NIAD-QE University Quality Assurance Forum-2019
25th July, 2019
Tokyo, Japan

Presentationon“Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Times of Change”

Dr. Jagannath Patil
Adviser , National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), India
Past President , Asia Pacific Quality Network & The International
Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)
Founder Chair person-Asia Pacific Quality Register (APQR)

1OUTLINE
 Higher Education

and Quality Assurance – A Glimpse of

Changing times
 Internationalisation of Higher Education - Key Trends
 QA in Context of Higher education
 Contribution and impact of internationalisation of HE andQA: Way forward learning from QACHE Project The message from Bengaluru Statement 2016 on NextGeneration Quality Assurance of Higher Education
 Role Quality Assurance Agencies and examples (NAAC &NIAD-QE)
 Role of Quality Assurance Networks and examples
 Potential of India-Japan collaboration in Higher Education
Quality Let’s light a lamp with lamp for enlightening future
generations
2

CHANGING TIMESHigher Education Expanding Rapidly Worldwide.
Some Key Trends Include: Growing International Mobility of Students.
 Internationalization of Higher Education.
 External QA gaining wider acceptance and reachedalmost all countries . Phenomenal growth in Asia andLatin America in just two decades.
 Disruptive technology and innovations like MOOCs,
Micro credentials set to revolutionise HE scenario adding
new, complex dimensions to internationalisation andposing greater challenges to quality assurance.
 Growing Craze of regional and global rankings.
 Increased role and expectations from national, regionaland global QA bodies and networks.
3

CHANGING TIMES Paradox of world reality- Technology and innovations

bringing the world closer beyond boundaries on hand.
While intolerance, discrimination and violence
dividing the world in name of race, religion and origin.
 The global population of students who move to anothercountry to study continues to rise, reaching almost 5
million in 2014 – more than double the 2.1 million
internationally mobile students in 2000. 8 million
students per year by 2025 (OECD).
 The most mobile students are from Asia, with China,
India and South Korea.
 Increasing
regional mobility: China-Japan-Korea,
ASEAN, SAARC Countries, etc.,4INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION - KEY TRENDS
 Government strategies have continued to drive a range ofinternational experiences.
 Russia provided $133.3M funding for 3,000 Russian postgraduates tostudy overseas at some of the world’s leading universities between
2014 and 2017.
 Germany is pushing new programme that aims for half of all degree
students to experience study abroad by 2020.
 In the USA, the Institute of International Education launched a fiveyear programme, ‘Generation Study Abroad’, to double the number ofstudents obtaining international experience during their degree fromthe present 295,000 (10% of the student population) to 600,000 by
2019.
 Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have become one of the mosthigh profile aspects of the use of technology in teaching in recent
years, with 142 universities providing free courses open to allparticipants via Coursera and edX alone.
5

INTERNATIONALIZATION OF HE - KEY TRENDS
 Most of South Africa’s 23 universities offer some form of

distance learning online, and with the number ofuniversity-age students across Africa predicted to double
from 200 million to 400 million by 2045, online learning
fills a gap in both opportunity and affordability.
 The European Commission has funded a new internet
portal, Europeana, which gives students and researchers
all over the world access to millions of books, paintings,
films, museum objects and archival records drawn fromlibraries and archives across Europe.
 Japan has high numbers of international students fromneighbouring countries, about
81% of international
students in Japan come from other East Asian countries.
 Japan’s drive to internationalize education has adifferent set of goals to those for Malaysia and Thailand,with Japanese reforms aiming to prepare Japanese
graduates to better compete in a globalized workplace.
Source: [University of Oxford, International trends in Higher Education 2015]

6QA IN HIGHER EDUCATION CONTEXT
Traditionally quality in higher education is responsibility of
institutions themselves. Higher education and university systems
exist from centuries while most EQAs are recent entities.
Yet, QAAs in most systems have occupied prime place as it isconsidered as powerful tool : To ensure accountability for public funding [welfare state]
 To secure trust and public guarantee about quality of offerings[legitimacy and currency]
 To protect students and stakeholders from dubious or substandard
provisions [Watchdog]
 To provide stimulus for improvement and innovations [Facilitator]

7

CONTRIBUTION AND IMPACT OF INTERNATIONALISATION OF HE ON
QA- THE WAY FORWARD LEARNING FROM QACHE PROJECT.
 Internationalizationin all forms have posed great challenges infront of higher education and QA systems.
 An Erasmus Mundus Project entitled “Quality Assurance of Crossborder Higher Education” (QACHE) led by ENQA in which Asia
pacific Quality Network [APQN], ANQAHE and some leading QA
agencies are partners revealed different ways QA of CBHE isbeing perceived and handled in Europe , Asia Pacific and Arabregion.
 In Asia Pacific Survey we found that majority of the respondents[68%] agree that CBHE has a positive influence on the national
system of HE in your country, in terms of academic standards, HE
access, etc .
 However, concerns aboutcomparability of degree, sovereignty
issues and cultural gaps were also raised.

8

FOUR

KEY

FINDINGS

OF

QACHE

FROM

ANALYSES OF SURVEYS FROM 3 REGIONS The sheer diversity of approaches and regulatory frameworks for

inbound or outbound CBHE within and across the three
investigated regions
 Lack of information about and knowledge of different agencies’
approaches and national frameworks
 A “trust gap” between sending and receiving countries about thequality of CBHE, with receiving country being generally more
skeptical than sending countries about the quality, and quality
assurance, of incoming provision
 Low levels of cooperation amongst QA agencies in the quality
assurance of CBHE

9

IMAGE 1: QACHE VICIOUS CYCLE

10IMAGE 2: QACHE VIRTUOUS CYCLE

11

THE FIVE PRINCIPLES EMERGING FROM QACHEPROJECT TOOLKIT – The

first principle is about making information about national
approaches to CBHE easily accessible.
 The second principle is about proactively engaging in informationsharing activities with counterpart agencies sharing CBHE provision.
 The third principle is about seeking to liaise with them wheneverintending to quality assure CBHE provision.
 The fourth principle is about seeking ways in which to cooperate in
the actual quality assurance of CBHE provision.
 The fifth principle is directed to regional networks of agencies, callingon them to play an enhanced role in the facilitation of information
sharing and inter-agency cooperation[Source - http://www.enqa.eu/index.php/quality-assurance-of-cross-border-higher-education-qache/]12THE MESSAGE FROM BENGALURU STATEMENT 2016 ON
GENERATION QUALITY ASSURANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION


NEXT-

Bengaluru Statement 2016 on Next-Generation Quality Assurance of Higher Education:
A Shared Vision and Commitment for Fostering Partnership Beyond Borders”,

which was the culmination of the global summit organised by NAAC and APQN will be counted
as the major landmark in the International history of higher education quality assurance.

13

GLOBAL PARTNERS INCLUDED ORGANISATIONS SUCH AS THE FOLLOWING:Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) of USA
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education(ENQA)

European Consortium for Accreditation in Higher Education (ECA)

Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ANQAHE)ASEAN Quality Assurance Network (AQAN)



Asia Pacific Quality Register (APQR)CHEA – USA

ANQAHE – Arab Region

ENQA – Europe

AQAN - South East Asia

ECA – Europe

APQR – Asia Pacific14Quality Assurance Agencies:

QAA - United Kingdom

TEC - Mauritius

HEEACT – Taiwan

TEQSA - Australia

QQA – Bahrain

MQA Malaysia

AACCUP - Philippines

NIAD-QE , Japan
15

BENGALURU STATEMENT 2016 ON NEXT-GENERATION QUALITYASSURANCE OF HIGHER EDUCATION Organised

by National Assessment and Accreditation Council(NAAC), India and co-organised by Asia-Pacific Quality
Network (APQN) in partnership with 16 leading Quality
Assurance organisations including networks and QA
agencies from Asia Pacific, Europe, America, Africa andArab regions on 16-17 September 2016 at Bengaluru, India,
re-affirming previous relevant commitments such as Nagoya
Declaration on Higher Education for Sustainable Development2014, Incheon Declaration-2015 “Education 2030: Towards
inclusive and equitable quality education and lifelong learning for
all”.

16

THIS HISTORIC BENGALURU STATEMENT – 2016 EXPRESSED INTENT AND
ASPIRATIONS FOR:o Cooperation among quality assurance networks and organizations
to dissolve boundaries for quality higher education.
Endeavour to Foster Trust Beyond Borders in higher education
quality assurance:Sharing global information resources.



Promoting values and ethical practices in quality assurance.

Sharing and promoting good practices.



Strengthening of capacity building.



Developing strategies and resources for next generation quality
assurance in age of technology.

Resource mobilisation for quality assurance.

Strengthening professionalism in quality assurance.

17

BENGALURU STATEMENT 2016 …..
 Bengaluru

Statement – 2016 has called upon quality
assurance networks, organizations and stakeholders ofhigher education to join hands and commit to work
together to enhance quality in higher education inservice of students and society.

 NAAC,APQN and other partners have agreed todeliberate further on this statement and develop action
plan by making specific commitments to deliver on thevarious issues raised for the benefit of quality in higher
education.

18

KEY LESSONS , REFLECTIONS AND IDEAS
 Internationalisation in HE is to be dealt with caution. As a measureof cooperation, capacity building and mobility, it could be boon but if
not handled carefully can sow the seeds of neo-colonisation. So
putting the students welfare and national interest first, could be agood strategy.
 Regional QA labels can be good alternative to international
accreditation .
 Mutual
recognition of
QA decisions on accreditation ofqualifications is good way forward to facilitate mobility National Associations, regional networks and global alliances caninfluence and shape the future of higher education locally andglobally .
 Degree mills and accreditation mills are threat to society and affects
good work of Universities and QA bodies. Zero tolerance policy by all
stakeholders is need of the hour.
19

EXAMPLES OF INITIATIVES BY AGENCIES
 “Enhancing

Quality
Assurance
Management
andBenchmarking strategies in Indian Universities” (EQUAM-BI) OBJECTIVE - Creating benchmarks through comparison andidentification of good practice is not a new notion in higher
education and the Indian partners recognise the experience andexpertise that the European partners can bring to their assistancethrough this Project.
 Expected Outcome- 1)Partnering with leading EU institutions andorganizations to nurture a sustainable benchmarking culture.
2)Creating capacity for improving quality of teaching-learning,
research and innovation, academic leadership 3)Creating frameworks
for ensuring successful and sustainable partnerships with institutionsof higher education in Europe to promote internationalization

20

EQUAMBI
Enhancing Quality Assurance Management & Benchmarking Strategies in Indian Universities

FRANCE
UNIVERSITEDE
MONTPELLIER

CYPRUSEDEX EDUCATIONAL
EXCELLENCECORPORATION
LIMITEDSWEDENKUNGLIGA TEKNISKA
HOEGSKOLAN

SPAIN
Coordinator : UNIVERSITAT DEBARCELONA
Partner : AGENCIA NACIONAL DE
EVALUACION DE LA CALIDAD YACREDITACION (ANECA)ITALY
DEGLI STUDI DI
Countries
ROMA LA SAPIENZA& Partners
INDIA
NAAC, Jadavpur University,
IIT-M, Shivaji University,
University of Mysore, Asian
Institute of Gaming &Animation (Edulink P Ltd.),
Symbiosis International(Deemed University),
Mangalore University 21

REVISED ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK OF NAAC

KEY FEATURES OF REVISED ACCREDITATION FRAMEWORK A Paradigm shift in approach and philosophy.
 From qualitative peer judgments to data based
quantitative indicator evaluation.
 System Generated scores(SGS) with combination of
online evaluation(70%) and peer judgment (30%)
 AutomatedEvaluation Model with Increased
objectivity & transparency.
 Significant difference in evaluation of Universities,
Autonomous Colleges and Affiliated/Constituent
Colleges.
 Introducing key indicators on Alumni engagement
and Student satisfaction survey.
 Data validation by external professional agencies.
 Creating a culture of benchmark driven, databased
accreditation.
22

23

23

COMPILATION OF GOOD PRACTICES (GPS) OF QUALITY ASSURANCE AGENCIESACROSS THE GLOBE-A NAAC INITIATIVE WITH APQN SUPPORT

Methodology Status review of compilation of global practices in External
Quality Assurance.
 Identification of areas/themes in which practices are to becompiled.
 Developing templates for survey questionnaires and formats ofgood practices.
 Validation of good practices through consultation, evidencesand expert reviews.
 Developing a web based database of good practices and ensure
its maintenance and updates.
 Publication of books on good practices on select themes in print
and electronic media.
 Promotion of global good practices database on National andInternational platforms.
24

NAAC’S GLOBAL YOGA ACCREDITATION INITIATIVEThe Global Yoga Accreditation Summit (GYAS), a joint undertaking of NAAC in conjunction with The
Permanent Mission of India to the United Nations (UN), USA and The Asia Pacific Quality Network(APQN), is a historic initiative intended to bring various stakeholders from all over the world in the fieldof Yoga at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, USA.
Global Summit organized by NAAC on 26-27 April 2019 at the Headquarters of the United Nations paves
the way forward for the New York ~ Bengaluru Vision Statement 2019 towards a Global Ecosystem in
Yoga Higher Education through mainstreaming, collaboration and accreditation.
Exploring the co-ordination and co-operation among various recognition/accreditation bodies andnetworks of Yoga higher education around the world.

Global experts during inaugural session at Global Summit Jointly organised by NAAC, PMI-UN &APQN at United Nations Headquarters, New York, USA.
25

NOTABLE INITIATIVES OF NIAD-QE , JAPANJapanese Colleges and University Portraits:
 A voluntary independent activity developed by certified evaluation andaccreditation organisations and other higher education related
associations.
 Data portal for the publication and use of educational information on
national, public and private universities and colleges on databases.
Portraits began publishing information about education at universities
and colleges in Japan in March 2015.
Dissemination of information on trends in Quality Assurance ofHigher Education Overseas: NIAD-QE gathers information on trends in quality assurance in higher
education in other countries.
 Publishes the information gathered, including the information package,the international co-operation website, research reports, and NIAD-QE
forums on quality assurance.
 A very valuable initiative useful to global QA community.

APQN Terminological Alignment project led by
Prof. Syun Tutiya, NIAD-QE.
26

ROLE OF QA NETWORKS Quality

Assurance in higher education has national as well asinternational implications.
 Over the past few decades External Quality Assurance (EQA) has
emerged as an important tool to ensure credibility of higher
education institutions (HEIs) and programs for the purpose ofinternational mobility.
 Mutual recognition of Quality Assurance (QA) decision among
different countries is one of the major tools used by EQA agencies.
 Regional and international QA networks such as Asia PacificQuality Network(APQN),European Network for Quality Assurance(ENQA, International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies inHigher Education (INQAAHE) are playing important role asfacilitator of trust as well as exchange of good practices among
EQAAs.
 The membership of regional and international QA networks is now
considered critical requirement for establishing credential of
EQAAs bodies which operate nationally as well as internationally.
27

ROLE OF QA NETWORKS Moving

beyond this informal recognition, there isemphasis on formal recognition of EQA bodies whichseek to operate regionally or internationally.
 European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) is themost prominent example where most of the European
EQA bodies have undergone formal registration
procedures.
 EQAR provided legitimate basis for cross border QA
activities.
 Asia pacific Quality Register (APQR) is established asa stakeholder initiative in Asia Pacific region.
 Many of the international operators in QA are basedin USA which are recognised by national recognition
bodies like Council of Higher Education (CHEA) and/or USDE.
28

ROLE OF QA NETWORKS Several unrecognised and dubious players acting as

international/global QA agencies.
 Similar to degree mills, now we are faced withmenace of accreditation mills.
 These two different trends have necessitated a needof formal regional as well as international mechanismof recognition of legitimate EQAAs.
 India is also on verge of launching multiple QA
bodies regime.

29 APQR set up by APQN is a Register of external quality

assurance agencies (EQAAs) that demonstrated certain
thresholds of maturity.
 An independent external review by peers would be thebackbone of the APQR.
 Primary purposes for establishing the APQR: 1) Provide an inspirational target; 2) Serve as a quality hallmark and qualification toaccredit HEIs/programs; 3) Provide a basis for mutual recognition of cross‐border
operations of EQAAs and HEIs;
 4) Offer a reference to global stakeholders on
trustworthy external EQAAs in the Asia-Pacific Region.
30

Review based on set of 11 criteria
As of now the following 5 QAAs are registered in APQR:
1) Fiji Higher Education Commission(FHEC) based in Suva,
Fiji;2)Certification Association “Russian Register” (RR) based inSaint Petersburg, Russia;
3) National Centre for Public Accreditation (NCPA) based in
Russia;4)Indonesian Accreditation Agency for Higher Education in
Health” (IAAHEH) based in Jakarta, Indonesia.
5) The Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation(MNCEA), Mongolia.
Another 4 QAAs
application/review.

are

in

variousstagesof
31

ASIA-PACIFIC QUALITY LABEL (APQL) APQL

as regional/international accreditation was launched in
January, 2014.
 The overall objective is to support, develop, improve and enhance
excellent internationalization or student learning outcomes (SLOs) inhigher education institutions (HEIs) and programs in the AsiaPacific region.
 The criteria for the acquisition of APQL on accreditation ofinternationalization - 5 criteria in 12 indicators: 1) International
Mission and policy; 2) Organization and administration; 3)International Mobility; 4) Student Support; and 5) Student Learning
Outcomes (SLO).
 First
University to get APQL on the accreditation ofinternationalization is Symbiosis International University, Pune
from India.
 More Universities have expressed interest to earn APQN label forinternationalisation.
32

POTENTIALS OF INDO-JAPAN COLLABORATIONS INHIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE Indiaand Japan friendship has a long history rooted in
spiritual affinity and strong cultural and civilizational ties.
 shared values of belief in democracy, individual freedom andthe rule of law. India is the largest democracy in Asia andJapan the most prosperous.
 The India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership,
firmly rooted in history and based on common values is themainspring for advancing the two countries’ shared strategic
objectives and achieving peace, prosperity and progress torealize a better future for the people of the two countries.

[Source: India-Japan Vision Statement 2018]33

POTENTIALS OF INDO-JAPAN COLLABORATIONS INHIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE
 Special Strategic and Global Partnership.
 India-JapanMoU Agreements in areas ranging fromconnectivity, Investments, civil aviation, Japanese
language training, disaster risk management, scienceand technology and sports.
 India has been ranked as one of the most attractive
investment destination in the latest survey (2018) ofJapanese manufacturing companies conducted by theJapan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC).
 Japanese FDI into India has mainly been in Automobile,
Electric equipment, Telecommunications, Chemical andPharmaceutical sectors.
34

POTENTIALS OF INDO-JAPAN COLLABORATIONS INHIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE As

of October, 2017, there were 1,369 JapaneseCompanies registered in India. Indian Companies
working in Japan now crossing more than 100.
 India-Japan Digital Partnership (IJDP) and Start-up
Hub.
 India & Japan MoC on Technical Intern Training
Program (TITP) in October 2017.
 India-Japan Science Council (IJPS) MoU signed in 2015 between Yoga Organisation ofJapan and Quality Council of India (QCI) for thepromotion of scheme for voluntary certification of Yoga.
35

POTENTIALS OF INDO-JAPAN COLLABORATIONS INHIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE
 MoC for the expansion of Japanese language Educationin India.
between Indian and Some MoUs have been signed
Japanese higher education institutions
 In the Times Higher Education Supplement’s 2019global rankings, 103 Japanese universities were listed
among the world’s top 1250.In top 200, there are two
Japanese universities.
 Less than 50 Indian Universities figured in THES 2019global rankings among 1250 and no universities foundin top 200.

36

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM
 Indian HE is known for its massiveness, stands next toChina and United States a third largest HE system in
the world with number of HEIs.
 As per AISHE report 2017-18, 903 Universities, 39050
Colleges and 10011 Stand Alone Institutions in India.
 Enrolment in higher education reached36.6 million
during 2017-18.
 Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in Higher Education isabout 24%.
 By 2030, about 100 Million students may not find place in
University, if expansion is not done.
 Islands of excellence and ocean of mediocrity.
37

POTENTIALS OF INDO-JAPAN COLLABORATIONS INHIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE Demographic dividend of India with highest working age

population and stagnated growth of above 18 youth inJapan can compliment each other.
 Some MoUs between Japanese and Indian HEIs exist, but
this can grow substantially.
 Joint
programmes, Student / Faculty exchanges,
collaborative research projects with India fit into
Internationalization strategy of Japan.
 Data / Resource sharing and quality benchmarking
between Indian and Japanese Higher Education sector
can be facilitated by QA Bodies.

38

INDIA – JAPAN RELATIONS“Mutual trust and deep faith in the maturity of the India-Japan Special
Strategic and Global Partnership today and the immense promise it holds forthe future of the two countries as they jointly endeavour to build a moresecure, peaceful and prosperous region and the world”.
[Source: India-Japan Vision Statement 2018]

39

IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE

Global resource sharing by HEIs, QA Networks, Regional
associations and bodies like UNESCO with common
agenda such as –
 Global
information
portalon
HEIs
and
qualifications.(linking of country wise portals)
 Global Quality Assurance Register [GQAR] in higher
education.
 Joint Initiative against degree and diploma mills.
 Strengthening of international co-operation throughbenchmarking and exchange of good practices.
 Emphasis on sharing values & fostering trust beyond
borders.

40

41

THANK YOU

Dr. Jagannath Patil*
jp.naacindia@gmail.com*views in this presentation are personal and do not reflect policies or opinions of any organisation 42