discusses: (1) the optimal content for comprehensive quality assurance training; (2) the most appreciated options for delivery; (3) the key messages that need to be incorporated. Relevant distinctions are made between participant profiles, namely, quality assurance professionals, with direct responsibility for quality assurance, and other stakeholders, with expected contributions to quality assurance, such as academic and administrative staff. Although the analysis does not specifically refer to students, they can successfully engage with such training depending on the responsibilities attributed to them or the contributions they are expected to make. There is high likelihood that the quality assurance contributor profile is better suited for the majority of students that demonstrate an interest in quality assurance.

Towards a model for quality assurance training in higher education

In proposing quality assurance training, elements such as: context, content, delivery, outcomes and measures of success need to be considered. The model was developed to analyse these elements and present options for implementing training programmes relevant to different participant profiles.

It is important to note, from the outset, that this model views quality as a dynamic and progressive concept heavily influenced by contextual and cultural features. What is identifiable as best practice at a given point in time, and as exhibited by only a select few, will eventually be emulated by others ambitiously wanting to keep pace and, thus, becomes good practice. Soon, this may be so widespread that it is treated as commonly expected ‘sound practice’ and may find itself being built into the external quality standards that constitute baseline requirements. At such a point, there will likely be a variety of adapted and improved manifestations of what was initially that one identifiable feature of best practice.

The model also acknowledges that, sometimes, best practices do not follow such an incremental and layered process of adoption into external standards, with best practices being promoted by means of direct incorporation into the standards, thus demanding that attention be shifted imperatively towards their implementation. Baseline requirements, generally set at national or even supra-national levels, aim to safeguard the awareness of institutions about agreed or promoted expectations and to ensure that institutions put commensurate effort into not falling below a given bar.

Furthermore, the model recognises quality as a flexible and variable concept. Best practice, as identified in a maturing national higher education sector, may already be considered sound, expected practice or even practice frowned upon in other more competitive and more mature national contexts.

Consequently, good quality, which quality assurance systems seek to maintain or enhance, can be the combined result of individualised institutional efforts and collective national goals for higher education. Nevertheless, when these commitments are articulated by proactively extending interest towards the international dimensions of higher education, the descriptors for quality often change and ‘sound’, ‘good’, or even ‘best’ practice is replaced by ‘excellent’, ‘outstanding’, or ‘internationally recognised’ practice, funnelling further the concept of quality. The setting of quality standards can thus be demonstrated to involve a compilation or mixture of compliance-based, enhancement-led, or, even, excellence-fuelled approaches, which all support the transformative aims for higher education.

With excellence becoming a commonly-strived-for marker of quality that claims to situate provision above national agendas in the global arena of higher education, it is not surprising that all training participants will wish to unpick this concept. Competitive drivers are represented at both institutional and governmental levels, with disproportionate efforts made to qualify ‘excellence’ by the use of other superlative expressions, such as, ‘world-class’ and ‘consistently outstanding’, or to differentiate levels of ‘excellence’, for example, as ‘gold’, ‘silver’ or ‘bronze’ (Office for Students 2021 in England). Linkage to funding can further fuel this pursuit of ‘excellence’, making it even more understandable why participants would join the training impatiently wishing to leap towards excellence before the groundwork may be completed. However, claims of excellence become valid only when substantiated through consistently systematic demonstrations of international comparability, which can rarely be rushed into. Robust quality assurance systems are constituted on a continuum of ‘compliance-assurance-enhancement-excellence’ and recognise the value of a sequential approach that embeds relevant practices at each stage.

The model presented here is designed to promote this systemic approach where compliance-assurance-enhancement-excellence are captured on a continuum and encourages that content training blocks are delivered by consideration of the variations experienced by individual participants. As such, discussions should relevantly focus on eliciting contextual and cultural implications that may affect the development of various higher education practices as pertaining to the continuum stages.

The model sets out to consolidate the compliance-assurance dimensions, before it recommends a move to enhancement-excellence tactics. Thus, initial focus during delivery is on ascertaining compliance-assurance parameters with a view to, subsequently, facilitating enhancement-excellence strides. Detailed understanding of internal possibilities and external expectations will help training participants pinpoint the position their institution or organisation finds itself in regarding the continuum stages, what implementation solutions may be applicable and how it may progress more smoothly through the continuum stages, both holistically, for the institution or organisation overall, and specifically, for explicit practices within.

Context of quality assurance training

Training programmes on quality assurance in higher education vary in focus, length, objectives and participant profile. Each variable can have a profound impact on the design of the training and its ability to fulfill expectations and be labelled successful, that is, worth the time, effort and money of the participants or the institution or organisation they represent.

There are multiple scenarios for quality assurance training ranging from appointed quality assurance professionals seeking to upgrade their expertise (either for individual development or because their institution or agency has identified such need) to existing academics or administrators who find themselves having to respond to or support institutional quality assurance procedures due to evolving internal requirements or upcoming external scrutiny, through accreditation or review visits. The former frequently occurs when a body responsible for quality assurance in higher education (agency, association, ministry) launches a quality assurance professional development programme targeting existing higher education professionals or academics with varying degrees of experience in or exposure to quality assurance. In this case, the main objective is to develop advanced quality assurance professional expertise by providing a structured context in which specialised knowledge, skills and attitudes can be explored, extended and enhanced. The latter may be better classed as quality assurance capacity building, that is, initial or basic training, where an institution aims to expand the number and range of employees who demonstrate sufficient quality assurance understanding to allow them to operate effectively within institutional settings and engage meaningfully with quality assurance processes. Participants in the former category usually have responsibility for implementation of quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms, frequently at senior or managerial levels, as part of their job description. Participants in the latter category rarely have responsibility for quality assurance across various institutional levels, such as faculty, department, or programme, as their main job function but will generally be responsible for a given academic or administrative area that is subject to quality assurance requirements and needs to align to specified standards due to internal institutional strategic drivers or external national or international educational obligations. For the quality assurance professionals, quality assurance is their primary responsibility and their commitment to professional development is certain to be strong, while their motivation to engage with training activities is guaranteed. Commonly, quality assurance professionals approach such training with clear expectations about the learning outcomes; they will likely have prepared concrete questions and selected own experiences to test out with peers. Therefore, quality assurance professional development programmes should be flexible enough and allow space to respond to such needs and interests. For other stakeholders, quality assurance is frequently viewed as a one-off interaction. More often they may join the training in response to a request or invitation by senior management and less due to a genuine desire to progress in this area. Anticipated levels of engagement with the proposed content and activities may be initially skewed. Consequently, quality assurance capacity building programmes need to be designed to dispel any preconceived reluctance, possibly even negative opinions, and build motivation and commitment for future contributions to quality assurance processes. Both training scenarios should aim to develop a sense of professional empowerment, which participants can carry effectively forward into their daily activities and translate into noticeable benefits for the wider academic community.

Other varieties of quality assurance-driven development set-ups, for example, training for reviewers or assessors in new or updated external quality assurance methodologies or briefings and refreshers for staff working in higher education institutions on internal quality assurance policy, are generally shorter, more targeted, addressing niche objectives. The model proposed here does not consider these specifically. It focusses on training that aims at a holistic approach to quality assurance by fostering the acquisition of comprehensive views of quality assurance phenomena, as well as a full appreciation of the extent to which quality assurance underpins professional and academic roles and responsibilities. The following analysis compares and contrasts training for advanced quality assurance professional development with initial quality assurance capacity building as it considers effective design and delivery options.

Content of quality assurance training

Quality assurance professional development events are frequently cross-organisational bringing together participants with a more or less extensive quality assurance background and current quality assurance responsibilities but from different contextual settings. Capacity building events, on the other hand, may be more commonly delivered to a group of participants who are affiliated with the same institution, having senior responsibilities for some key structural areas, but who have had little, if any, exposure to quality assurance-specific processes. Whereas content building blocks and corresponding topics () apply equally for both training types, the participant profile will determine the expectations about the event and guide the choice and emphasis for given content components.

Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

All authors

Anca

Greerehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.2020978

Table 1. Topics to be considered in designing quality assurance training programmes (at advanced and initial levels)

Download CSVDisplay Table

Overall, quality assurance professionals tend to approach training sessions as creators or designers of quality assurance systems, while other stakeholders see themselves as contributors or users of quality assurance structures. Accordingly, quality assurance professionals seek solutions to challenges and engage with ideas for new approaches and methods to boost the higher education environment (their focus is on the ‘how’), while other stakeholders generally want to understand the rationale for their requested contribution and the impact of projected outcomes (their focus is on the ‘why’). Both groups require a more elaborated view of quality assurance phenomena but, for the former, this has inter-institutional, cross-national dimensions, while for the latter, it is primarily intra-institutional with national implications.

Suggested content topics can feature in a similar sequence but with different emphases across the two quality assurance training types (advanced professional development and initial capacity building).

Setting the scene (content block A)

The icebreaker discussion can start by exploring participants’ views on how they perceive quality in higher education, how they define it, how they contribute to it, how they evaluate it (individually and collectively) and then direct reflection on the role of quality assurance within higher education and the approaches available. Crucially, it must ensure that the scene is set with a strong recognition that quality in higher education is not an artificial construct but rather the result of inherent commitment leading to organic development. Altogether, all quality assurance training participants, quality assurance professionals and other stakeholders need to appreciate that quality in higher education is a flexible, multifaceted reality that manifests differently across different institutional settings, with measures of quality commonly referencing adaptability-to-context and fitness-for-purpose.

The much-sought-after ‘quality culture’ is equally flexible and can appear elusive, although there may be a ‘taken-for-granted meaning attached to it’ (Harvey & Stensaker, Citation2008). Objectives, frequently institutionally formulated, to ‘establish’ a quality culture (including as reported in EUA, Citation2006) can be seen as fundamentally flawed in approach. Each institution already demonstrates an existing quality culture as a compilation of positive academic and non-academic experiences that contribute to strategic societal goals. Every action and interaction that has the capacity to build knowledge and understanding, competences and skills, attitudes and values transferable to a mindset of innovation and development are direct contributors to higher education quality. Therefore, quality needs to be recognised and nurtured, sustained and enhanced, shared and multiplied, rather than created or imported. Quality, underpinned by quality work, needs to be perceived as a manifestation of the day-to-day responsibilities of various higher education stakeholders, characterised by on-going ‘intention and effort’ (Elken & Stensaker, Citation2018, p. 196), rather than an add-on burden. Quality assurance is best understood as a framework that aims to protect quality and give institutions appropriate processes and tools to clearly identify, better appreciate, relevantly disseminate and constantly improve quality so that any individualised pocket of quality can be captured and considered for strategic and systemic aims.

Importantly, participants need to gain awareness of and be able to situate quality-driven actions on a continuum where compliance, assurance, enhancement and excellence form various stages reflective of the level of current or future development. A systematic and relevantly sequenced approach that recognises the value of each stage can promote iterative and incremental progress and ensure quality actions are successfully implemented and permanently embedded. In contrast, premature ambitions of excellence can undermine such systematic efforts and risk placing undue pressure, with frequently unwanted consequences, on all stakeholders, emphasising the perception of burden and determining a desire to disengage.

Exploring national contexts and their implications for quality assurance requires a differentiated approach for the two training scenarios. Advanced quality assurance training, where the institutional or national profiles of participants may be mixed, necessitates comparative discussion across specific higher education sectors, standards and expectations to ensure a collective appreciation of the underlying specificities that can determine variation in the application of quality assurance procedures. Participants need to be open to broadening their perspectives and developing a comprehensive approach for the analysis of potentially adequate solutions. The capacity to take on a new reality and use it as a filter for their own reality can guide participants to choose innovative, advanced options for cross-cultural quality assurance implementation. If quality assurance professionals may need to take a global, overarching view, other stakeholders often require, at this point, in their training, more clarity on institutionally set strategic ambitions and will appreciate the opportunity to engage in detailed discussion of their institution’s mission and vision for a more thorough understanding of how these fit within national, regional and international settings. Accordingly, advanced training should aim to discuss the national context in detail (including any political drivers) and shift towards specific institutional realities only if there is expressed interest or concern; initial training can explore institutional realities in breadth and depth while merely acknowledging those aspects of the national context that create consequences at institutional level. Eliciting institutional specificity, for a given institution or multiple institutions by comparison, and clarifying the defining characteristics of institutional dynamics within structures and roles that affect quality assurance developments will allow for focused discussions on core topics included in the training.

Internal quality assurance (content block B)

Internal quality assurance arrangements also require different emphases for the two training profiles.

In quality assurance professional development training events, it is recommended that initially, a shared understanding is developed through an overview of areas contributing to quality (what builds up quality in higher education?; where do priorities lie?), with the acknowledgement that, although comparable, their manifestation-in-context will differ across institutional and national settings. Subsequently, emphasis can move directly to challenges and options, with a detailed discussion of the implications of various solutions and their perceived acceptability in specified contexts. Analyses of national and international higher education realities will allow training designers to elicit problematic elements and engage a high level of interest in participants. Sessions devoted to internal quality assurance should take a cross-national, cross-cultural approach highlighting variations and their specific validations in context, giving attention to what makes internal quality assurance arrangements reliable, workable and justifiable.

For quality assurance capacity building, the approach is intra-institutional and inter-institutional aiming to comprehensively analyse the synergies between higher education areas and the necessary dynamics for development. Participants are first presented with an exhaustive list of areas in focus for quality assurance, drawing on referential standards and corroborated with a description of applicable tools. The next step is to shift emphasis towards areas of direct interest for participants by highlighting the contributions they can make and the impact they can generate within their individual roles. It is of equal importance to explore correlations with other areas and ensure that there is a clear understanding of with whom participants need to collaborate and whom they can engage to support actions within their own areas of responsibility. Discussions need to be guided by existing specificities of internal institutional arrangements and their demonstrable fitness-for-purpose. These arrangements can be analysed by comparison with baseline expectations that focus on ensuring compliance and above-baseline parameters that target enhancement. Such differentiated approach allows for an in-depth exploration of areas that need attention, for which without immediate, impactful action risks are likely to arise, as well as areas worthy of development, for which well-targeted action can render valuable enhancements. Concrete actions can start to take shape and, subsequently, be considered for integration into strategic implementation tools, such as development or action plans. Depending on institutional aspirations, these discussions may benchmark nationally or internationally against institutions with similar profiles, or different profiles if major developments are envisaged. Examples of such developments can include: planned growth in student numbers; expansion of disciplines offered; extension of delivery locations possibly through addition of campuses; variation of collaboration models such as validation or franchise; a change in status from non-degree-awarding to degree-awarding or from applied to research-intensive; or, an enhanced international presence through transnational education.

As part of any debate focused on internal quality assurance, specific training time should be allocated for the analysis of higher education arrangements that are frequently identified as demonstrating lack of awareness, significant gaps, insufficient implementation, or less than appropriate outcomes (). For example, there is often a debate regarding what constitutes sufficient or effective stakeholder engagement and which underpinning quality assurance procedures may render relevant results. Attention can fall on applicable techniques for engagement, for example, ad hoc consultation, surveying, formal committee representation; necessary or recommended level and frequency of engagement; benefits and challenges for specific stakeholder profiles; and minimum or meaningful support offered to stakeholders to discharge expected responsibilities by providing clear role descriptors, detailed terms of reference, explicit methodological guidance, targeted training, mentoring or development schemes. Similarly, the integration of employability aims will spark stimulating discussions, as will reflections on parity, retention and development. Different models for widening participation, recognition of prior learning, research-infused teaching and work-based learning are also likely to generate strong interest, as will arrangements for administrative structures, commonly under-resourced and insufficiently considered, capable of providing academic support, pastoral care and legal protection.

Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

All authors

Anca

Greere https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.2020978

Table 2. Internal quality assurance areas of development worth highlighting in training

Download CSVDisplay Table

A strong sense of what constitutes poor practice (below baseline), sound practice (at baseline) and good or best practice (above baseline) in these areas can provide a basis for needs analysis, action planning and ongoing development.

External quality assurance (content block C)

External quality assurance arrangements and their variable methodological features across national contexts and for different provider profiles commonly constitute the highlight for quality assurance professional development participants expecting to build more in-depth understanding of external quality assurance and its relevant drivers. Tackling major differentiating characteristics that influence the design, development and implementation of external quality assurance methodologies can equip participants with relevant information to assess the appropriateness of external arrangements for their own higher education sector and the capability of institutions to respond relevantly. Such methodological descriptors include: compliance-driven versus enhancement-led; risk-based versus cyclical; applied in strong regulatory national contexts versus autonomous self or co-regulatory contexts; with prescriptive versus non-prescriptive solutions; displaying reputational versus financial consequences. Discussing with participants the strategic and operational implications of external arrangements by identifying the applicable approach will allow for a realistic assessment of what may constitute anticipated attainment. This also sets clear parameters for inter-institutional and inter-national comparisons and allows participants to evaluate standards applicable in their contexts by consideration of the quality assurance continuum.

Other stakeholders are likely to have a more tangential interest in external quality assurance during the training and possibly only if upcoming external reviews or assessments are directly relevant to them. In this case, emphasis on procedural expectations, specific requirements and attainable outcomes can contribute to institutional readiness. It is important to build in time to explore, in detail, the questions participants may have regarding their expected contribution to individual phases of a review process, the areas most prominently scrutinised and any post-process activities generated by the outcomes obtained and the consequences these may carry.

Some of the most common areas that trigger acute interest are, arguably, those where there is already a high degree of awareness and a solid level of implementation but with different solutions deemed acceptable and functional across institutions (). The expectations of external quality assurance reviewers or assessors can be elicited through a thorough analysis of compliance requirements for the method being applied, coupled with sector thematic trends derived from recommendations for action as expressed in published reports.

Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

All authors

Anca

Greerehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.2020978

Table 3. Non-exhaustive list of areas likely to be scrutinised as part of external quality assurance

Download CSVDisplay Table

Essentially, external quality assurance is preoccupied with the appropriateness and effectiveness of strategically generated actions and processes that improve, maintain and enhance specific areas of higher education provision. External quality assurance methods undoubtedly aim to clarify the defining features of organisational culture and the role of systemic quality-driven actions to identify, integrate and multiply pockets of best practice. Reviewers endeavour to understand how the mission and vision of an institution underpins strategic developments and how these are then risk-tested to protect student and staff experiences. Governance structures that respond positively to public accountability through appropriate accessibility and transparency measures, ensure legal and relevant collaborations and protect academic freedom and innovation also come into focus. Similarly, committee structures that are expected to be fit-for-purpose, streamlined, with membership decided through inclusive appointment processes and supported by adequate development or training opportunities will definitely be under scrutiny. The benefits and challenges of drawing on external opinions to inform teaching, learning and research may also be analysed in detail, as will the interplay between various internal roles and the distribution of responsibility to ensure institutional decisions are generated and disseminated effectively. Particular attention may be devoted to the management of strategic aspirations, frequently targeting student centeredness, digital literacy, teaching-research synergies, internationalisation, employability or societal readiness. Likely to be of further interest are mechanisms for the integration of responsible, data-conscious use of technology and online media to promote learner autonomy, academic integrity, interdisciplinarity and student empowerment, also exhibited through confidence in voicing concerns.

Such initiatives are, generally, tested for context specificities, cultural sensitivities, resource-intensiveness, time-consumption and impact-generation. For example, insufficiently intense or meaningful student participation on senior management committees may be resolved by appropriate training or coaching, alternative to incentives or remuneration; internationalisation aims may be accomplished without outgoing mobility, if relevant internationalisation-at-home activities are instituted; academic integrity risks may be swiftly mitigated through a clear policy defining unacceptable practice and consequences of breach; and the communication of explicit grounds for appeal on admissions can ensure a less onerous, but equally judicious, process. Often, the mere existence of policies and their effective communication to stakeholders can contribute significantly to the appropriate implementation of solutions and consistent elimination of risk, allowing all parties involved to work with clear parameters in deciding action.

The synergies can be clearly acknowledged with institutional quality as the intrinsic aim for both internal and external quality assurance. The areas covered overlap significantly, and some repetition will be inevitable, but there can be debate about priorities in focus, at a given point in time, with shifts demonstrated to occur institutionally, nationally and internationally.

Delivery of quality assurance training

Generally, quality assurance specific areas are easier to follow if they are mapped onto the student journey and can be analysed progressively with a clear demonstration of their interdependencies. Sessions revolving around key questions of interest supported by case studies of current examples in practice can strongly resonate with participants, especially if they recognise a situation or can relevantly contextualise it within their own sector.

Training activities that allow participants to negotiate a shared understanding of what constitutes recommendable borderline or sound practice and what qualifies as commendable good or best practice tend to be well received, as are activities that raise awareness of applicable variations regarding how benefits and challenges may be perceived by stakeholders in response to different solutions for quality assurance implementation.

Activity design should take into account the fact that, for advanced quality assurance professional development training, participants know the areas of impact in higher education, are familiar with the applicable quality assurance mechanism and tools, have had more or less positive interaction with a variety of stakeholders and have themselves faced, through their roles, challenges relating to the implementation of quality assurance policies and procedures, including those for external assessments. However, these participants, having different institutional backgrounds from providers or agencies and representing different national requirements, will most likely value the opportunity to locate their existing knowledge, skills and attitudes in a broader perspective, to compare experiences with peers and to assess the applicability of options described by others. In contrast, participants in capacity building sessions will be less aware of all the areas that quality assurance may affect and the links that need to be established across institutional structures. They may take a more restrictive approach, driven by a silo mentality, with interest exhibited preferentially for their particular job role and the concrete responsibilities they have to discharge. The broader picture and cross-organisational dynamics may escape their selective attention. These differences in anticipation must guide training delivery.

Both training types should develop or adopt activities relevant for higher education areas subject to quality assurance practices and should highlight the standards and expectations used as reference points; however, there will be a strong imbalance between the amounts of time allocated to cover the specificities of these areas from one training set-up to another. If professional development training is to take an in-depth approach and concentrate on the subtleties of what may constitute effectiveness in areas of key challenge, capacity building will require attention to be spread across all topics in a comprehensive, but more general and overarching, manner. While training aimed at professional development will stimulate participants to elicit problematic scenarios and debate options for action that have the potential to anticipate challenge, resolve conflict and mitigate risk, participants in capacity building training should be prompted to focus on understanding the systemic nature of quality assurance, the interdependencies, the regulatory drivers, as well as the mechanisms and instruments that serve to maintain and develop quality within their specific area of expertise.

Spending valuable training time on underlying quality assurance principles should be deemed unnecessary for professionals but imperative for other non-quality assurance categories of participants. Such principles include the need for increased formalisation of processes to support continuity and consistency; the value of institutionalisation of otherwise pocketed practices to support parity and development; the need to develop overarching strategically-driven motivations in alignment with institutional mission and vision; the advantage of appropriately calibrating centralised versus decentralised organisational structures in alignment with resource capabilities; the importance of thoroughly coordinating top-down and bottom-up initiatives; and the benefits of strategically focusing on identifying, disseminating and multiplying good practice for continuous enhancement. However, quality assurance professionals will be familiar with and appreciate the rationale behind these quality assurance drivers, other stakeholders will first need to develop a clear understanding of such principles before they can fully engage with and devote time and effort to contributing to quality assurance. To other stakeholder groups, quality assurance processes introduced institutionally are still seen as burdensome, time-consuming and resource-intensive, mainly serving bureaucratic purposes with little relevance to their compartmentalised responsibilities (Seyfried & Reith, Citation2019): a belief often expressed more prominently by staff with a strong academic background (Newton, Citation2002; Cardoso et al., Citation2018) as opposed to administrative staff. Capacity building must propose activities that provide the opportunity to conclusively dispel this conviction and demonstrate to participants, irrespective of background, that quality assurance processes are supportive, impactful and targeted at institutional development. Quality assurance professionals, on the other hand, have already embraced these principles and are motivated by their rationale. Accordingly, professional development training should use activities that have the capacity to reveal a more advanced understanding of quality assurance realities and highlight principles and mechanisms, which if applied adequately, can have effect at various institutional levels and on the institution, as a whole. Amongst these are the need to consider relevant contextual and legislative requirements when designing quality assurance actions; the advantage of using reliable data collection and analysis on which to base structural decisions; the importance of systemic risk assessment and risk management as an integrated part of oversight systems for all areas of higher education delivery; the benefit of benchmarking with comparable or contrasting institutional structures to ensure sectoral expectations are recognised and attended to as part of strategic planning; the commitment to a reflective culture where ample opportunity is granted to solicit and consider feedback, assessing and monitoring existing practices with a view to making germane adjustments; the significance of instituting recognition and empowerment models; and the benefits of employing effective action planning techniques to drive development. Frequently, action plans run the risk of becoming dysfunctional unless key parameters are woven into their design. Proportionality, prioritisation, externality, accountability, integration, S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, time-related) action-setting, realistic timelines and sustainable resourcing all play a role in achieving a meaningful and usable action plan: one that carries the potential to deliver anticipated outcomes. It is worth devoting a full session of quality assurance professional development training specifically to action planning.

Training designers need to decide on suitable activities so that participants have the opportunity to elicit the principles presented (), explore ways of operationalising them in their own institutional context and come to conclusions about feasible short-, medium- and long-term approaches to which they can commit.

Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

All authors

Anca

Greerehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.2020978

Table 4. Suggested quality assurance principles to be highlighted in the two types of training

Download CSVDisplay Table

Outcomes of quality assurance training

Educational outcomes distribute learning by knowledge and understanding (what do you know?), competences and skills (what can you do?) and values and attitudes (what do you believe in? what will you commit to?) (Kennedy et al., Citation2006). The acquisition of knowledge and understanding focuses on areas of impact and applicable procedures that can contribute to maintaining and developing practices that, in varied institutional settings, generate good quality. The development of competences and skills is determined by the objectives set for quality assurance at institutional level and the usability of a variety of mechanisms and tools, allowing for appropriate contextualisation of actions and effective mediation with stakeholders. Values and attitudes are defined by professional positioning in respect of the global educational environment and the commitments that are reinforced through quality assurance actions.

Learning outcomes for quality assurance training may be expressed under the parameters listed (), with participants being expected to demonstrate development along these lines. The training components chosen must ensure that outcomes are achievable and participants are able to take away valuable lessons.

Training for quality assurance in higher education: practical insights for effective design and successful delivery

All authors

Anca

Greerehttps://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2021.2020978

Table 5. Suggested learning outcomes for training programmes focusing on quality assurance in higher education

Download CSVDisplay Table

Although these learning outcomes may be equally valid for both advanced and initial training types, relevant adjustments need to be made to the content highlighted, the underlying principles invoked and the core messages emphasised to ensure the different participant profiles and their training needs are appropriately met.

Core messages to take away

To ensure that the knowledge, skills and attitudes gained will come to fruition in the participants’ institutional environment, the training programme should strive to highlight some core messages, which can act as filters for quality assurance action in order to guide choices, shape interactions and result in impact.

Core messages can serve to reassure and reinforce quality assurance professionals; however, for other stakeholders, they serve predominantly to raise awareness and dispel pre-existing misconceptions. Similar to the organisation of activities around quality assurance principles and mechanisms at an initial level for capacity building, but at an advanced level for professional development, training take-aways can be categorised to focus on either initial or advanced expectations. For quality assurance professionals, some messages may be retained to shape their own actions and ensure their responsibilities are discharged with maximum efficiency, whereas other messages can support them in securing more meaningful contributions and more stable involvement from stakeholders.

All of the below are core messages to be built into the training. It is advisable for essential messages to be reiterated and reinforced through a final summary. Desirable messages can form part of the explanations provided around key concepts.

For more effective reception of these messages, ‘quality’ can be presented, in a simplified manner, to mean commitment to what works well and desire to want to do better. This may, of course, set the bar very differently across different contexts and cultures.

• Essential message 1 (Initial level): Quality assurance is not a one-off or exclusively activated when external reviews or assessments are upcoming. It requires ongoing action. Quality assurance is about everyday awareness, recognition and promotion of good quality across all discrete areas of higher education. Individual actions have institutional consequences. Integration of individual actions into system-based activities is paramount for successful quality assurance.

• Essential message 2 (Initial level): Quality assurance is not solely the responsibility of quality assurance professionals and senior management. It is the responsibility of all higher education stakeholders. For quality assurance to be institutionally effective and support quality developments as intended, it is not just senior management and staff appointed to quality assurance roles who must devote attention to quality assurance principles, mechanisms and outcomes. Quality assurance is the responsibility of every individual who has a stake in higher education. Clearly, some stakeholders will need to make more active contributions but, without each playing their part, successful outcomes may be delayed or unlikely to occur.

• Essential message 3 (Initial and advanced levels): Quality assurance cannot be based only on individual commitment. It requires planned action and organisational structures to be institutionally effective. Individual professional commitment to maintaining and improving quality is paramount (and, in fact, commonly displayed) but not sufficient to ensure the desired impact, unless coupled with sustained institutional investment and practices that recognise individual efforts. Quality assurance must be appropriately planned and resourced; it is not an add-on activity to be allocated freely but requires specific knowledge, skills and attitudes to be discharged effectively.

• Essential message 4 (Initial and advanced levels): Quality assurance is not about importing external models or exclusively satisfying external regulations. It is about fitness for institutional purpose and the transformational capacity of individual institutions within set contexts. Quality assurance solutions applied in one context may be less adequate in another. The institutional mission and vision must drive quality assurance action. Solutions for increased effectiveness are highly dependent on context. Action-in-context is deemed relevant if it demonstrates an underlying strategic rationale, proportionate investment and meaningful impact. External quality assurance may prescribe baseline standards and expectations but will encourage context-specific actions that relevantly lead to expected outcomes. There is no single correct approach to implementation. Any approach can be acceptable if it is demonstrably effective for the institution and appreciated as such by its stakeholders.

• Essential message 5 (Initial and advanced levels): Quality assurance is about gaining perspective. It is about understanding how your role, your institution, and your national setting fit into the wider debate on higher education. The value of quality assurance should be recognisable in all its propositions: prescriptive recommendations; permissive allowances; developmental suggestions; and innovative encouragements.

• Essential message 6 (Initial and advanced levels): Quality-driven activities form a quality assurance continuum, with compliance, assurance, enhancement and excellence representing different stages. Compliance and assurance primarily support a maintenance function, while enhancement and excellence primarily promote a developmental function. Unless compliance and assurance aspects are fully given attention, an institution or national context cannot expect to automatically move to enhancement or leap towards claims of excellence. One stage is dependent on the other.

• Essential message 7 (Advanced level): Change should be meaningful to be effective. Mature institutions have the understanding and capacity to vary solutions and ensure these are, and remain, context-appropriate. Change should be strategically justifiable and should recognise emerging best practices and their applicability for future ambitions. To determine what is realistically achievable for the time, effort and investment afforded, institutions should observe their internal quality assurance pace when proposing incremental change or system overhaul.

• Essential message 8 (Advanced level): Securing quality assurance engagement from stakeholders does not have to be difficult. There are some easy wins. Quality assurance should not be exceedingly burdensome or overly bureaucratic but should aim to recognise the value of, and build on, existing actions. Stakeholders need to understand that quality is already a prominent feature of the educational provision, requiring prompts to be appropriately identified, maintained and enhanced. They will more readily engage if invited to focus on positive actions they are already committed to and asked to contribute to preserving, disseminating and multiplying such actions.

• Essential message 9 (Advanced level): Arguments for quality assurance may not prove equally effective across stakeholder groups. Different stakeholders respond to different stimuli. Quality assurance discourse needs to vary depending on the type and interests of stakeholders. A thorough analysis of key motivators for each stakeholder type will allow for differentiated communication with various stakeholder groups to ensure desirable outcomes.

  Some major quality assurance challenges lie in the way various stakeholders understand, respond to and interact with quality assurance mechanisms. Different stakeholders formulate different expectations about their roles towards higher education and they shape their contributions accordingly. For example, senior management will want to see the institution successfully pass external quality assurance scrutiny and may shift attention and resources temporarily towards policies and processes that have the potential to meet the baseline for assessment and allow for a reputational gain. Administrative and teaching staff will understand legal accreditation requirements but generally seek minimal involvement in what are frequently perceived as purely bureaucratic measures that keep them from more important, student-focused, tasks. Students frequently report that they are never more powerful in bringing into action institutional levers to approve development measures that support the student experience than at a time when assessment or review processes are impending. Governments or other funders can be primarily preoccupied with efficiency and reporting through quantitative data-driven mechanisms.

• Desirable message 1 (Initial and advanced levels): External standards set nationally or supra-nationally can correlate partially or fully with the stages of the quality assurance continuum. Although external standards serve authorisation, licensing, accreditation, assessment or review purposes, which is a compliance function per se, how they are set (the actual requirements specified) and how they are reviewed against (the methodological features displayed) may, and frequently do, promote not just assurance mechanisms but also developmental approaches, embedding a focus on enhancement and excellence. The extent to which standards are more flexible or more prescriptive may depend on the quality assurance experience exhibited within the respective sector; the degree of implementation of external cycles; the national or supra-national goals set; and, not least, the organisational culture, which is demonstrated historically to have rendered the best results, that is top-down and regulatory or bottom-up and consultative.

• Desirable message 2 (Initial and advanced levels): Quality culture is the journey, not the destination. The descriptors of a ‘quality culture’ are dynamic and progressive. A quality culture is not universal but rather unique to each higher education institution and determined by institutional drivers, national directions and international commitments.

• Desirable message 3 (Initial and advanced levels): Descriptors of excellence are supra-national and strive to support global comparisons that operate internationally. However, excellence is one stage on the quality assurance continuum, currently the top stage. It can be reached effectively only when the other stages have been given sufficient attention. Without meeting compliance requirements, assurances for expected quality cannot be provided; without a guarantee of robust quality practices, it is difficult to commit to an enhancement agenda; and, without demonstrating an enhancement mind-set, it is difficult to make a claim to excellence.

Measures of success for quality assurance training

On completion, participants will, hopefully, feel a sense of professional growth, a broadening of their horizons and a stronger commitment towards institutional involvement. Ideally, they feel professionally re-energised that their role has been re-purposed, their motivations re-emphasised and their aspirations re-validated.

Other stakeholders, having increased their understanding of the purpose of quality assurance and its applicability, are likely to more readily, more timely and more reliably offer future contributions to quality assurance actions. They may create availability in their schedule and choose to prioritise quality assurance actions where they can recognise, as a result of the training, that impact will be generated for their specific areas. Moving forward, other stakeholders will ideally also want to contribute to the design and approval of initiatives and not solely their operationalisation. Training success can thus be quantitatively demonstrated through the amount of time and effort put towards supporting quality assurance goals, as well as qualitatively through the level of contribution and its recognised impact.

Quality assurance professionals are likely to render the training useful if the content covered and experiences shared provide reinforcement about the ways they can and do discharge their responsibilities, while also allowing them to envisage alternative solutions for their specific contexts, to more confidently engage with stakeholders and more successfully navigate challenging scenarios. Beyond enhancing participants’ knowledge and understanding, the training should have given ample opportunity for exploration of relevant job roles and what competences and attitudes they entail.

Two realisations are of particular value and can guide professional reactions and reduce concerns in highly pressurised contexts: (1) quality assurance roles are frequently administrative and can be substantively downplayed by other staff members, unless supplemented by senior or academic status; (2) quality assurance initiatives are often given variable attention and discontinuous support, commonly depending on external factors.

Overall, participants will be appreciative if the training encourages them to find new motivation for meaningful contributions to quality, to propose ways of disseminating and multiplying those contributions and to demonstrate a consistent preoccupation towards enhancing the global experience that higher education offers.