*41 2002-1-21

◐GwroceedingGofGtheGYWWYGzeoulGpnternationalGzeminarG◑

5IF 6OJWFSTJUZ 1BSBEJHN 4IJGU BOE 6OJWFSTJUZ 2VBMJUZ TTVSBODF

YWWYUG[U

TTPDJBUJPO PG ,PSFBO 6OJWFSTJUZ 1SFTJEFOUT ('PSNFSMZ: ,$6&)

- 일 정 표 -

◐ 4월 2일(화)

XZaWW～X[aWW등GGGG록O장소aG크리스탈G볼룸GhP

X[aWW～X[aZW창립GYW주년G기념식

X[aZW～X]aWW초청강연

•패러다임의G변화와G대학개혁

X]aWW～X]aYW휴GGGG식

X]aYW～X_aYWYX세기G대학교육의G질G관리와G발전G전략G국제세미나

폐GGGG회

X_aZW～YWaWW창립GYW주년G기념G리셉션O장소aG크리스탈G볼룸GiP

- J -

- 130(3. -

◐ QSJM 2(5VFTEBZ)

14:00～14:304FTTJPOⅠ: $FMFCSBUJPO PG UIF 20UI OOJWFSTBSZ PG UIF ,61('PSNFSMZ: ,$6&) •Opening Address

14:30～16:004FTTJPO Ⅱ: 5IF 6OJWFSTJUZ 1BSBEJHN 4IJGU BOE 6OJWFSTJUZ 3FGPSN HFOEB •The Quality Assurance of Higher Education and the Role of Government

16:00～16:20#SFBL

16:20～18:204FTTJPO Ⅲ: 5IF 2VBMJUZ TTVSBODF PG )JHIFS &EVDBUJPO

18:30～20:005IF 20UI OOJWFSTBSZ $FMFCSBUJPO #BORVFU - Venue: Crystal Ballroom B

- JJ -

- 목 차 -

•G기념사·····················································································································X

•G축GG사·····················································································································\

•G초청강연

YX세기G인적자원G개발과G대학의G역할····································································XX

이G상G주

{heGlvolvingGhmericanG|niversity································································X` zamuelGoUGzmith

kevelopmentalGztrategyGMGxuality·································································ZX navinGirown

•GYX세기G대학교육의G질G관리와G발전G전략G국제세미나

{heGwolicyGpssuesGofGoigherGlducationGxualityGhssuranceGinGrorea···^\ oanTzunGjhoi

- JJJ -

기 념 사

우리나라G고등교육G발전을G위해G헌신하시는G전국GX`[개G회원대학의G 총장님과G대학관계자들을G모시고G한국대학교육협의회G창립GYW주년G기념식과G국제세미나를G개최하게G된G것을G참으로G기쁘게G생각합니다UG

그리고G이번G한국대학교육협의회G창립GYW주년을G축하해주시기G위해G 바쁘신G국사일정에도G불구하고G특별히G참석해주신G이한동G국무총리님과G 내외G귀빈께G깊은G감사의G말씀을G드립니다UG

또한G오늘G국제세미나에G특별초청G발표자로G참석하여주신G이상주G부총리G겸G교육인적자원부G장관님SGkrUGzamuellGoUGzmithG워싱턴G주립대G 전임총장님SGkrUGnavinGirownG시드니G대학G총장님SGkrUGqudithGzUG latonG미국GjolhG총재님SGkrUGqohnGseongGjhiGYanG홍콩G평가인정기구G회장님SG그리고G최한선G대구가톨릭대G총장님께G깊이G감사드립니다U

존경하는G회원대학의G총장님SG그리고G내외G귀빈여러분G

돌이켜G보면SG한국대학교육협의회가G성장해G온G지난GYW여년은G우리나라G고등교육의G주요한G변화들이G급격하게G이루어진G전환기적G시기라고G

할G수G있습니다U

한국대학교육협의회가G설립된G‘_W년대G초는G대학교육이G엘리트G단계에 서G대중화G단계로G이행하는G시기였고SG지금은G대중화G단계를G거쳐G보편

교육단계로G진입하는G과정에G있다고G할G수G있습니다UG

- 1 -

고등교육의G운영체제G측면에서G보면SG정부나G사학재단에G의한G관료적SG 독점적G비민주적G운영G체제에서G민주적SG자율적G운영체제로G전환하기G위한G진통이G계속되면서G대학G자율화가G한층G진전된G시기이기도G하였습니다UG그동안G정부가G시행해G오던G대학의G학사운영G전반에G관한G통제G사

항들이G상당부분은G대학의G직접적인G자율사항으로SG또G일정한G공공적G부

문들은G본G협의회를G통하여G협의G조정하여G추진하는G자율적G사항으로G 이관되어G온G바G있습니다UG

아울러G정보화SG세계화의G영향으로G지식기반사회로의G진입이G가속화되면서G“대학교육의G국가경쟁력”이G그G어느G때G보다G절실한G과제로G제기된G 시기이기도G합니다U

존경하는G회원대학의G총장님SG그리고G내외G귀빈G여러분

한국의G고등교육은G지난G세기와는G질적으로G다른G새로운G패러다임G속에서G그G역할과G기능을G재정립해야하는G전환기적G과제를G안고G있습니다UG 대학G환경의G급격한G대내외적G변화는G기초학문의G위기와G이공계G학생수G 감소라는G현실적G어려움과G함께G국가간G첨예한G경쟁논리에G따라G대학교육의G수월성을G통한G경쟁력을G절실히G필요로G하고G있습니다UG그리고G그러한G과제를G해결하는G방식도G그G어느G때G보다G대학의G자율성과G책무성을G필요로G하고G있습니다U

지난G반세기G동안SG우리G대학들이G정부로부터G대학의G자율을G보장받거나G이관받는G수준이었다면SG이제는G대학G스스로가G성숙된G책임의식으로G 대학운영의G모든G부문에서G자율성을G가지고G교육의G수월성을G위해G매진

해G나가야G할G시점이라고G생각됩니다U

- 2 -

존경하는G회원대학의G총장님SG그리고G내외G귀빈G여러분

지식기반사회로G일컬어지는GYX세기를G맞아G우리G대학이G해결해G가야

할G과제는G산적해G있다고G할G수G있습니다U

그G중에서도G가장G중요한G한가지를G든다면SG대학교육의G국제화를G들G 수G있을G것입니다UG지난GX``_년에G출간된G독일G교육연구부의G델파이조사연구보고에G의하면GYWYW년에G요구되는G핵심G직업능력으로G제일G첫G번째로G다국가의G문화이해능력을G들고G있고SG다음으로G심리사회적O대인관계P능력SG외국어G능력G등을G중요G항목으로G제시하고G있습니다UG이러한G 조사가G아니더라도G우리G대학교육의G국제화가G바라는G목표G또한G이러한G

항목들과G밀접한G관련을G맺고G있을G것입니다UG교육과정을G비롯한G교육․

연구체제의G국제화SG외국인G유학생의G대폭적인G수용SG국내외G대학간의G

각종G교류G확대G등은G국제화의G핵심적인G정책방향일G것입니다UG특히G외국인G유학생의G유치G확대는G대학교육의G국제화는G물론G우리나라G정치․

경제SG사회SG문화의G모든G부문에G걸쳐G상당히G긍정적인G영향을G미칠G것

입니다UG이를G위해서는G정부의G종합적이고도G강력한G지원정책이G필요합니다UG대학교육의G국제화야말로G우리G국가의G대외적G경쟁력의G기반과G환

경이G될G수G있기G때문입니다UG

존경하는G회원대학의G총장님SG그리고G내외G귀빈G여러분

오늘G한국대학교육협의회G창립GYW주년을G맞아SG지식기반사회로G대표되는G새로운G세기에는G그G어느G때G보다G우리G대학에G거는G국가사회적G역

할기대가G크다는G것을G깊이G인식하고SG우리의G성숙된G책무성과G자율성을G 바탕으로G대학교육의G국제화를G역점적으로G추진할G것을G강조하면서G인

사의G말씀에G가름하고자G합니다U

- 3 -

끝으로G다시G한번G바쁘신G일정에도G불구하고G특별히G참석하여G주신G 이한동G국무총리님과G내외G귀빈G여러분SG발표자들께G깊은G감사의G말씀을G 드리며SG지난GYW여년G동안G회원대학을G위해G헌신해G오신G대학교육협의 회G임․직원G여러분께도G심심한G사의를G표하는G바입니다U

감사합니다U

YWWY년G[월GY일

한국대학교육협의회G

회장GG이GGG기GGG준

- 4 -

祝 辭

李GG漢GG東O國G務G總G理P

尊敬하는G李基俊G會長님을G비롯한G

오늘G全國GX`[개G大學의G自律G協議體인G韓國大學敎育協議會가G創立G

스무돌을G맞이한G것을G眞心으로G祝賀합니다U

韓國大學敎育協議會는G지난GX`_Y年G出帆한G이래G그동안G우리나라G大學敎育의G發展을G위해G커다란G役割을G遂行하여G왔습니다UG

大學間의G協力强化와G自律性G增大SG그리고G深度있는G硏究活動을G통해G 우리G大學G敎育의G質的發展을G위해G애써오신G韓國大學敎育協議會에G이G 자리를G빌어G衷心으로G感謝의G말씀을G드립니다U

잘G아시는G바와G같이G우리G앞에G펼쳐지고G있는G새로운GYX世紀는G知識基盤社會로G特徵지어지고G있습니다U

이러한GYX世紀에G있어G國家G競爭力은G知識에G基盤을G둔G創意的인G技術을G얼마나G빠르게SG그리고G얼마나G多樣하게G開發하고G擴散시키느냐에G 달려G있다고G하겠습니다UG

- 5 -

이미G世界G先進國들은G高等敎育의G改革과G質G向上을G통해G知識基盤社會를G앞당기고G國家發展을G이루고자G多角的인G努力을G傾注하고G있습니

다U

大學은G傳統的으로G學問發展의G牽引車役割을G擔當해G왔습니다만SG새로 운G時代를G맞아G그G領域이G점점G擴大되어G가고G있다고G하겠습니다U

특히G오늘날에는G大學이G象牙塔에G머물지G않고G社會發展의G責務를G다 해G줄G것을G要請하는G목소리가G높아지고G있는G實情입니다UG

우리나라G역시G大學과G大學敎育에G대한G國家와G社會의G期待는G날로G 커지고G있다고G생각합니다U

政府는G우리나라G大學을G競爭力있는G世界속의G大學으로G만들어G가는 데G政策的G支援을G다할G것을G다짐합니다U

政府는G窮極的으로G大學의G問題는G大學의G自律에G맡긴다는G原則下에 서G大學運營의G自律性을G劃期的으로G擴大해G나가겠습니다U

大學敎育課程의G內實化를G위한G支援도G대폭G늘려나가겠으며SG특히G大學의G基礎學問G保護․育成을G위해G最優先的인G努力을G傾注하겠습니다U

올해부터GYWW[年까지G매년G基礎學問G分野에GGX千億원씩G총GZ千億원을G 집중G投資해G나갈G것입니다U

아울러G총GXW兆원의G豫算이G投入되는GGp{․i{․u{G등G]大G國家戰略分野G開發을G擔當할G人力養成綜合計劃의G細部實踐計劃을G올G上半期안에G 樹立하겠습니다U

- 6 -

國家發展을G先導할G核心G科學技術人力을G育成하기G위해G優秀한G學生들의G理工系G進學을G誘導하는G한편SG汎政府G次元의G｢科學敎育振興綜合對策｣도G시급히G마련할G計劃입니다UG

이와G함께G地方G大學의G發展을G위해G國家投資를G擴大해G나가면서SG大學의G國際化G努力도G持續的으로G支援해G나갈G것입니다U

全國G大學의G總長님G여러분S 그리고G來賓G여러분H

저는G오늘G이G자리를G빌어G韓國大學敎育協議會가G우리G大學이G世界와

의G競爭에서G당당히G이겨나갈G수G있도록G힘과G智慧를G모아G주실G것을G

懇曲히G付託드립니다U

특히G韓國大學敎育協議會가G우리나라G大學의G한G時代的G召命을G完遂하는데G있어G中樞的G役割을G다해G주시기를G期待합니다

大學마다G學問探究의G自律性과G多樣性을G追求해G나가면서도G전체G大學敎育의G고른G發展을G이끌고G大學의G社會的G責任이G調和를G이뤄나갈G 수G있도록G하는데도G힘써G주시기를G바라마지G않습니다U

韓國大學敎育協議會G創立GYW週年을G다시G한번G祝賀드리며SG全國G大學의G무궁한G發展과G總長님G여러분의G健勝을G祈願합니다U

感謝합니다U

- 7 -

초 청 강 연

•YX세기G인적자원G개발과G대학의G역할

•패러다임의G변화와G대학개혁

•대학교육의G질G관리와G발전G전략

- 9 -

21세기 인적자원 개발과 대학의 역할

이GG상GG주

ⅠUG인사말씀

존경하는 한국대학교육협의회 이기준 회장님, 전국대학의 총장님, 그리고 내․외 귀빈 여러분!

- 11 -

ⅡUG지식기반사회와G인적자원의G중요성

우리는 지금 지식기반사회에 살고 있습니다. 지식기반사회는 자본, 토지, 노동 등의 자원이 국가 발전의 원동력이던 산업사회와는 달리 지식의 창출, 확산, 활용이 개인은 물론 국가의 발전을 결정하는 사회입니다.

생각합니다.

개편하여 국가 인적자원 정책을 총괄토록 하였으며, 관련 부처 장관들로 구성된 ‘인적자원개발회의’를 통해 인적자원 개발을 위한 각 부처의 정책을 보다 효율적

- 12 -

으로 조율하고 있습니다.

지난 해 말 18개 부처와 공동으로 ‘국가인적자원 개발 기본계획’을 수립, 발표한 바 있습니다. 이 계획은 ‘사람과 지식’ 즉 인적자원을 21세기 국가 발전의 핵심역량으로 규정하고 이를 국가차원에서 종합적으로 개발하고 활용하기 위한 기

본계획입니다.

ⅢUGYX세기G인적자원G개발과G대학의G역할

앞에서 말씀드렸듯이, 21세기에 인적자원 개발을 통하여 세계적인 지식강국, 인적자원강국으로 도약하기 위해서는 과거와 다른 대학의 기능과 역할이 요구되고 있습니다.

※ 국가 경쟁력은 세계 49개국 중 28위, 교육부분 경쟁력은 32위, 대학교육수준(대학교육이 경쟁사회의 요구에 부합하는 정도) 47위, 기업과 대학간의 협력정도 19위(*.%,2001)

- 13 -

또한, 거의 모든 대학이 종합대학형태의 단일모형으로 획일화되어 있으며 사회 각 분야에서 필요로 하는 특성화된 인력을 개발, 공급하는데 미흡한 점이 많습니다. 따라서, 우리 대학도 지식기반사회의 환경 변화에 부응하여 다양한 창의적 인적자원을 개발하기 위해서는 대학의 학사조직, 교육내용, 교육방법과 교육매체는 물론 대학 행정과 운영방식까지도 기존의 틀을 과감하게 탈피하여 바꾸어야 할 것입니다.

□G대학의G특성화․다양화체제G구축G강화

그 동안 대부분의 우리 대학은 백화점식 종합대학을 지향하여 양적인 성장에 치중함으로써 각 대학의 특성을 잃어버렸습니다. 종합대학 지향은 대학이 ‘선택과 집중’의 이점을 살리지 못하여 학문분야별 수월성을 높이지 못하게 하였으며, 일반적인 대학 서열화만 초래하여 일류대학에 들어가려는 과도한 경쟁과 학벌주의를 야기시켜 왔다고 생각합니다.

- 14 -

없습니다.

각 대학은 특정한 분야에서만큼은 상대적으로 비교 우위를 가지고 다른 대학을 능가할 수 있는 체제를 만들어야 합니다. 각 대학은 국가의 전략적 육성분야, 지역산업과 연계한 특정분야를 선정하여 대학 스스로 우수 인재를 양성하는 시스템을 구축, 운영하여야 할 것입니다. 이러한 대학의 특성화가 결국 대학의 학문적 수월성도 높이고 대학의 첨예한 서열구조도 완화시켜 우리사회의 고질적인 병폐인 학벌문화를 개선하는데도 크게 기여하리라 생각합니다.

□G대학G자율성과G책무성의G조화

대학의 특성화를 위해서는 자율성이 뒷받침되어야 합니다. 그 간 한국 대학의 자율성은 상당히 진전되어 왔습니다. 예를 들어 한국대학교육협의회의 설립, 대학설립 준칙주의 시행, 총․학장 선출방식 개선, 학생선발 방법의 개선, 대학 총정원제 등 이미 많은 부문에서 자율화가 진행되어 왔습니다.

□G대학의G국제화․세계화G촉진

경제, 통신 등 타 사회영역에서는 국제화가 빠르게 전개되고 있지만 대학사회

- 15 -

의 국제화는 그렇지 못한 편입니다. 기업은 다국적 기업화하고, 학생은 세계기업을 상대로 직장을 찾아 나서고 있습니다. 한국 젊은이들의 외국유학이 더욱 자유로워지고 있지만 우리 대학의 외국학생들의 유치는 미진한 상태입니다.

□G산․학․연G협력G촉진을G통해G대학이G산업체G등G사회에서G요구

하는G경쟁력G있는G인재G육성

대학은 ‘산업체 등 노동시장’과 보다 긴밀히 연계되어 이들이 요구하는 지식을 창출․보급하고, 경쟁력 있는 인재를 양성․공급하는 역할을 하여야 할 것입니다. 우리 부는 산․학․연 협력 활성화를 위한 법적․제도적 기반을 마련하기 위해 ｢산업교육진흥법｣을 개정하여 대학 내에 산․학 협력단을 설치․운영하고 대학 부지 내에 산업체 연구시설을 유치할 수 있도록 하고, 산업교육 인증제를 확대 운영하여 대학 교육과정의 현장 적합성을 높여 나갈 계획입니다.

- 16 -

□G대학의G평생교육․평생학습사회에G부응하는G대학G교육G기능G강화

지식기반사회는 지식의 유용성 주기가 더욱 짧아져 평생토록 학습하지 않으면 안 되는 사회이기 때문에 대학의 평생교육기능 강화와 평생학습의 국제적 중요

성은 날로 높아지고 있습니다.

□G교양교육과G기초학문G육성

지식기반사회에 부응하여 사회적 수요에 맞는 인재를 육성하기 위한 대학의 특성화, 다양화 과정에서 교양교육과 기초학문의 부실을 초래하였습니다. 교양교육과 기초학문이 부실한 상황에서 건전한 시민으로서의 인성 함양과 가치관 정립은 물론 장기적 관점에서 학문 발전과 과학기술의 공급을 기대하기 어렵게 될 것입니다.

- 17 -

ⅣUG마무리G말씀

존경하는 대학 총장님, 그리고 내․외 귀빈 여러분!

과거 산업사회에서도 대학은 산업인력을 양성 공급하여 산업발전의 원동력을 제공했듯이 지식정보화 사회에서도 새로운 지식의 창출과 활용을 위해 대학은 지도적 역할을 수행 할 것입니다. 그러나, 대학은 다양한 구성원으로 이루어진 자율성이 강한 조직입니다. 이러한 조직을 미래의 부름에 맞게 개선해 나가려면 여기 계신 각 대학의 총장님들의 역할과 지도력이 무엇보다 중요하다고 생각합니다.

감사합니다.

- 18 -

5IF &WPMWJOH NFSJDBO 6OJWFSTJUZ

zamuelGoUGzmith

wresidentGlmeritus、~ashingtonGztateG|niversity

American's colleges and universities are evolving to assume an increasingly important role in the 21st century. The changes are most clearly noted if one examines the students, institutional organization, business model and institutional constituencies.

As I have spent the last 45 years associated with public, doctorate granting, research universities, I will use them to illustrate these changes.

In my opinion, the very success of the American system of higher education provided the driving force for the changes we are now observing. I am one of those fortunate individuals that have lived on a daily basis amongest thousands of students. At Washington State University alone, as its President for 15 years, I signed the diplomas or certificates for over 65,000 graduates. This is over 1/3 of all the graduates in the 111th year history of that institution.

Thus, I have had the pleasure of knowing a significant number of individuals first as students and then remaining in touch with many of them as they moved through their lives and careers. I have observed three consistent trends and one still emerging trend in students attitudes that I feel are creating dramatic changes in how we in universities do our business.

The first trend is of course, the use of information technology. Our current, traditional students and graduates of the last decade have

- 19 -

never known a world without information technology, computers and the internet. Most have never seen a slide rule, a rotary dial telephone, a 78 RPM record or a manual typewriter. They assume open, instant access to information, events and each other.

The second trend is what I have heard termed as Narrowcasting as in contrast to Broadcasting. Students and young adults, and in this I include some individuals up into their 50's, do not want information broadcast to them in a one size fits all, assembly line manner. They are already inundated with immense amounts of available information. As any good teacher knows, they want this information digested specifically for them in a manner relevant to their needs and to the other events going on in their lives.

There is also a sub-theme perhaps developing out of the area of narrowcasting that I wish to mention. This rapidly growing sub-theme has the potential to grow in momentum and involves not only the digesting of information specifically for the individual but to present it in a manner that matches their learning finger print. As the popular press has not yet developed the learning fingerprint concept, it refers to the fact that each of us acquires and retains information or concepts in a manner unique to ourselves. Using retention or memory as an example, to facilitate memory some individuals make lists, some must be reminded and some learn only by consequences of forgetting. Each individual acquires and retains information in a manner unique to them. Students want information and concepts presented to them in a manner that matches their specific fingerprint.

Also, along these same lines, please carefully note the emergence of competency-based degrees or certificates. Competency based degrees are not popular with many traditional academics. These, I remind you are degrees or certifications granted after the completion of an examination and are not based on numbers of credit hours or completing a sequence of courses. There is usually a pre-test to give credit for what

- 20 -

has already been learned and then a course designed in a flexible manner to specially meet the needs of the individual student. In some states there are more individuals in the corporate, high technology certificate programs which are competency based than enrolled in some major public universities. Much of the debate on accountability reflects the distain that traditional academics have for competency based educational programs. Ironically, our awarding of graduate degrees is very much competency based with the securing of the degree based upon passing an examination and the approval of a thesis.

The third and final trend that I will comment on is the student becoming a paying customer. Let me be very direct, I know that universities do not like to think of themselves as businesses and are often offended when compared to a business or a corporation. But realistically, many of our universities are indeed big businesses with billion dollar budgets, tens of thousands of employees, huge physical plants and land holdings, unions, corporate structures and lawyers and many other descriptors that most any business would love to have. And, as the direct state support continues to decrease as a portion of its total budget the description of an American, public university as a business in a competitive environment becomes even more accurate.

In American higher education we have often stated that our goal was to provide an education and document it with a degree. The student and those around them, providing advice and support will continue to decide if the value of the degree is worth the investment of time and money.

To get what they want, students have learned to stand up for themselves and demand value for payment of funds. In other words, we are dealing with experienced customers. As the cost of higher education increases, new competitors are also emerging.

How have these trends affected the basic model of an American public

- 21 -

university? I was fortunate to be one of the members of the Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities, which in a series of reports, illustrated that our current era of change was being initiated by institutional and individual leadership and not by federal legislation as we have seen in the past.

When the commission initiated its efforts, it quickly found that a significant number of institutions had undergone and were undergoing dramatic organizational and structural changes. If you have not seen these reports from the Kellogg Commission, I would encourage you to seek out the website of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.

We as members of the commission, primarily CEO's of institutions that had or were undergoing major change, knew that our own institution had changed but were not generally aware that similar and many times dramatic changes were occurring throughout many other American, public universities. The Kellogg Commission provided a forum for a national dialogue on the new model of an American, public university.

Some of us, like most faculty and administrators, had a mental image of American, public universities that would have been descriptive of those institutions as they existed when we were undergraduates in the 1950's or 1960's. That is, institutions that were primarily composed of residential campuses offering undergraduate and graduate degrees. The majority of students entered from the state's high schools. A geographic service area, usually the state, as indicated by the differing fees for in-state and out-of-state students. The majority of the budget coming directly from the state. And, if a Land Grant Institution, possessing a Cooperative Extension Service and some county responsibilities that were largely invisible to all except the members of the local College of Agriculture. Today, this is still a common view amongst the general public and those that they elect to office.

- 22 -

In the Kellogg Commission discussions, the image that quickly emerged is that the American, public university now must be considered extremely diverse in composition and structure, best described as having a spectrum of delivery of courses, programs and services. On one end of the spectrum is the traditional residential campus of the 1950's or 1960's except that it is now highly wired with the latest information technology capabilities. At the other end of the spectrum of delivery is the student or program participant sitting alone in front of a computer screen somewhere in the world.

I will use Washington State University to describe the spectrum of delivery. Between our central campus at one end of the spectrum and the individual student at a computer, we have offices, classrooms or laboratories at over 75 locations within our state. Washington State University has facilities within a local area phone call of over 95% of the state's population.

In between the two extremes are other types of campuses carrying designates such as undergraduate, graduate, professional, co-located, business, and many others. These campuses are supplemented with a significant number of other delivery sites called Centers carrying designations such as extension, research, small business, etc. These many university locations throughout the state are tied together by communications systems and served by university or public radio or television. There is an irony in that information technology has physically moved us into a much more distributed model.

In other words, the ivory tower of the 1950's-1960's is now located throughout the state and serves students or program participants throughout the world. The American, public university has entered an era of significantly enhanced public engagement but has done it so incrementally that it has largely undergone this change unnoticed except by a few.

- 23 -

While the universities were becoming more fully engaged, they also changed their business model. This is demonstrated most dramatically in our sources of funding. State support has generally not kept pace with increasing university budgets and consequently as a percentage of the total university budget the amount coming from the state has generally decreased. Ironically, as universities have become more engaged in their state, support as a percentage of the total budget has decreased. This trend continues downward with many states reporting their percentage of the university budget to be less than 30-40%. I know many universities quote smaller percentages but I prefer to include all state funds including construction or capital funds.

In many cases students tuition and fees have not increased at a pace comparable to that seen in the areas of funding from research or services, grants and contracts, private fund raising in both campaign or annual fund drives, public/private business ventures and university related businesses.

Thus we often find ourselves designated as a state university where the state pays much less than ½ of the budget but expects full business and policy control. The very designate university would indicate that our primary mission is to educate students when indeed this may not be what we are actually emphasizing if one looks at our business model. Often our business model does not match our self image and how we describe ourselves. This mismatch between our perceived image and our business model is creating tension.

Let's look further at the interaction with our state government. With the advent of information technology the concepts of geography and time have been greatly diminished. With our universities having students throughout the world what does a state do with the concept of an in-state or an out-of-state student? Which state or country should be responsible for financial aid? Is it better to give the state, student

- 24 -

aid directly to the student and let them choose their institution? With most states having councils or commissions to establish state policy for higher education, it is often easier to expand the universities programs in other states or countries, which do not have applicable regulatory authority.

Students now have a range of choices and as educated customers can pick or choose where and how much they want to spend of their time, energy and educational funds. This has been quite evident at the graduate level for many years. At the graduate student level, the find selection of which institution to attend is often strongly influenced by the offered stipend and medical benefits. The graduate and undergraduate students as employees and customers have already adjusted to the new model perhaps better than many of our traditional faculty. The emergence of unions amongst graduate students has been dramatic.

The more traditional faculty member with a high level of responsibility for teaching has always been and will continue to be a proud and valued member of our universities. But, with decreasing state support, enhanced financial support for faculty involved in research and the emergence of the outreach or engagement professional, the traditional, teaching faculty member has a right to question universities about their priorities and faithfulness to their perceived mission of residential education.

With the increasing interest in acquiring funds as private gifts or contracts many universities are moving towards what, in my opinion, is the next area of major change. These funds are without any question often the key to maintaining and enhancing the quality of many of our universities programs.

It has also been my experience that major donors, be they individuals or business organizations, have usually provided the greatest amount of

- 25 -

flexibility to use their funds in the best interest of the university.

The opportunities to interact with successful individuals or business organizations as donors of private funds have stimulated numerous discussions of public/private partnerships. Successful donors are usually successful problem solvers and entrepenures that genuinely want to help their university.

The involvement of our universities with the private sector is increasing rapidly. One has only to list the major universities announcing fund raising campaigns with goals in the billion of dollars and compare them to similar campaigns of a decade ago.

Linked with these major fund raising campaigns is the emergence of public/private partnerships forming centers, institutes or think tanks. Many similar named partnerships already exist within universities and are, often a joint project of the university and a state or federal agency. But, the entities I wish to describe may have names shared with earlier organizations, but they are new and evolving.

Over the last year or so I have been investigating the organizational structure of these new public/private partnerships. I could use several as examples but will describe the one I am most familiar with which is the Talaris Research Institute(TRI) in Seattle, Washington. As the President of the TRI Board of Directors, I can state that we have been applying what we have been learning about these new partnerships.

The primary source of private funding for TRI came from a couple of thoughtful individuals that had been very successful in the business arena and wanted to combine the best aspects of public universities with the best attributes of a private institute. Their goal was to understand and distribute information on the cognitive development of children from birth to age five. TRI brings with it a significant piece of land adjacent to the University of Washington and is building a state of the art research facility designed by the involved researchers and

- 26 -

outreach specialists. University contracts similar in structure to competitive grants are established with researchers in a wide range of departments, schools, colleges and universities, bringing them together in teams not often seen within any single university. TRI also directly employs a growing number of outreach and media specialists to report new research findings and evaluate the soundness of concepts existing in both the scientific and popular literature. The intended audiences are parents and organizations that deal with young children. The goal of TRI is to provide the best, reliable information to those that nurture or provide services to children from birth to age five.

Thus significant sums of money are being used to build on high quality, existing research programs to help them further their work within a defined area and distribute to the public what they learn.

of you can cite similar partnerships, as the intent of not really new. This concept thought is being rapidly the partnerships are increasingly popular and

I know many this concept is enhanced and sophisticated.

Let me close my comments by including a few additional observations on the emerging model of an American, public university. Having been the CEO of such a university for 15 years and participating in the discussions of the Kellogg Commission, there are a couple of issues I would like to mention.

The Kellogg Commission was successful in that it initiated a national dialogue amongst the CEO's of public universities but the issues raised have largely not been addressed by individual universities within their own state. Thus the national dialogue proceeds the state dialogue.

There are several issues that are unresolved that are causing tension within our universities and those they serve, our institutional constituencies.

- 27 -

First, universities are supposed to be stable and only change slightly to adapt to their surroundings. We are going through dramatic change and the general public is now becoming aware of these changes.

Second, the concept of a student has changed. We no longer deal with just the traditional student but instead, all individuals regardless of age, physical characteristics or location are potential students. Each university is free to decide which segments of the student market they wish to serve.

Third, in this increasingly competitive environment, only the highest quality programs will succeed and we do not always know how to assess quality in this new era. The whole concept of accreditation needs to be reexamined.

Fourth, many of those that teach and work within universities are finding their jobs and careers threatened and will actively resist change. The traditionalists do not particularly like what is happening to their university and their perception of the academy.

Fifth, many of our state's elected officials do not place sufficient priority on funding our universities but wish to maintain policy and regulatory control. In many cases, the state is the minority shareholder and the other shareholders want a greater say in setting of policies and priorities.

Sixth, our universities now must deal with a wider, ever growing range of constituents that all want to guide our directions and these constituencies are often at odds with each other. We have new shareholders or if you prefer, stakeholders with potentially conflicting intents.

With these and many other issues facing us, what are our options? I suggest that we consider a comment that I made earlier in these remarks and that is change is occurring due to institutional leadership

- 28 -

and not by federal legislation as we have seen in the past. We have entered an era of narrowcasting having left the era of broadcasting. The national dialogue is occurring but we now need the state or local dialogue.

I would encourage Kellogg Commission type discussions internally at your institutions. We have historically, as universities, done our best when we made educated decisions in a thoughtful manner and not simply reacting to our changing environment.

This is a wonderful time to be in higher education. We are not discussing whether we should change but instead how much and how do we use it to make a better world.

- 29 -

%FWFMPQNFOUBM 4USBUFHZ & 2VBMJUZ

navinGirown

}iceTjhancellorGandGwrincipalSG{heG|niversityGofGzydney

pu{yvk|j{pvu

It is a great honour to be invited to speak to you today and I congratulate the Korean Council for University Education on its 20th anniversary. My understanding is that all 193 four-year colleges and universities in Korea participate in the Council, working cooperatively to enhance the quality of higher education in your country. When President Lee, your Chairman, invited me to address you, he suggested that I might consider the issue of developmental strategy for universities in the age of quality assurance. He was, as always, very polite and indicated that I might like to choose a different topic. In truth there is no problem of scope with such a task. My difficulty is selectivity. My hope is that observations based on my own experience in Australian universities will provoke some thoughts which translate to the Korean context. Although higher education systems vary across the world I am sure that we share many common challenges.

x|hsp{YGhzz|yhujl

Many people regard the American, W. Edwards Deming, as the founder of the quality movement, based on his work with Japanese companies beginning in the late 1940's. He used to perform an

- 31 -

illustrative experiment which is still worth recalling. Let me describe a simplified version in which I will focus on one particular aspect. Imagine a box with a mixture of red and white beads. Volunteers are issued with flat wooden paddles each with a collection of bead-size hollows on the surface. The task is to dip the paddle in the box and carry as many white beads as possible without spillage to another location. Red beads are bad and must be avoided insofar as possible. People work diligently at the task although they have very little control over the process. Their performance typically shows some initial improvement then settles down with statistical variation around a mean. Encouragement or threats serve only to increase frustration, guilt and variability.

It is the system not individual skill that determines the outcome. Indeed Deming had a catchphrase that productivity is 85% dependent on management and only 15% dependent on workers.

I have reminded you of the parable of the beads because not everything which is done in the name of quality management is necessarily good. We must be careful that we arrange structures so that people are empowered by the process rather than that the opposite happens.

Similar discipline must apply to governments. A university president from Hong Kong gave a rather cynical interpretation of world trends when he said that governments increase student numbers, reduce resources then blame university management if there is any drop in quality. Some go so far as to say that national quality audits are a device to make university presidents claim that quality has risen rather than admit a more sinister truth!

In Britain there was a recent revolt, (I believe, led by the major research universities) against the audit agency. The main reason for this was somewhat different. It was felt that the emphasis of the elaborate

- 32 -

and expensive process was to ensure minimal compliance with a set of protocols which did not capture the important features of quality in the leading universities. I do know that, some years ago, the mathematics department at Oxford believed that it was marked down because it was adjudged to spend too little time giving students practice in the use of hand-held calculators.

The Australian government has recently put in place the Australian Universities Quality Agency and all universities will be audited on a rolling basis. Much of the methodology appears to be imported from New Zealand whose universities have had comprehensive quality audits in recent years. In both countries all the major universities are publicly funded so that one motivation from a governance perspective is to demonstrate effective spending of government subsidies. There is also a claim that the audit provides a guarantee of minimum standards to overseas students. From the perspective of the universities, it will be important to demonstrate that self-reviews can be linked to worthwhile improvements. Getting staff to see this as an outcome is no easy task in a climate of diminishing and stretched resources.

The State Government of New South Wales, which has oversight of the governance of the University of Sydney, has very recently enacted legislation which requires each university to report in detail on all commercial ventures and the methodology and protocols involved in their establishment. These 'self-audits' are in addition to the annual financial audits of all our activities conducted by the State Auditor General.

It is worth remarking that the operating grant which we receive (which amounts to about one-third of our annual income) comes from a different government, namely the national Federal Government, which, of course, imposes its own reporting requirements through the Department of Education, Science and Training which, in turn, is distinct from the national quality audit agency. Our operations are subject to great scrutiny from a variety of sources and levels.

- 33 -

I have described this background in order to emphasise that quality compliance, not just in our core activities of research and teaching but in all our processes and operations, is a major societal demand on the modern university. We must take the task seriously and that requires that we devote significant resources to this function. I argue, however, that quality assurance for our own purposes is even more important than quality compliance for external agencies and that the real art of management is to combine the two in the furtherance of our strategic objectives.

kl}lsvwtlu{Gz{yh{lnY

As I suggested in the introduction I find it easier to use concrete examples from my direct experience. The University of Sydney has over 35,000 students and 5,500 staff. The governing body, our Senate, is a mix of government appointees and elected members from students, staff and graduates. In the belief that the quality of governance determines the quality of the enterprise we conducted a review of our governance processes last year. Let me try to summarise the outcome as an affirmation of the principle that the governing body determines broad policy and not management detail. To do that effectively it must be well-informed on a regular basis (in such a way that there is confidence that such is the case) and its members must work to familiarize themselves with the operations of the University and must be assisted in that process by an effective induction program. A major task of the governing body is to appoint the CEO (i.e. the Vice-Chancellor) and review that officer's progress against the University's goals. The governing body plays a key role in the selection of the senior management team and its progress review. The setting of key performance indicators is an interaction where all should be mindful of

- 34 -

the parable of the beads. Above all, the governing body is committed to open process and the success of the University depends very much on the effective working relationships established between the governing body and the senior management.

No university can risk losing sight of its prime purposes in research and teaching. For that reason I believe that the senior administrators should be 'academic managers'. Scholars who have attained academic distinction and then acquired management skills. A variation occurs with the position of Chief Finance Officer, reporting directly to the CEO, who is required to have developed considerable business experience and be in possession of a sensitive appreciation of the academic environment.

For reasons of size we have grouped the Faculties in three academic colleges - Sciences and Technology, Health Sciences and Humanities and Social Sciences. In addition to the normal central deputy CEO positions we have senior academic managers leading each of these colleges.

At this point you may well seek to stop me and ask in what way am I describing development and in what way am I addressing quality? My response is that quality assurance must have the full commitment of senior management and that workable structures are a prerequisite for strategy development. What we work hard to achieve (imperfectly) is that all decisions are taken at the appropriate level. We believe that a commitment to quality must pervade the entire management structure and not be a separate function.

Allow me to make two final comments on structure. Within the Faculties we have encouraged discipline areas to cluster in schools in order that the infrastructure for financial reporting, industrial relations, etc is not wastefully replicated in a myriad of departments. In parallel to these management structures we have an independent Academic Board with a mixture of ex officio and elected membership which

- 35 -

provides the chief forum for deliberation on major academic matters.

As regards quality development, the Chair of the Academic Board has organized review teams which will visit faculties or other units and conduct an internal interactive audit. This is an iterative process which communicates best practice through the institution. In addition the University is making a concerted effort through the operation of a Quality Assurance Coordination Group to share quality processes already being implemented in Faculties and administrative units.

We seek to foster strategic development through our internal budget allocation process. In the first place the budget is top-sliced to provide a multi-million dollar internal research support program which operates competitively. Further funds are reserved for general strategic initiatives which currently include 15 new lectureships a year to enhance quality teaching and research developments in the faculties. The remainder is distributed to the academic colleges by a formula which rewards the quality of their research performance and their teaching achievements as benchmarked against a group of leading research intensive Australian universities.

It can be argued that a formulaic reward for high performance is bad quality practice because it can compound the difficulties of areas which, through no fault of their own, produce less. Within the centrally retained strategic development funds lies the capacity to address such matters on a case-by-case basis. A soundly-based quality program requires that we do all we can to remedy the ills unearthed by our review processes.

In the course of the last two years we have introduced a comprehensive system of performance management for all staff. The emphasis is very much developmental rather than punitive and the aspiration is that each employee and supervisor benefits from a reflective evaluation of aims and outcomes. The policy is that everyone should have a clear

- 36 -

framework within which to operate with room for initiative, moreover that the taking of appropriate initiatives is to be encouraged rather than the outcome 'marked'.

A further objective of our employee relations strategy is that everyone should be well-informed of overall institutional goals and outcomes in order that they may see their own contribution fitting the wider purpose. Internal communication continues to improve but there remains much to be done in tackling this challenge.

Every university seeks to attract and retain the highest quality students. This fits well with an overall strategy of development which focuses on improvement of performance in our fundamental activities of research and teaching. The most important benefit we can confer upon our students is an atmosphere of intellectual creativity wherein the staff they meet are themselves engaged in continuous learning. That said, it matters also that we take steps to enhance the teaching process which ensures that the students share fully in that ethos. We learn by exchanging information on best practice between different departments in our own institution, and we learn by benchmarking with other universities whose achievements we respect. I consider it important that such cooperative interchange takes place internationally and we have joint projects for teaching improvement with universities from several countries.

In those cases where students can legitimately be regarded as customers - the mechanics of enrollment, counselling support, the convenience of timetabling - it is appropriate to optimize the quality of the services we provide. Information technology has helped to make many processes more efficient, although it is always necessary to design systems to benefit the users rather than fulfill the dreams of the technical experts who provide them!

- 37 -

jvujs|zpvu

I am conscious that these observations merely skim the surface, but it is time to draw to a conclusion. There is a worldwide movement towards greater accountability and quality compliance in universities. As I have said, we should embrace this trend by focussing on quality assurance for our own university objectives. We must never lose sight of the fact that the health of our universities depends on the vigour of our research and teaching. The quality of these must be ensured through strategic planning, planning which is sensitive to the importance of the individual so that what we provide is a framework of support rather than one of authoritarian control. We should also appreciate that emphasis on quality assurance in all our operations is to be valued because every improvement, no matter how simple, makes it easier to achieve our prime goals. Above all, in an environment of increasing complexity and increasing financial stringency we should demonstrate how much we can achieve with what little is available. There is no advantage in showing poor outcomes in the pious hope that this will encourage others to provide us with more resources.

Finally, let me say that all universities operate in an international sphere. Our standards must be set by international benchmarks and we should seek to discover good ideas from worldwide exemplars. That is why I congratulate KCUE on holding this international meeting and why I feel so privileged to have been invited to speak with you.

- 38 -

21세기 대학교육의 질 관리와 발전 전략

국제세미나

•주제XaG미국G대학의G개혁과G대학교육의G질G관리G전략+VEJUI 4. &BUPO(미국 고등교육평가인정협회 총재)

•주제YaG홍콩의G대학교육의G질G관리와G발전G전략+PIO -FPOH $IJ :BO(홍콩평가인정기구 회장)

•주제ZaG한국의G고등교육G질G관리와G평가G방향

- 39 -

DDSFEJUBUJPO BOE 2VBMJUZ JO UIF 6OJUFE 4UBUFT: 1SBDUJDF BOE 1SFTTVSFT

qudithGzUGlaton

In the United States, accreditation is the primary form of external quality review of colleges, universities and programmes. Accreditation is carried out by private non-profit organisations designed for this specific purpose and is a non-governmental enterprise. It is more than 100 years old, emerging from concerns to protect public health and safety and to serve the public interest.

The use of the term 'accreditation' in the US is not identical to how the term is used in other countries. An institution or programme is considered accredited if it 1) meets the standards of an accrediting organisation, 2) sustains effective means of assuring quality - has processes and mechanisms to manage quality and 3) maintains strategies to improve its quality over time. Accreditation involves compliance with quality standards, mechanisms for quality assurance and strategies for quality improvement.

Accredited status does not give an institution or programme a license to operate. Authority to operate is granted by individual states in the US, not by accreditors. Accreditation does not guarantee transfer of credits between two accredited institutions and it does not guarantee degree equivalency among accredited institutions. Determination of transfer and degree equivalency are the province of individual institutions and programmes, not accreditors.

- 41 -

The US accreditation structure is decentralized and complex, mirroring the decentralization and complexity of American higher education. Approximately 6,500 degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions that may be public or private, two-or four-year, non-profit or for-profit were accredited in 1998-99. More than 20,000 programmes in a range of professions and specialties that include law, medicine, business, nursing, social work and pharmacy, arts and journalism were accredited in 1998-99 as well. The US higher education enterprise spends approximately $230 billion per year, enrolls more than 15 million credit students and employs approximately 2.7 million full-and part-time people.

Regional organisations accredit public and private two-and four-year institutions. Almost all of these colleges and universities are non-profit and degree-granting. Regional accreditors undertake a comprehensive review of all institutional functions. They are called 'regional' because, historically, this institutional accreditation in the US has been organised in clusters of states or regions of the country, with the scope of these particular accreditors limited these states.

National organisations accredit public and private two-and four-year colleges and universities as well. Some national organisations focus on faith-based or other single-purpose institutions. Others review primarily for-profit degree-granting and non-degree-granting institutions. Yet others review a combination of for-profit and non-profit institutions. They are called 'national' because their scope includes all 50 states and, unlike regional accreditors, they are not confined to certain areas of the country.

Specialised and professional organisations accredit specific programmes or schools including law schools, medical schools, engineering schools and programmes and health profession programmes. They are called 'specialised and professional' because their scope is confined to specific educational areas rather than entire institutions.

- 42 -

{heGpurposesGofG|zhGhccreditation

US accreditation serves several purposes. These are to:

1) *OEJDBUF RVBMJUZ

Accredited status is a signal to students and the public that an institution or programme meets at least minimal standards for e.g., faculty, curriculum, student services and libraries. Accredited status is conveyed only if institutions and programmes provide evidence of fiscal stability as well.

2) TTJTU XJUI BDDFTT UP 64 GFEFSBM GVOET

Accreditation is required for access to US federal funds such as student grants and loans for tuition and other federal programmes. The federal government relies on accreditors to confirm the quality of institutions and programmes in which students enroll. Federal student aid funds are available to students only if the institution they are attending or the programme in which they are enrolled is accredited by an organisation 'recognised' by the United States Department of Education(USDE), a federal agency(Please see below, 'Holding Accreditors Accountable'). The United States awarded $60 billion in student grants and loans in 1997-98.

3) &BTF USBOTGFS

Students who wish to move from one institution to another and have their credits transfer must have these credits scrutinised by the receiving institution or programme to which they want to transfer. These institutions and programmes examine, among other things, whether or not the credits a student wishes to transfer have been

- 43 -

earned at an institution or programme that is accredited. Although accreditation does not guarantee transfer and is but one among several factors taken into account by receiving institutions, it is viewed carefully and is considered an important indicator of quality.

4) &OHFOEFS FNQMPZFS DPOGJEFODF

Employers consider accredited status of an institution or programme when evaluating credentials of job applicants and when deciding whether to support tuition requests from current employees seeking additional education.

Accredited status is not a requirement in the Us, but is highly coveted because of the purposes that it serves.

oowGhccreditationGvperates

Review of institutions and programmes for US accredited status may occur every few years to every 10 years. The earning of accreditation is not a 'one-time' event. Periodic review is a requirement for all US institutions and programmes to remain accredited.

To obtain accreditation, an institution or programme must go through a number of steps stipulated by an accrediting organisation. These steps include preparation of evidence of the activities and accomplishments of the institution of programme, scrutiny of this evidence and a site visit by faculty and administrative peers and action to decide the accreditation status of an institution or programme.

* institutional or programme self-study: institutions and programmes prepare a written summary of their performance based on an accrediting organisation's standards;

- 44 -

* use of peer review: faculty and administrative peers review the self-study and serve on visiting teams that examine institutions and programmes after the self-study is completed. Peers also serve on accrediting commissions or boards that make judgements about whether the institution or programme is to be accredited;

Accreditation organisations and their activities are primarily funded by US colleges and universities and programmes themselves. These institutions and programmes pay the cost of the accreditation review and annual membership dues to accrediting organisations. Some accreditors have grants for foundations or corporations, but these funds are not primary sources of ongoing revenue.

ooldingGhccreditorsGhccountable

In the US, accreditors are accountable to the institutions and programme they accredit. They are also accountable to the public and government. To address the accountability demands of these constituents, accreditors

- 45 -

undergo a periodic external review of their organisations known as 'recognition'. Recognition of an accrediting organisation is based on specific standards. The scrutiny culminates in a judgement about whether the accreditor has met standards. Recognition is carried out either by another private organisation, the Council for Higher Education Accreditation(CHEA), a national coordinating body for national, regional and spacialised accreditation or, as indicated above, the USDE, a US federal agency. Approximately 75 institutional and programmatic accreditors are currently recognised by either CHEA or the USDE. Although accreditation is an non-governmental activity, recognition may or may not be.

The five recognition standards used by CHEA to review accrediting organisations place primary emphasis on academic quality assurance and improvement for an institution or programme. These standards require accreditors to advance academic quality, demonstrate accountability, encourage purposeful change and needed improvement, employ appropriate and fair procedures in decision-making and continually reassess accreditation practices.

CHEA recognition calls for review at least every 10 years with a five-year interim report. The CHEA Committee on Recognition(a group of institutional representatives, accreditors and public members) reviews accreditors for CHEA recognition based on a self-study completed by the accreditor. CHEA may also conduct a site visit. The committee recommends to the CHEA governing board that recognition be affirmed or denied to an accreditor. The CHEA board determines whether or not an accreditor is recognized.

The USDE recognition review usually takes place every five years. USDE review involves a written petition from the accreditor and, at times, a visit to the accreditor. USDE staff recommends to the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity(NACIQI). This is a group of educators and public members appointed by the US Secretary of Education and charged to recommend the recognition or

- 46 -

denial of recognition of an accrediting organisation. The committee, in turn, recommends action to the US Secretary of Education. The Secretary determines whether or not an accreditor is recognised.

There are 11 USDE standards for recognition in federal law. They address the multiple dimensions of institutional or programme operation, including student achievement, curriculum, faculty, libraries, student affairs, finance, governance, continuing education, facilities and recruitment and admissions. The fundamental thrust of the federal review is to assure that the resources and capacity of an institution or programme are highly likely to produce student achievement.

CHEA and USDE recognize many of the same accrediting organisations, but not all. Accreditors seek CHEA or USDE recognition for different reasons. CHEA recognition confers an academic legitimacy on accrediting organisations, helping to consolidate the place of these organisations and their institutions and programmes in the national higher education community. USDE recognition is essential for accreditors whose institutions or programmes seek eligibility for federal student aid and other federal funds.

yecentGjhallengesaGwressuresGonG|zhGhccreditation

Accreditation in the US finds itself beset by a number of pressures. Some of these pressures are not unique to the US and may be found in a number of other countries. Some reflect specifically US issues and concerns about quality review:

* pressure for accreditation to become more public with its reviews and decision-making;

- 47 -

* pressure to accommodate more and more electronically-delivered degrees, programmes and courses in addition to scrutiny of site-based activity;

These pressures on accreditation have the potential to reposition the role of accreditation in US society. Accreditation would shift from a primarily private undertaking that directly serves college and universities in their efforts to assure and improve quality to a more public undertaking that directly serves students, the public and government through providing consumer and market information about quality, especially student learning outcomes.

Historically, accreditation has been a system of self-review intended to improve the capacity and resources of institutions to undertake teaching, learning and research. It is a catalyst for creating an ongoing institutional conversation about the management of quality. Accreditation has been driven by traditional academic values(e.g., the values of institutional autonomy, academic freedom and general education) with institutions as the primary audience of accrediting efforts. Accreditation has been a powerful force for continuity in US higher education.

Increasingly, however, accreditation is expected to take on additional and, in some ways, quite divergent tasks. These tasks include providing detailed public information about the results of accreditation review, with particular attention to student learning outcomes. Accreditors are asked to pay specific attention to student information needs and public and government concerns about quality for money. This contrasts with the heretofore private role of accreditation review and with the primary focus of accreditation review on institutional capacity and resources, rather than outcomes.

- 48 -

For example, accreditors are increasingly asked to provide consumer protection, shielding students from poor quality higher education by making public information about marginal or inadequate institutions, whether they are accredited or not. Students want to know about 'diploma mills' and 'accreditation mills'. Accreditation is also becoming an indicator of the market value of a higher education programme or institution. For example, corporations moving into higher education seek accreditation more because it enhances the worth of their investment to the public and less because it is instructive about managing quality.

Finally, in this repositioning, accreditation is supposed to be a significant force for change(in contrast to a force for continuity) - accommodating the growing diversity of new providers and student attendance patterns in higher education by functioning as the arbiter of quality and providing a basis for public judgements about these new providers and patterns. The expectation is that e.g., distance learning operations, the growing for-profit sector in higher education and more and more programmes that involve course-taking not leading to a degree - all will be scrutinized for quality by the accrediting community. Little attention is paid to the extent to which these new providers are significantly at variance with the type of higher education institutions and programmes that accreditation was invented to assist.

wressureGonGhllG|zGhccreditorsGtoGtakeGyeviewGandGkecisionsG toreGwublic

As indicated above, Us accreditation is a private activity - carried out by non-governmental bodies. In addition to this private status of the organisation itself, the accreditation review and decision-making process is similarly private. Especially in the private higher education sector, institutional self-studies and team reports are not likely to be public

- 49 -

documents. For both public and private institutions, accrediting commission deliberations about accredited status are not public.

The rationale for this privacy is that accreditation review is intended as a formative evaluation that takes place among peers. To make this evaluation public would reduce the likelihood of candid exchange among peers, thereby reducing the consultative value of the accreditation review to improve the quality of performance of institutions. Although a number of countries routinely make this review public, the US does not.

Nonetheless, as higher education becomes both an increasingly essential and expensive commodity in the US, constituencies such as federal and state governments, students and the general public want to know more about what goes into the ultimate decision about accredited status. Why does one institution become accredited and another is denied accreditation? Why do few institutions lose their accredited status?

These same constituents are also calling for additional evidence on which to make comparative judgements about institutional and programmatic quality. Ranking systems-publications such as US News and World Report's Americas Best Colleges, Yahoo and The Princeton Review-are quite popular and have emerged as a significant source of information to students and the public about higher education and comparative quality. Ranking systems are sometimes juxtaposed to accreditation as evidence that these constituents want ways to make comparisons between and among higher education institutions and that accreditors should provide this information.

Such comparative judgements are neither easy nor, for a number of accreditors, desirable. The confidentiality of a review's detailed results creates hurdles for comparative judgements about quality. Accreditation relies on the mission of an institution or programme as the key basis for judgement about its quality. This, too, makes comparative judgement difficult. For example, an accreditation standard about curriculum is the

- 50 -

same for a community college and a research university. At the same time, what counts as evidence of meeting this standard effectively is expected to vary considerably, based on the distinct mission of these two types of institutions. How can meaningful and reliable comparisons be made?

This pressure for more information about the accreditation review is, at its core, an growing interest in institutional and programme quality. One way that accreditors can respond is to work through the institutions and programmes they accredit so that these operations provide more public information about quality. Accreditors can hold institutions and programmes accountable for expanded information -sharing practices as one way to respond to this pressure.

This information can be obtained through, for example, electronic institutional and programmatic portfolios or 'fact books' describing performance. Accreditors might also urge that institutions and programmes develop a 'quality grid' based on data that describe the effectiveness of the institution or programme. This grid or matrix of quality would contain information about, e.g., the likelihood of graduation or the achievement of other educational goals, certification or licensure success, and rates of transfer and employment all help students to make decisions about college attendance. The grid could include data on documented student competencies. Institutions and programmes might also consider developing a 'performance profile' - information to the public about annual goals and provide evidence that these have been achieved.

wressureGtoGiecomeGtoreGvutcomesGmocused

In addition to the public interest in a more public accreditation review, constituents are also seeking more information about student learning outcomes. These constituents ask: what are the student learning outcomes associated with a college, university or programme? What counts as

- 51 -

evidence of student learning outcomes? How does this evidence contribute to our judgements about institution or programme quality? Accreditors are asked to inform students and the public about the learning gains and competencies of students in response to the oft-repeated query: is this a quality institution or programme?

In response, accreditors have begun to cast their standards and their expectations of institutional and programmatic performance in term of 'outcomes' or what student learn. They are building capacity to work with institutions and programmes to develop evidence of student learning and assisting the institutions and programmes themselves to develop capacity to do this. However, there is great resistance within the higher education community to moving toward student learning outcomes as a means to manage quality.

Some institutions and programmes claim they already have evidence of student achievement or learning outcomes(grades) and do not understand why other constituents of accreditation state that this information is not available. They maintain that faculty in the classroom have good evidence of student learning outcomes and should not be pressured to provide more. These institutions and programmes further maintain that recent pressure for additional attention to student learning outcomes is a call to reduce the teaching and learning experience to only measurable objectives that does not capture the fullness of the collegiate experience.

Although the current evidence of student learning outcomes may satisfy some in higher education, it is simply not enough for accreditation's other constituents outside colleges and universities. This helps to explain why some states in the US have begun to require that public colleges and universities to provide such evidence as a condition of obtaining state public funds. It also clarifies why the US Congress and the USDE, in the 1998 reauthorisation of the federal Higher Education Act(HEA), chose to place additional emphasis on student

- 52 -

achievement as a determinant of quality. The HEA is the federal legislation governing federal funds to higher education issues.

While acknowledging that institutions and programmes do make some judgements about student learning outcomes, accreditors can nonetheless work with institutions to develop additional capacity to respond to this pressure. This might include obtaining direct evidence of student competencies through tests, portfolios or other means in addition to grades. Accreditors can hold institutions and programmes accountable for developing and using evidence of student learning outcomes to make judgements about institutional and programmatic quality and how to improve it. Some institutions have been successful in this area, and some accreditors have been discussing the feasibility of urging others to approach student learning outcomes in this way.

There are some models available. CHEA has developed a Competency Standards Project, an alternative accreditation review based on student learning outcomes. The standards for the review focus on student achievement, institutional support for student achievement and institutional organisation for student achievement. It is available through CHEA, with an overview on the CHEA website(www.Chea.org). Corporate information technology training from, for example, Microsoft or Cisco, is built on a competency model, offering higher education a way of organising a determination of quality through attention to outcomes. An estimated 2.4 million information technology certifications were issued worldwide in 1999.

wressureGtoGhddressGtheGlxpandingG~orldGofGllectronicallyTG deliveredGlducation

With the growing numbers of students, traditional institutions and new providers of higher education engaged in electronic delivery of

- 53 -

higher education; accreditors are being asked to build capacity to assure quality in these environments. Institutions and programmes want to assure that their emerging electronic initiatives are sustaining quality; students and the public want to know which of the many electronic initiatives are worthy of tuition dollars and time; federal and state governments want to make sure that any use of public tax dollars is confined to quality higher education operations.

Electronically-delivered education takes several forms. First, traditional site-based institutions and programmes are incorporating electronic delivery into exciting courses and programmes or establishing on-line colleges. Some are developing entire degrees. University of Maryland University College(UMUC), for example, enrolled 40,000 students in 1999-2000 in on-line programmes. Second, electronically-based consortia of courses, programme or institutions are developing. For example, the Southern Regional Education Board(SREB) has developed an electronic campus with more than 3,200 on-line courses and available through more than 260 institutions in 16 states in 1999. Third, 'new providers' of higher education that rely primarily on electronic delivery are emerging. Virtual universities such as United States Open University and Western Governors University are two examples.

Whatever the form of electronically-delivered education, it creates responsibilities for accreditors. Working with institutions and programmes, they are responsible for identifying the distinctive features of distance delivery and assuring that quality review practices are adequate to review these features. This could include reconsideration of existing accreditation standards or the development of new standards. Especially in the case of virtual universities, this may involve greater attention to student learning outcomes than in a site-based setting.

Accreditors, institutions and programmes also have political responsibilities, working to demonstrate to the federal government that their quality review practices that have been effective for site-based

- 54 -

education can be equally effective when applied to electronically-based environments. They have responsibility for working with government to rethink the federal student grant and loan programmes where electronic delivery alters existing policy agreements.

The eight US regional accreditors have responded to this pressure with the development of a common platform of inquiry and scrutiny of distance-delivered education. They are currently reviewing a proposed set of practices for the review of electronically-offered degree and certificate programmes. While each of the regional accreditors will continue to rely on the specific quality standards of their respective regions, the set of practices provide a common foundation for application of these standards to distance delivery.

Some of the national and specialised accreditors have developed specific quality standards for distance delivery. Other accreditors are continuing to use existing standards, but are developing additional strategies to accommodate some of the variations in teaching and learning that especially computer-mediated instruction has introduced. For example, AACSB - The International Association for Management Education - has identified key issues in distance learning while the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education has published key questions about distance learning and teaching education.

wressureGtoGhctGpnternationally

Pressure on accreditors to expand their international review activity is increasing. There is growing interest in US institutions and programmes to operate internationally and a growing interest of accreditors in undertaking more and more reviews of non-US-based institutions and programmes. The US federal government is giving greater attention to international higher education. Institutions and programmes around the

- 55 -

world are coming to value of the US accreditor's seal of approval and more and more are approaching them for review. And distance-learning operations can very quickly go international, which calls for additional attention to this area.

In addition, with distance learning enabling students to wander the globe in search of educational experiences and distance providers free to beam their wares anywhere, accreditation and quality assurance agencies and organisations are finding themselves besieged with requests for judgements about institutions throughout the world. Students in one country, for example, want information ranging from transfer of credit to admission to graduate school to tuition reimbursement to the portability of degrees across the globe. These questions simply cannot be answered without attention to fundamental quality issues.

At present, accreditation of US institutions and programmes operating outside the US or of non-US institutions and programmes operating outside the US is fairly limited. In 1999, the 56 CHEA participating accreditors reported that they were accrediting 355 institutions or programmes, almost all of which are US institutions operating outside the US. These US accreditors, along with their international colleagues, are energetically seeking alliances with quality assurance agencies to obtain more and better information about the operation and quality of institutions and programmes in other countries. In addition, they are exploring avenues such as substantial equivalency, mutual recognition, meta-accreditation and transfer networks.

These international challenges before US accreditors include examining whether, at some point, they need to coordinate standards for international quality review among institutional and programmatic reviewers. Perhaps even more pressing for the US is the need to examine the term and conditions under which US accreditors are individually willing to undertake an international review. Some accreditors

- 56 -

review US institutions and programmes operating abroad; others do not. Some accreditors review non-US institutions and programmes operating outside the US; others will not. Should there be more coordination here? Or, as long as each accreditor is clear about its willingness to operate internationally, is the current situation satisfactory? Finally, there is a need to expand communication and cooperation between US accreditors and quality-assurance organisations around the world.

wressureGonGyegionalGhccreditorsGtoGhctGuationally

As mentioned above, there are eight regional accrediting commissions in the US, each accrediting institutions in a specific cluster of states. Distance learning institutions (e.g., Western Governors University) and site-based institutions operating cross-regionally (e.g., University of Phoenix) have called into question whether the long-standing regional structure should give way to a national approach to accreditation. For some, emerging distance learning offerings and site-based institutions operating cross-regionally render a strictly regional approach obsolete. This 'acting nationally' might take place through regional commissions adopting a set of national standards to which all eight commissions subscribe to make judgements about institutional quality. The commissions would exist to apply the national standards.

However, the response of the regional commissions to 'nationalise' in this way has been an emphatic 'no'. They - and their institutional constituents - are powerfully committed to retain a regional structure with regional standards. To accommodate this, the regional commissions have taken two steps. First, they have all approved a common policy for the accreditation of site-based institutions operating cross regionally. Regional standards prevail, but the conduct of an accreditation review involves consultation and decision-making among regions in which the institution is operating.

- 57 -

Second, as mentioned above, the regional accreditors have developed a draft common platform for review of distance learning to respond to the pressure of expanded electronic delivery. This platform is also a response to the pressure to nationalise. The platform does stipulate common areas of inquiry that the regional commission should pursue such as institutional context, curriculum, faculty, student support and evaluation. It does not, however, impinge on specific regional accreditation standards and judgements about quality made by a region. These standards and judgements are the sole province of the regional accrediting organisation.

The five pressures in accreditation in the US have the potential of fundamentally altering activity. The more likely outcome, however, is something more modest than fundamental change. Accreditation will be modified in some ways - perhaps greater emphasis on student learning outcomes, some additional to public information and more accommodation of electronic delivery. At the same time, the basic commitments of accreditation will remain; the commitment to peer review, a consultative style and primary emphasis on quality improvement.

zummary

Accreditation in the US is a complex set of activities involving dozens of accrediting organisations and thousands of institutions and programmes. Accreditation involves compliance with accreditation standards as well as capacity for quality assurance and quality improvement. While not required for institutions and programmes, it is a coveted status because it brings the benefits of access to government funding, strengthening employer confidence in education and easing transfer of credit (in addition to assuring quality).

Accreditation is also the primary means by which US colleges and

- 58 -

universities sustain their institutional autonomy and self-regulating authority. It is a peer-driven, consultative process culminating in a judgement about whether or not an institution or programme is may be designated as accredited.

At present, there are five major pressures on accreditation. Accreditation is being pushed to become more public, to provide more information about student learning outcomes, to accommodate more electronically-delivered education, to increase international activity, and (for regional accreditors) to operate nationally. The fundamental challenge for accreditors is to respond to these challenges while maintaining the desired traditional features of their enterprise. For some of these pressures, this appears promising. For other pressures, it is difficult.

Underlying these pressures are various forces that would reposition accreditation in the US from a primarily private activity intended to serve the quality assurance and improvement needs of colleges and universities to a more public activity to serve the needs of consumers, the market and government in making judgements about quality for the purposes of decision making about what college to attend, business investment in higher education and use of taxpayer dollars for tuition.

Whatever the pressures, accreditation in the US will remain a powerful and important presence in higher education, to government and to the public. The accrediting community's response to these pressures and what underlies them will determine whether and to what extent it will be repositioned in society.

- 59 -

5IF 4USBUFHZ BOE UIF 2VBMJUZ .BOBHFNFOU PG )JHIFS &EVDBUJPO JO )POH ,POH

wrofessorGqohnGjGYGseon

jhairmanSGoongGrongGjouncilGforGhcademicGhccreditation

tsG~GzG~ong

pntroduction

It is my pleasure to share with you the history and the features of the development of the quality assurance system for higher education in Hong Kong, for two reasons. Firstly, because of the strong emphasis placed on higher education in Hong Kong, and secondly, because of the multi-faceted quality assurance system we have, which has incorporated many international good practices while at the same time taking account of local practicalities.

For the small size of Hong Kong, with a population of over 6 million, we invest fairly heavily in higher education. Government expenditure on education in 2001/02 is about 21.9% of total government expenditure, and 4.4% of GDP, of which higher education accounts for about 30%. There are a total of eleven degree-awarding institutions in Hong Kong. Participation rate in degree level education is 18% of the relevant age group, and over 30% if including sub-degree education.

In the last two decades, the higher education system in Hong Kong was marked by an unprecedented rate of expansion, starting with

- 61 -

expansion of degree level education in the public sector. While the Government was keen to increase the participation rate in higher education (from about 2% to 18% for degree level education), it also saw the importance of safeguarding the quality of education, in particular in the wake of a fast pace of expansion. Thus the growth of the higher education system in the 1980s and 1990s was paralleled by the development of a quality assurance system for Hong Kong, and an increasing awareness of the importance of quality assurance.

Of this development one of the most significant features was the creation of an independent quality assurance organisation, the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation, initially with responsibility for the non-university sector. The establishment of the HKCAA had brought about fundamental changes to the concept of quality assurance in the higher education sector. It resulted in the creation of a binary system in higher education, initially between the universities and the non-universities, and later, between the self-accrediting institutions, and the non-self-accrediting institutions. This binary system came to mark much of the later development.

More significantly, the existence of the HKCAA has come to enshrine the principles and the model of independent, external quality assurance, which have subsequently affected how the entire higher education system views the concept of quality monitoring. Irrespective of whether or not the HKCAA, or the principles of external quality assurance are accepted by the individual stake-holders in the system, their reactions and attitudes towards quality assurance/quality monitoring have inevitably been, to a certain extent, influenced by the very existence of an organisation which embodies concepts of quality assurance hitherto new to Hong Kong.

The binary system in higher education which came into shape with the creation of the HKCAA later underwent further transformation, and different configurations. Between the 1980s and the mid 1990, the

- 62 -

public higher education sector had reached the expected ceiling of expansion and it had also become a more mature system. However, by the late 1990s further expansion took place, this time centered on the sub-degree provision in the post-secondary sector, offered mainly through private colleges. As a result, the strategy of quality assurance had to be re-examined, in the light of the more mature public sector, and a growing private sector majoring in sub-degree level education as well as a private sector consisting of imported higher education. Thus, added to the binary system of university/non-university, self-accrediting institutions/non-self-accrediting institutions, there were further divides and tensions between degree and sub-degree education, public and private education, local and imported education provision. Such dualities which had existed previously in the system, have become more pronounced with the Government's encouragement of private tertiary education, and the expansion of the sub-degree and continuing education provision, which was spurred by government incentive schemes.

Questions then arise as to how the existing quality assurance system should cater to the increasing diversity. Should there be one system to accommodate all or should there be a dual system which can cater for all these dualities? Up to the present, the government's strategy has been one which, taking account of the practicalities of the situation, adopts a two-pronged approach which recognizes as well as addresses some of the tensions and divisions.

While the rest of this paper describes the application of the quality strategy to the diversified higher education system, it will also highlight some of the principles which have become fundamental to the quality assurance system in Hong Kong. These principles were born of Chinese Confucian traditions of respect for academe, but they also reflect the modern-day close relationship between educational development and societal development in Hong Kong. These are

- 63 -

• the respect for academic autonomy

xualityGtonitoringGinGkegreeGlducationaGtheGuonT|niversityG zector

DBEFNJD VUPOPNZ WT DDPVOUBCJMJUZ BOE UIF $SFBUJPO PG BO &YUFSOBM 2VBMJUZ TTVSBODF #PEZ

The higher education system in Hong Kong up to the early 1980s was marked by the small size of the system (2% of relevant age group participating in degree level education), the elitist nature of higher education, the academic autonomy of the degree-level tertiary institutions (of which there were two up to the early 1980s), and their relative freedom from any external form of quality assurance.

This changed with the birth of a greater number of degree-awarding institutions which emerged from the upgrade of sub-degree institutions. The expansion of tertiary places brought in its wake concerns about the quality of the expanded intake, the quality of the less experienced staff and institutions which have not been blessed with traditions of university education or traditions of quality assurance. All these, coupled with the awakening to international trends of accountability and calls of value for money, led to the adoption of an external quality assurance model for the monitoring of quality. The Government of Hong Kong initially harnessed the expertise of the UK quality assurance body, the Council for National Academic Awards(CNAA), to perform the role of external quality assurance for the new institutions (the two Polytechnics and the Baptist College). This was followed eventually by the establishment

- 64 -

of an independent statutory body, the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation(HKCAA) in 1990 which came to wield the responsibility for the quality assurance of institutions and programmes at the non-university sector.

When the HKCAA was set up in 1990 and put in charge of the relatively new institutions which were starting to award degrees, the purpose was quality assurance and enhancement of these institutions and their programmes through a system of accreditation. The dual purpose of accreditation was therefore approval and quality improvement: approval of institutions to award degrees/sub-degrees, and approval of specific degree/sub-degree programmes, as well as the provision of advice for improvement during the accreditation process. Unfortunately, the accreditation function has sometimes come to be unduly associated with the approval function, and the quality improvement function under-emphasised by those parties which do not have a full understanding of these dual purposes.

DDSFEJUBUJPO: 2VBMJUZ *NQSPWFNFOU BOE QQSPWBM

The accreditation function was performed by the HKCAA through two types of reviews: institutional review and programme validation. Both of which aim at quality improvement, and the granting of approval upon the meeting of threshold standards.

Institutional review is 'a review of the academic and general standards of an institution of higher education' for the purpose of ascertaining whether the academic environment of the institution is suitable for implementing degree/sub-degree programmes which have standards comparable with those recognized internationally or whether the institution continues to maintain a suitable academic environment for offering degrees/sub-degrees.

- 65 -

Programme validation is 'the evaluation of a particular degree course conducted or proposed to be conducted by an institution of higher education, to determine whether or not the academic standard of the course is comparable with internationally recognized standards'.

The format and procedure of accreditation adopted by the HKCAA are in line with international practices, comprising the following:

• self evaluation of the institution

1SJODJQBM 'FBUVSFT

One of the hallmarks of the accreditation function as conducted by the HKCAA is the respect for academic autonomy of the institution. Although the accreditation process presumes an approval function according to stipulated standards, it does not, however, presume the stipulation of any academic agenda for the tertiary institutions. Institutions are free to formulate their own mission, their own unique model of development, so long as they possess appropriate structures and processes, and quality assurance procedures to enable the fulfillment of their own missions and the provision of education at particular levels. Similarly, the development of programmes of study is determined by an institution's own mission and philosophy rather than a set of nationally determined objectives. The accrediting agency, the HKCAA, sets no parameters for what should go into any programmes of study. The programme is judged solely in terms of its ability to meet comparable internationally recognized standards with reference to the objectives set by the institution, and the input, the learning process and the intended exit standard of the programme.

- 66 -

Thus, at the same time that the inception of a quality assurance system has made certain inroads into the tradition of academic autonomy, it has also preserved and incorporated this tradition at the same time.

Another feature of academic accreditation which incorporates the outward-looking vision of the Hong Kong society is its international dimension. By bringing into the accreditation process international experts in the relevant fields, the HKCAA brings international standards to bear on the local programmes of study and in so doing, ensures the international comparability of its higher education and that of the future workforce.

It is also part of our strategy in the quality assurance of higher education that close links are maintained between academe and the society. The accreditation process involves, in addition to academics, experienced practitioners from commerce, industry and the professions whose role is not so much to stipulate that institutions should try to serve the needs of the community, but that if they were aiming to do so, to advise how they may better secure this objective in the programmes of study offered.

5IF #JOBSZ 4ZTUFN

The setting up of an external quality assurance body, modeled on the UK system, for all the subsequent benefits it brought, had in fact at the outset created a rift in the system by distinguishing between the old and new higher education institutions (the universities and non-universities). While the external quality assurance/accreditation system was imposed upon the new degree-awarding institutions, the old universities were able to argue themselves out of the purview of the external accreditation authority. This binary system, which was based on the UK model, later transformed

- 67 -

into the binary division of self-accrediting and non-self-accrediting institutions. Institutions which were initially being accredited by the HKCAA, and later judged to have reached a stage of maturity where they could be responsible for their own programme validation and be free from external accreditation, become self-accrediting institutions. Since 1990, a total of five institutions previously under the aegis of HKCAA, have become self-accrediting.

xualityGtanagementGinGkegreeGlducationaGtheG|niversityGzector

4FMG-BDDSFEJUJOH WT /PO- TFMG-BDDSFEJUJOH *OTUJUVUJPOT

The university sector enjoys the status of self-accreditation. As mentioned, this includes universities which had never undergone external accreditation, and those new universities which had gained self-accreditation status through a maturing process.

Although the university sector is free from the scrutiny of the external quality assurance agency, the existence of the independent QA agency, the HKCAA, had irrevocably changed the attitude towards quality management in the university sector. Since 1993, a monitoring process for research, the Research Assessment Exercises(RAE), has been instituted in the university sector under the University Grants Committee, which funds most of the public universities.

In view of the international trend which views quality assurance as being necessary and beneficial to all institutions, irrespective of their

- 68 -

status or experience, and in recognition of the real benefits which had been brought to institutions which had undergone accreditation by the HKCAA (which were recognized in a report commissioned by the University Grants Committee), a monitoring process for teaching was imposed by the University Grants Committee since 1996, upon all the self-accrediting universities funded by it. This process, termed the Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review(TLQPR), brought winds of change into a sector part of which had never been subject to systematic external scrutiny of this kind.

1SPDFTT WT 0VUDPNF BOE 4UBOEBSET

As distinct from the academic accreditation process enforced by the HKCAA, the TLQPR was mainly process oriented. It aims to assess and improve teaching and learning processes in the institutions, by focusing on the processes of curriculum design, pedagogical design, implementation quality, outcome assessment and resource provision.

While the accreditation function involves a monitoring of standards, the Process Reviews largely presume the existence of high standards from the existence of appropriate quality assurance processes, notwithstanding the debate that quality assurance processes do not necessarily have any tangible links with standards. Another significant difference is that the accreditation function entails an approval element whereas this is not an objective of the Process Reviews.

A similar process was applied to self-accrediting institutions which were outside the remit of the UGC. The Open University of Hong Kong, for instance, which is a self-financed institution not funded by the UGC, continues to come under the purview of the HKCAA after it attained self-accrediting status, and is subject to reviews of its quality assurance processes at regular intervals.

Thus a dual system of quality assurance exists: an accreditation process

- 69 -

for the non-self-accrediting institutions which involves a consideration of both processes and standards; and at the self-accrediting institutions, a focus on processes.

But this does not mean that standards and outcome are neglected in the quality monitoring of the university sector. The emphasis has simply shifted to its research arena. The university sector has undergone, since 1993, assessment of its research output conducted by the University Grants Committee, in the Research Assessment Exercise(RAE). Initially institutions were assessed on their number and proportion of research-active staff members for the purpose of allocation of recurrent research funding. Increasingly, emphasis is being put on the quality of research in the RAE. This emphasis on quality and outcome in the research arena contrasts interestingly with the emphasis on processes in the teaching and learning arena.

xualityGtonitoringGofGpmportedGlducation

The quality control of non-local education imported into Hong Kong adopts a different approach from that in respect of local education. The model that was implemented since 1997 partly results from a consideration of the practicalities of having to monitor a large number of foreign courses operating in Hong Kong, as well as the Government's attempt to maintain an optimal balance between quality on the one hand and a free market on the other.

By the 1990s, Hong Kong has become a free and lucrative market for courses originating from a number of English-speaking countries, and the market was largely unregulated with the result that courses of any nature, level, and quality could be freely offered to local students. These courses lead to academic awards or professional awards from outside of Hong Kong, often operated in conjunction with local tertiary institutions or local commercial partners.

- 70 -

3FHJTUSBUJPO WT DDSFEJUBUJPO

In 1997, the Government introduced a law whereby all courses leading to non-local academic or professional awards are required to be registered (or to seek exemption from registration). The criteria for registration/exemption hinge on the comparability of the non-local course in Hong Kong with its counterpart offered in the home country. The HKCAA is appointed by the Government to assess courses for their ability to meet this and other relevant criteria under the Ordinance rather than for their ability to meet any local standards or other stipulated standards. Thus, the assessment/registration process is distinct from the accreditation process. Between 1997 and to-date, over 400 courses had been assessed by the HKCAA for registration purpose.

The preference for the use of the comparability model, rather than the model of stipulated threshold standards, can be regarded as a concession to the concept of free market and consumer choice. By this model, maximum consumer choice is preserved, with minimum inroads into the autonomy of the foreign institutions, while some degree of consumer protection is achieved.

7PMVOUBSZ DDSFEJUBUJPO

The deficiency of the registration/comparability model is that the courses are not evaluated for their academic standards per se. Further, students, consumers and employers are not guided as to whether the registered courses meet local standards. And when there is no guarantee that local standards are met, the Government, as an employer, does not categorically accept the graduates from these programmes for appointment purposes.

In order to ensure better quality of the courses, and to afford better guidance to students and the public, the HKCAA has since 2001 offered

- 71 -

a limited accreditation service in respect of non-local courses. This is a voluntary process which can be sought by the non-local course providers for the purpose of benchmarking their courses against local academic standards. Accredited courses have the benefit of financial support from the Government, and of gaining recognition status for the graduates of the courses. Thus voluntary accreditation offers additional guarantees of quality on top of the registration process which is required by law.

xualityGtonitoringGofGzubTkegreeGlducation

The quality assurance model in Hong Kong has focused primarily on the degree sector, the development of which has taken precedence over the sub-degree/post-secondary education, despite the fact that this sector is in fact a very large one.

In contrast to the degree sector which is predominantly public-funded, the sub-degree sector comprises both public and private institutions. And unlike the award of degrees, there is no legal requirement for institutions to seek accreditation or other forms of authorisation for the award of sub-degree qualifications. Because of this Hong Kong boasts a large number of sub-degree qualifications ranging from certificates, diplomas, to higher certificate and higher diplomas and many others.

There is very little consistency in standards or nomenclature among this forest of sub-degree qualifications except for the more senior level awards of Higher Diplomas and Higher Certificates offered through the public institutions, which are modeled largely on the UK awards and thus achieving a certain degree of consistency.

The quality strategy adopted for this sector contrasts sharply with the more rigorous system for the degree sector. When a system of accreditation was implemented through the HKCAA for the new degree-awarding institutions, it was not extended to the sub-degree qualifications. Quality of

- 72 -

sub-degree qualifications was left to the market forces where these are offered by private institutions; and where they are offered by the public institutions, trust was placed upon the internal quality mechanisms of these institutions.

The bewildering array of sub-degree qualifications offered little assurance of quality or standard to the consumers and employers. Government saw the need to introduce some form of standardization and the setting up of a Qualifications Framework is the long-term plan. The Government made the first steps towards this goal when in 2001 it invited the HKCAA and the major tertiary institutions to propose a common definition for the Associate Degree in Hong Kong. It also implemented the accreditation system for these Associate Degrees. But unlike the accreditation of degree-level qualifications, the accreditation is to be a voluntary process, to be sought by the institutions and encouraged by financial incentive schemes.

The dual system of self-accrediting and non-self-accrediting institutions features again in this new scheme of accreditation of Associate Degree and other sub-degree qualifications, whereby the self-accrediting institutions are entrusted to monitor the quality of their own courses, and are able to gain financial support and recognition for the qualifications offered without any external accreditation; whereas non-self-accrediting institutions come under the scheme of voluntary accreditation.

jonclusion

The brief and slightly over-simplified description given above of the quality assurance system in Hong Kong highlights a few important points.

I think our system has incorporated many worthwhile features of quality assurance as practised around the world: systems of peer review, international perspectives, respect for institutional autonomy which is

- 73 -

enshrined in the accreditation principle and the concept of self-accreditation. We have tried to deal with the issue of transnational/imported education by a scheme which balances between free market, institutional autonomy, and consumer protection. We have also introduced schemes of voluntary accreditation for both local and imported education in order to encourage better quality and enhanced consumer protection, all of which embrace both the ideal of quality assurance and the pragmatism of a diversified education scene.

ylmlylujlz

Education Statistics January 2002, Education and Manpower Bureau, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PRC

Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation Handbook 1997/98

Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation Ordinance, 1990

Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation Tenth Anniversary Publication, 2000

Hong Kong 2000, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PRC

Progress Report on the Education Reform (1), Education Commission, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PRC, 2002

University Grants Committee of Hong Kong, China. Report for July 1995 to June 1998, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, PRC

- 74 -

5IF 1PMJDZ *TTVFT PG )JHIFS &EVDBUJPO 2VBMJUZ TTVSBODF JO ,PSFB

oanTzunGjhoi

wresidentSGjatholicG|niversityGofG{aegu

oyunTjhongGsee

ⅠUGpntroduction

University education in the 21st century can be featured to be borderless education, demander-oriented education and campusless education which pursues customer-centered feature, informatization, internationalization and specialization.

This change means that university education transcends the national border, campus and curriculum. In addition, advancement into knowledge-based society and internationalization and the expansion of informatization require the paradigm shift in university education.

Accordingly, the restructuring of higher education currently carried out in many countries of the world can be regarded as a part of efforts to pursue quality management and high-quality college education. It is also applied to Korea, which has an assignment to improve the quality of education including reform of curriculum, diversification and specialization of curriculum as well as reallocation of resources, reengineering of curriculum and restructuring of organization, that is, strategic aspects

- 75 -

of restructuring, which were emphasized in the advanced countries in 1980's. Accordingly, quality management of university education is an assignment necessarily emerged in the process of re-establishing the function of university education, suitable for new times and the age of college paradigm shift. In particular, self-regulation and responsibility each country has advocated to improve the university education in this 21st century, are impossible without the mechanism to maintain the quality of university education. Accordingly, the evaluation systems to improve the quality of university education get more universal in several countries. Among them, university institutional accreditation system can be regarded as the system that socially authorizes the quality of university education.

University institutional accreditation system is to obtain social acknowledgement on the quality level of the university by systematically evaluating the quality level of the university and by announcing the results to the society. The evaluation of this quality acknowledgement system has several objectives in general, including the objectives to cause self-help efforts for university development, to create the favorable competition atmosphere between universities, to enhance the social responsibility of the university, to expand and to encourage the financial support. Of course, its incidental objective is to enhance the independent development capacity of university by improving the efficiency of university management and by facilitating the cooperative mind within universities.

It was in 1982 by Korean Council for University Education that the university evaluation was introduced in Korea. It was changed to university accreditation system from 1994 and continues up to now. In particular, the performance of academic program evaluation and institutional evaluation that have been performed so far were considerable and the social meaning of evaluation gets more important day by day. It also contributed much to the improvement of university environment.

- 76 -

Even though there are other issues that were disclosed in the 1st cycle evaluation process, the most important assignment is to establish the evaluation of quality college management system, in order to improve the quality of university education, to enhance competitive and effective functional system, to facilitate the specialization, and to set up curriculum management strategy on college learners. In particular, since we have completed the first cycle of university accreditation, the most important policy issues for now is to examine new approach and how to utilize this.

ⅡUGteaningGandGjontributionGofG|niversityGlvaluationGforG theGXstGjycleGOX``[TYWWWP

University institutional accreditation system has evaluated a total of 168 universities from year 1994 to 2000. This first cycle of university accreditation system has finished the end of 2000, which has 7 year terms of recognition. Dominant opinion among university communities is that university evaluation was successful in that it has facilitated the education reform and improved the quality of university education including restructuring of bachelor curriculum and the improvement of university learning environments in general. Nonetheless, it is also true that discussion was actively performed on the process and procedure of university evaluation, as well as the utilization of its result from various viewpoints, among some university members and entities.

General issues on the evaluation of the 1st cycle include, who should become an entity of university evaluation, how to enhance the reliability, objectivity and adequacy, as well as the opinion related to process, method, evaluation areas, standard and criteria, issues on the presentation of results such as the classification or ranking. In addition, some argues that standard should be more concrete to enhance

- 77 -

deviation with regard to the qualitative evaluation, and the other argues that standards and items should be differentiated in terms of the percentage of output variables and outcome itself, rather than focusing on input variables. It is also argued that separate action is required for the universities that cannot meet the standards. Of course, it also argued that it is necessary to minimize the evaluator's bias, or to extend the period of site-visitation. The issue regarding the evaluation cycle is also under discussion. Let's discuss these issues in more detail.

1. *TTVF PO $ZDMF

Some argued that the 1 cycle of 7 years is too long for university accreditation system and that the intermediate evaluation system should be introduced if necessary. Since evaluation results can be effectively utilized only when evaluating all universities in one year, some also argued that evaluation should be performed on all universities within 1 year at the same time. However, the issues on the number of universities being evaluated or shortening of cycle period may differ depending on the philosophy of evaluation or the objectives of utilizing the results of evaluation. In this sense, the evaluation of Korean Council for University Education can be adjusted depending on the target group of universities or contents of evaluation, social desire or environmental changes of university. In addition, given the fact that each university can select the evaluation period depending on the preparation stage of each university, these issues can be regarded as development assignment for the evaluation of 2nd cycle in the future.

2. *TTVF PO 1SFTFOUBUJPO PG &WBMVBUJPO 3FTVMU

One of the most important issues regarding the university institutional accreditation system held by Korean Council for University Education is

- 78 -

related to the presentation of evaluation result. In particular, there is a predominant opinions from government or the press, that the presentation of evaluation result should be disclosed in the ranking or classification. This argument can be regarded as reasonable too. However, there might be different opinions depending on the objective of utilizing the evaluation result or the evaluation philosophy. We should also give consideration to social acknowledgement or evaluation culture on the opinion of universities for evaluation. First of all, university institutional accreditation system of Korean Council for University Education set up the minimum standards that all universities should meet to improve the conditions and quality of university, and each university can select the evaluation period according to the preparation level of each university. Therefore, it focused on the evaluation results such as acknowledgement, non-acknowledgement or conditional acknowledgement. Evaluation items or standards are also based on the evaluation acknowledgment. Of course, it is also possible to rank or classify the universities who received evaluation, but this is against the purport of the university accreditation system. However, it is possible to identify universities into excellent group and non-excellent group in terms of indicators of quality measurement for each area. In particular, we need to pay special attention since ranking or classification of the universities may bring adverse effects, given our unique education culture. However, I don't think this kind of discussion in not unnecessary since it can be discussed depending on the target universities, objective, or philosophy of evaluation.

3. *TTVFT PO &TUBCMJTIJOH SFB, *UFN, 4UBOEBSE BOE $SJUFSJB PG &WBMVBUJPO

The essential areas of institutional accreditation system university evaluation are which is the evaluation standard, and which item and standard the evaluation will be performed and based on. In general, there is no specific dispute on the evaluation areas such as education,

- 79 -

research, faculty, facility and physical equipment, administration and finance. But there might be difference on the items or standards among universities. In particular, even though there are opinions regarding the establishment of criteria in quantitative terms, there is no objection on the issue of reliability since these opinions are based on the reasonability of 5 score rating type, in reference to the quantitative index of 4 year universities around the country. Institutional accreditation system for the 1st cycle consists of 65% qualitative parts and 35% quantitative parts out of 100 items. Some misunderstand that institutional accreditation system of Korean Council for University Education puts focus on the quantitative index only. There might be different logics on the several discussions of evaluation contents, but these opinions may also differ depending on the objective and philosophy of this evaluation.

Institutional accreditation system is necessarily integrated and comprehensive in that this system diagnoses all areas of the university. Quantitative approach and qualitative approach should be used jointly in this process. Of course, different evaluation paradigm should be established depending on the conditions and change of university environment for the 2nd cycle of period. In this case, the establishment of evaluation areas, items, standards and criteria can be diversified and specified.

4. *TTVFT PO 1SPDFEVSF BOE 0SHBOJ[BUJPO PG &WBMVBUJPO $PNNJUUFF

The procedure of institutional accreditation system is a systematic approach from self-evaluation by individual universities → university self-report evaluation by examiners → site evaluation by outside examiners by visiting the site. Of course, organization of evaluation committee consists of area evaluation committee member for 6 areas, evaluation team leader and the researchers of Korean Council for University Education. In general, evaluation is performed for 2 nights and 3 days, but if the time and budget permit, evaluation can be done for longer

- 80 -

period. Of course, evaluation committee member pool system is also likely through sufficient preparation for period longer than the current orientation for 2 days. It is also possible to discuss on the method of composing the committee with people from all levels of society, rather than university faculties only. Besides, the minimization of evaluator's bias can be an issue of dispute as well as insufficient utilization of evaluation result.

5. *TTVF PO &OUJUZ PG &WBMVBUJPO

Discussion on the entity of evaluation has been intermittently performed in the evaluation process of the 1st cycle. In particular, discussions are also very active on evaluation of financial support objective of the Ministry of Education, evaluation of the press, and installation of medical authentication organization, recent professional associations of engineering fields regarding the evaluation of the academic area.

ⅢUGkirectionGofG|niversityGlvaluationGforGYndGjycleOYWWXTYWW\P

In general, university evaluation is performed by selecting the area of evaluation to fit the objective of undergraduate school, graduate school, institute and area evaluation, and then by allocating the evaluation items depending on the importance of performing university function. Of course, in this process, it is evaluated based on the index which conceptualized what the evaluation item means and what contents it has. However, the establishment and process of standardizing the patterned evaluation criteria may change when the function and role of university education are changed. In this regard, new approach and method of utilizing the evaluation results should be established again

- 81 -

for the university evaluation for the 2nd cycle starting from 2001.

The structure and function of university may change much in the 21st century, as well as contents and method of teaching, concept of competitiveness of university. For example, the features of the university in the 21st century will be changed to the educational industry viewpoint, from the ivory tower-oriented viewpoint, to consumer-oriented education from the supplier-oriented education. These changes are premised on the restructuring of learner-oriented education system in the end. As the education may expand beyond the border of country due to education opening, part-timer students and adult learner increased, the role of the university members such as faculties, students and administrative staffs will be different. Together with this, curriculum, facility and physical equipment and objective of education may change. Due to change in the contents of curriculum, the approach of university evaluation may be requested to go through big revolution.

1. QQSPBDI BOE 6UJMJ[BUJPO PG 3FTVMU PG 6OJWFSTJUZ &WBMVBUJPO GPS UIF 2OE $ZDMF

Since the university in the 21st century may change much, it is required to change the approach of university education too. These change are related to the cycle, area, item, standard, target and result of evaluation as well as utilization method of evaluation result.

First of all, with regard to the cycle of evaluation, new plan was established to shorten the current cycle of 7 years to 5 years. Of course, it is necessary to have a margin to introduce intermediate evaluation system to the necessary universities. However, it is also desirable to exempt or replace with written report, the evaluation for the next cycle for the universities over certain level. It is also desirable to carefully examine the progress check method that reports the contents

- 82 -

of improvement for the indicated points in the middle. In addition, we may consider the method of identifying the difference from the 1st cycle.

Second, it is necessary to adjust the areas of evaluation again, to reduce the number of evaluation items and to reinforce qualitative evaluation rather than quantitative evaluation. In addition, it is also examined to separate the areas and items of evaluation into essential criteria that can be applied to all universities, similar partial criteria for each group of university, and individual university items. Software-oriented evaluation is meaningful in that it evaluates the contents of program, rather than outward evaluation such as facility and experimental equipment. We also should consider whether to introduce the standard which is one stage upgraded from the current average level. Of course, definite criteria and examination are required if quantitative contents are to be evaluated. Accordingly, evaluation items are adjusted from 100 items for the 1st cycle to 50 items now.

Third, it is necessary to diversify the universities for evaluation by type. It is also required to diversify the evaluation guides and standards based on the unit of size, period of establishment and feature such as national, public university and private university, regular general university and special mission universities such as, politech university and theological colleges. In addition to these classifications, it is also required to differentiate between co-ed university and women's university, university in province and university in metropolitan area. In particular, we should put emphasis on the graduate school program for big university, and encourage to specialize and diversify the programs.

For this purpose, we may standardize the area, field and item of evaluation, but cover various aspects of universities such as weight and index.

Fourth, it is related to the presentation form of evaluation result. Issue of ranking all universities should be carefully approached. It is

- 83 -

possible to classify the universities into 4-5 groups and to disclose the ranking only for the upper class groups. In addition, quality should be uniformly maintained in all areas. But, we should avoid uniform method that may undermine the specialization. We may carefully review the disclosure of evaluation result for each university with regard to major evaluation index. Even if the evaluation score may be notified only to the president of university, we should examine the method of more clearly presenting the evaluation results of graduate school. It is because current universities may be separated to research-oriented university or education-oriented university depending on the function.

Fifth, it is related to organization of evaluation committee. Given the fact that some feel misgiving about the reliability since evaluation is performed by internal groups, we may introduce professionals from industry, government or social groups as well as university professors so that it can have objective viewpoints of various external professionals and reinforce social acknowledgement. We may consider the introduction of evaluation committee pool system by frequently educating the evaluation groups.

Accordingly, the future approach system of total university evaluation can be summarized as follows in the long terms and short terms.

• Assignment to properly evaluate universities with different features, utilizing various criteria

- 84 -

• Assignment related to promotion of general public's understanding on university accreditation system. • Assignment related to realization of differentiating university evaluation criteria for each year

These assignments can be regarded as important issues in determining the approach and utilization methods of university evaluation in the 21st century.

In short, we need to examine the philosophy, entity, target university, process and contents of evaluation on the whole. But, as mentioned in above premise, we should put focus on diversifying the targets, processes, contents and result utilizations based on the quality management system of society and non-government approach.

2. *TTVFT PG UIF 2OE $ZDMF &WBMVBUJPO

We can examine the direction of the 2nd university accreditation system in terms of its purpose, function, evaluation standard and content, process and operation or management of evaluation.

- 85 -

1) Purpose of institutional accreditation system

The ultimate purpose of the 2nd university institutional accreditation system is to improve the quality of university education into international level by encouraging our university to cope with the social demand in the 21st century and to accomplish the specialization of each university. That is, we can enhance the overall quality of university education based on the education foundation accomplished through overall institutional evaluation for the 1st cycle so that the universities in the top level can become the world class universities (Korean Council for University Education, 1999).

• Pursue effective operation of university education

Beside these concrete purposes of overall university institutional accreditation system, we can examine the purpose according to type or the targets of evaluation. These can be summarized into evaluation purpose of administration support type, evaluation purpose for each specialization type, evaluation purpose of new university, evaluation purpose of restructuring and evaluation purpose of international competition type.

• Evaluation purpose of administration support type

- 86 -

2) Issues of Setting up Evaluation Standards

Institutional accreditation system is to ultimately determine the values of various elements in terms of planning, operation and performance for the development of university. The attributes that the evaluation standards should have as tools to properly determine the values of the university are usefulness, practicability, properness and concrete mission oriented(Korean Council for University Education, 1998).

First, the evaluation standard for the second cycle(2001-2005) focuses on the software over the hardware, and on qualitative index over quantitative index and establishes the optional level for the best group to reach the level of international university. Evaluation items will be 50 items, a half of the items for the 1st cycle. For the 1st cycle from 1994 to 2000, the objective should be established based on the objective value to be reached in the final year of 2000 so that the objective can be consistently applied for 7 years. But the objective should be different from that of the first cycle based upon the second cycle evaluation goals. Also the evaluation standard for evaluation items indicating the expense should be adjusted by reflecting the prices inflation rates for each year.

Second, the evaluation standard should be established by reflecting essential criteria, regardless of whether it is regular general university, teachers' college politech university and theological colleges; features for each university group and the features of individual university. General university will be separated into national and public university, and private university, co-ed university and women's university, and the features of each university type should be reflected in the establishment of evaluation standard.

Third, evaluation standard for quantitative evaluation index will be obtained by calculating the average value and standard deviation based on the comparative normal distribution for each evaluation index. Using

- 87 -

this as a center, range can be established to 5 levels and desirable evaluation standard(+1 level) will be set which is one level higher than the general and average level. Qualitative evaluation index can be objectified by raising the distinction through above approach so that even different evaluators can draw the results with same contents.

Fourth, class standard is applied to the evaluation standard system. With regard to the evaluation result of institutional accreditation system, 500 points are full score for undergraduate school and 200 points for graduate school and the score will be added up for each evaluation index. Accordingly, the class standard of 5 point scale is applied to the quantitative evaluation index and qualitative evaluation index to obtain the distinction and properness of evaluation result.

By reviewing the above basic directions and referring the points of discussions that are found out in the 1st cycle evaluation process, we establish the basic direction of evaluation standard for the 2nd cycle as shown below.

• Reflect the features of university to the utmost

3) Procedure and Operation

The procedure and evaluation method of the 2nd cycle university

- 88 -

institutional evaluation will be established based on the following premises.

• Maintain and develop the positive aspect of institutional accreditation system for the 1st cycle.

- 89 -

• Maximize the efficiency of on-site evaluation to enhance the reliability and adequacy of evaluation.

4) Procedure and Method

University institutional accreditation system for the 2nd cycle will be integrated and overall comprehensive system consisting of 5 systems as shown below.

• Permanent evaluation system

- 90 -

5) Evaluation Areas and Quantitative Evaluation Standard of Undergraduate School

/VNCFS PG &WBMVBUJPO SFB&WBMVBUJPO 4UBOEBSE&WBMVBUJPO 8FJHIUT *UFNT

- 91 -

ⅣUGjonclusion

Since the quality of university education is one of main concerns of universities in this international competition era, it is essential to prepare the evaluation approach which can live up to the social and national demands according to the contents and methods of reliability and adequacy. Since the rationalization of institutional accreditation system and school affairs, effective university management and optimization of school affair operation are inseparably related, the preferential assignment of university should be to have the chance of self-examination through university evaluation and to identify the rationalization means.

In particular, since quality management system of universities in other countries of the world is also pursued in the same context as our university institutional accreditation system, the success or failure of university evaluation is recognized as the index to evaluate the national competitiveness in terms of education itself.

In general, the purpose of university evaluation up to now has been originated from the necessity to improve the easy operation of university, to reinforce the obligation, self-regulation of university, effectiveness of university management and to encourage the cooperation between university and to encourage the financial support for the university, it is not an exaggeration to describe this system as the mechanism for total quality management. However, the universities in the 21st century require other approach for evaluation too. The targets universities should be diversified in terms of the characteristics of universities, the standard, process of evaluation and the purpose of utilization should be also changed.

In short, enough considerations are given for the approach and result utilization of the 2nd cycle university evaluation so that it can diversify

- 92 -

the standards of university evaluation and to reinforce research-oriented university and university specialization. University evaluation is the mechanism of self-regulation and self quality management rather than for financial support and forceful quality control.

In particular, the 2nd cycle evaluation should encourage the specialization and diversification of university to suit the functions of university, reinforce the competitiveness for each type of university by cultivating the features of research-oriented university in case of research-oriented university and the features of education-oriented university in case of education-oriented university. Its role as society quality control mechanism should be also expanded.

The ultimate purpose of the 2nd cycle institutional accreditation system is that university can cope with social demands in the 21st century and enhance the quality of university education to international level. In details, the purpose of the 1st cycle total university institutional accreditation system, which is to pursue easy operation of university education, to enhance the effectiveness of university management, obligation and self-regulation of university, cooperation between universities and to expand the university financial support, should be included for the purpose of the 2nd cycle total university institutional accreditation system together with the internationalization of university education. By classifying these general purposes per type of evaluation targets and evaluation standards, it can be divided into evaluation purpose of administrative support type, evaluation purpose of specialization, evaluation purpose of new university, evaluation purpose of restructuring type and evaluation purpose of international competition.

There are some features of university that should be considered while various evaluation standards are developed based on the types of university. That is, the type of university establishment, sex classification of enrolled students, location of university, central academic area of university, pursuit of university, size of university, period of establishment,

- 93 -

finance for specialization, administrative financial support of government and level of competition. Many parts of these features are expected to bring much difference in the evaluation standards even if they are the universities in the same type.

It is necessary to discuss the direction of establishing evaluation standards when considering the complexity of standard development according to several types of evaluations as shown above. In details, it is required to reflect the features of university to the utmost, to consider easiness on the independent selection of university, to provide analytical information that may encourage the development of university, to link the evaluation result for 1st cycle institutional accreditation system with the 2nd cycle total university institutional accreditation system, to set the standards focusing on qualitative evaluation item and reduce the number of evaluation items, to provide overall total university information and to simplify the evaluation standards focusing on public nature and obligation.

Since several arguments are disclosed in the process and operation of the 1st cycle total institutional accreditation system, we should take necessary measures to complement this. When expecting total quality management system of university education through introduction of permanent year-round evaluation system, follow-up checking system or post evaluation system, for the newly established evaluation system and special purpose evaluation system, the essential assignment is the efficient performance of evaluation tasks. In this aspect, it is desirable to convert the existing department-oriented organization to university evaluation support center and to have evaluation planning team which continuously develops the evaluation standards.

Of course, the evaluation of academic area should maintain this basic condition and university should adhere to the cooperation with related organizations or groups in terms of overall social quality management. Finally, the utilization of evaluation result is directly related to the

- 94 -

accomplishment of purpose of institutional accreditation system.

We have sufficiently discussed the adverse effects due to differentiation of financial support based on evaluation result. Given the fact that there is no case of differentiation of financial support in advanced countries, we should introduce the policy to provide preparative support to the lower achivement university and to provide compensation support to the higher achivement university. Besides, it should be also noted that the preparation and enforcement of various methods for maximizing the utilization of evaluation result can be the essential matters for granting the values to the 2nd cycle total university acknowledgement system.

- 95 -

한국의 고등교육 질 관리와 평가 방향

- 2주기 대학평가를 중심으로 -

최한선O대구가톨릭대학교G총장P 이현청O한국대학교육협의회G사무총장P

ⅠUG들어가면서

21세기 대학교육은 고객화, 정보화, 국제화, 특성화를 지향하는 탈국적 교육, 수요자중심 교육 그리고 脱캠퍼스 교육(DBNQVTMFTT FEVDBUJPO)등으로 특징지어질 수 있다. 이러한 변화는 대학교육이 국경과 캠퍼스와 교과내용을 초월한다 는 의미를 담고 있다. 더구나 지식기반사회로의 진입과 세계화, 정보화의 확산은 대학교육의 패러다임 전환을 요구하고 있다.

- 97 -

제도라 할 수 있다.

ⅡUGX주기OX``[년～YWWW년PG대학평가의G의미와G기여

1994년 이후 2000년 4월 현재까지 총 168개 대학이 평가인정을 받은 대학종합평가인정제는 1주기 7년이 되는 2000년 말까지 마무리 될 예정이다. 그 동안 대학평가를 통해 대학여건을 개선하고 대학의 학사구조조정 등 제반 교육개혁의 촉진과 대학교육의 질을 제고하였다는 점에서 대학평가사업이 성공적이라

- 98 -

는 견해가 지배적이다. 그럼에도 일부 대학 구성원들이나 주체들간에 1주기 대학평가의 절차와 과정 그리고 결과활용 등에 관련하여 여러 관점에서의 논의가 활발했던 것도 사실이다.

XUG주기와G관련된G쟁점

평가인정제의 1주기를 7년으로 설정한 것은 너무 길며 기간을 단축하고 필요한 경우에는 중간평가제를 도입해야 한다는 일부 견해들이 있다. 그리고 한 해에 모든 대학을 평가해야만 평가결과를 효과적으로 활용할 수 있기 때문에 1년에 모든 대학을 동시에 실시하자는 주장도 있다. 그러나 주기 연한의 단축문제나 대상에 관련된 쟁점은 평가결과의 활용목적이나 평가의 철학에 따라 달라질 수밖에 없고 그런 의미에서 대교협의 평가 또한 대학환경의 변화나 사회적 욕구 그리고 평가의 내용이나 대상에 따라서 조정될 수도 있는 문제라 생각된다. 더구나 개별 대학들의 준비도에 따라 평가시기를 스스로 선택하게 되어있다는 점을 감안할 때 이러한 논의들은 향후 2주기 평가를 위한 발전과제라 볼 수 있다.

- 99 -

YUG평가결과의G발표와G관련된G쟁점

대교협에서 주관하고 있는 대학종합평가인정제에 관련된 중요한 논의 중의 하나는 평가결과의 발표와 관련된 문제이다. 특히 정부측 입장이나 언론계 등 사회적 요구는 평가결과의 발표에 있어서 서열화나 등급화 등으로 공개해야 한다는 견해들이 지배적이었다. 이러한 주장 또한 일리 있는 견해라 볼 수 있다. 그러나 평가결과의 활용목적이나 평가철학에 따라서 다른 견해가 있을 수 있고 평가대상 대학들의 입장과 평가에 대한 사회적 인식이나 평가문화도 충분히 고려해야 할 것이다. 우선 대교협의 종합평가인정제는 우리 나라 전 대학의 여건과 질을 일정수준 향상시키고자 하는 최소 기준(NJOJNVN TUBOEBSE)을 설정한 평가이고 개별 대학들의 준비도에 따라 평가시기를 스스로 선택하도록 한 평가 제도이다. 그러므로 인정과 불인정 혹은 조건부 인정 등의 인정 여부에 초점이 맞추어져 있다. 평가항목이나 기준 역시 평가인정을 준거로 하고 있다. 물론 평가인정을 받은 대학들을 대상으로 서열화나 등급화도 가능할 것이지만 이것은 평가인정제의 본 취지에 벗어난 일이다. 다만 각 영역별로 우수그룹과 비 우수

그룹 등을 식별할 수는 있을 것이다. 특히 우리 나라의 독특한 교육문화를 감안

한다면 서열화나 등급화가 가져다 줄 역작용도 무시할 수 없기 때문에 신중을 기할 필요가 있다. 그러나 평가의 대상과 목적 그리고 평가의 철학에 따라서 얼마든지 논의될 수 있는 문제이기 때문에 이러한 논의가 불필요한 것은 아니라 생각된다.

ZUG평가G부문SG항목SG기준SG척도G설정에G관한G쟁점

대학종합평가의 핵심적 부분은 평가준거가 무엇이며 어떤 항목과 기준에 의해 평가를 하느냐이다. 일반적으로 평가영역인 교육, 연구, 봉사, 교수, 시설설비, 행ㆍ재정에 관해서는 별반 논의가 없으나 항목과 기준 등에 대해 개별 대학 차원에서의 견해가 있을 수 있다. 특히 정량적 부분에서의 척도 설정에 관해서 견

- 100 -

해들이 있으나 이러한 견해들은 전국 4년제 대학의 양적 지표를 준거로 한 5점 평정 형식의 합리성에 근거하고 있어 신뢰성의 문제에는 커다란 이의가 있을 수 없다. 1주기 대학종합평가에서는 100개 항목 중 65%의 정성적인 부분과 35% 의 정량적인 부분으로 구성되어 있는데 이를 잘못 이해하고 대교협의 종합평가 가 양적 지표만으로 평가를 하는 것으로 일부 오해를 하는 경우들도 있었다. 평가내용에 관한 논의들은 나름대로의 논리가 있을 수 있으나 이 또한 평가의 목적과 철학에 따라 견해를 달리 할 수 있다고 본다.

[UG절차G및G평가위원G구성G등의G쟁점

대학종합평가의 절차는 자체평가 → 서면평가 → 현지방문평가 평가인정 순으로 이어지는 체계적인 접근이다. 물론 평가위원 구성도 6개 영역을 포함한 영역평가위원, 평가단장 그리고 대교협 연구원으로 구성되어 있다. 통상 2박 3일의 기간동안 평가를 하지만 시간과 재정이 허락한다면 더 긴 기간동안 평가가 이루어질 수 있을 것이다. 물론 평가위원의 구성에 있어서도 2일간의 오리엔테이션보다 긴 기간동안의 충분한 준비를 통한 평가위원 풀제도 가능할 것이고 대학교수만으로 구성할 것이 아니라 각계 인사들로 구성하는 방안도 논의의 여지가 있다. 이 외에도 평가자간의 평가자 오류의 최소화 문제 등도 쟁점이 될 수 있고 평가결과 활용이 미흡한 측면도 논의의 소지가 있다.

- 101 -

\UG평가의G주체와G관련된G쟁점

1주기 평가과정에서 평가의 주체에 관한 논의 또한 간헐적으로 이루어져 왔다. 특히 교육부의 재정지원 목적의 평가라든지 언론사들의 평가 그리고 학문분야 평가와 관련된 근자의 공학인증원, 의학인증기구 등의 설치 등 평가주체와 관련된 논의들이 활발한 실정이다.

ⅢUGY주기G대학평가OYWWX～YWW\P의G방향

일반적으로 대학평가는 학부와 대학원, 기관과 영역평가 등의 목적에 부합되도록 평가영역을 설정한 다음 영역 내에 부분을 설정하여 대학기능 수행상의 중

요도에 따라 평가항목을 배정하게 된다. 물론 이 과정에서 평가항목이 무엇을 의미하며 어떤 내용을 담고 있는지를 개념화한 지표에 의해 평가되어진다. 그러나 이러한 정형화된 평가준거의 설정과 절차는 대학교육의 기능과 역할이 달라짐에 따라 변화될 수밖에 없다. 이점에서 21세기에 접어든 2001년부터 시작되는 2주기 대학평가는 접근 방법과 평가결과의 활용 방안이 새로이 재정립되어야 할 것이다.

- 102 -

XUGY주기G대학평가의G접근G및G결과활용

21세기 대학은 크게 변모할 것이므로 대학평가의 접근 또한 큰 변화가 필요하다. 이러한 변화들은 평가주기, 평가영역 및 항목, 척도 그리고 대상은 물론 평가결과의 활용방안들이라 볼 수 있다.

- 103 -

다양한 대학의 모습을 담고 있다.

다.

• 다양한 척도를 활용하여 특성이 다른 대학들에 맞게 평가를 시행하는 과제• 계열화와 연결하여 학문계열 평가를 종합평가와 연계선상에서 합리적으로 수행하는 과제

- 104 -

• 대학평가주기의 조정과 관련된 과제

YUGY주기G평가의G방향

2주기 평가인정제의 방향을 요약해보면 목적과 기능, 평가기준과 내용 그리고 절차 및 운영 등의 측면에서 살펴볼 수 있다.

XPG대학종합평가인정제의G목적

제 2주기 대학종합평가인정제의 궁극적인 목적은 우리 나라의 대학이 21세기의 사회적 요구에 부응하고 개별 대학의 특성화를 이룩하여 대학교육의 질을 국제적 수준으로 향상시키는데 있다 할 수 있다. 즉, 제 1주기 대학종합평가를 통해 이루어진 교육기반 여건 조성을 바탕으로 대학교육 전반의 질 향상과 내실화

- 105 -

를 추구하여 국내 상위권 대학이 국제적 수준의 대학이 되도록 유도하는데 있다 할 수 있다(대교협, 1999).

• 대학교육의 수월성 추구

이러한 대학종합평가인정제의 보다 구체적인 목적이외에도 평가대상이나 유형에 따른 목적도 고려해 볼 수 있다. 이를 정리해 보면 행정지원형 평가 목적, 특성화 유도형 평가목적, 신설대학 평가 목적, 구조조정형 평가 목적, 국제 경쟁형 평가 목적 등이라 할 수 있다.

YPG평가기준의G설정G방향

대학종합평가인정제는 궁극적으로 대학의 발전을 위하여 대학이 계획․운영․성과상의 제 요소들에 가치를 판단하는 평가체제이다. 이와 같은 대학의 가치를 타당하게 판단하기 위한 도구로서의 평가기준 설정시 평가기준이 갖추어야 할

- 106 -

속성은 유용성, 현실성, 적절성, 명료성 등이다(대교협, 1998).

• 대학의 발전을 유도할 수 있는 분석적 정보 제공

- 107 -

• 1주기 대학종합평가인정제에 의한 평가결과를 2주기 대학종합평가인정제와 연계하기

• 정성적 평가항목 중심의 기준 설정 및 평가항목수의 축소

• 종합적 대학 정보 제공

• 공공성과 책무성을 중심으로 한 평가기준의 단순화

ZPG절차G및G운영

제 2주기 대학종합평가의 절차와 평가방법은 다음과 같은 대전제 하에서 설정될 것이다.

- 108 -

확대하고 평가절차, 과정 속에서 능동적으로 참여하고 의사를 표명할 수 있는 시스템을 고안한다.

• 평가항목을 축소한다.

• 투입에 대한 비중을 최소화시키고 과정과 성과 중심으로 평가한다.

다.

• 대학교수로만 구성된 평가위원의 구성원을 다양화하여 내부자 평가의 한계를 벗어난 시스템을 구축한다.

[PG절차G및G방법

제 2주기 대학종합평가인정제는 다음의 5가지 시스템으로 구성된 종합적인 시스템을 구축하게 된다

- 109 -

\PG학부평가영역G및G정량적G평가G척도

• 2주기 평가영역 및 부문별 가중치(안)

평가영역 평가부문평가항목수가중치1.대학경영 및 재정(9)(50) 1.1 경영전략 및 기획3

- 110 -

ⅣUG맺으면서

일반적으로 국제경쟁시대의 대학들에게는 대학교육의 질에 대한 문제가 주요한 관심사이기 때문에 평가의 접근 또한 신뢰성과 타당도를 지닌 내용과 방법에 따라 사회ㆍ국가적 요구에 부합될 수 있는 접근이 절대적으로 필요하다. 대학종합평가와 사무행정의 합리화, 대학경영의 효율화, 그리고 학사운영의 최적화 등은 불가분의 관계에 있기 때문에 대학평가를 통해 자기점검의 기회를 가지고 합리화 방안을 모색하는 일은 대학의 우선 과제가 되어야 한다.

- 111 -

회적 요구에 부응하고 대학교육의 질을 국제적 수준으로 향상시키는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 구체적으로는 1주기 대학종합평가인정제의 목적인 대학교육의 수월성 추구, 대학 경영의 효율성 제고, 대학의 책무성 향상, 대학의 자율성 신장, 대학간 협동성 진작, 대학재정지원의 확충 등과 함께 대학교육의 국제화 지향을 2주기 대학종합평가인정제의 목적으로 설정한다. 이러한 일반적인 목적을 평가대상이나 평가기준의 유형에 근거하여 분류하면 행정지원형 평가목적, 특성화 유도 형 평가목적, 신설대학 평가목적, 구조조정형 평가목적, 국제경쟁형 평가목적 등으로 볼 수 있다.

이와 같은 대학의 유형에 근거한 다양한 평가기준이 개발되는 과정에서 필수적으로 고려되어야 할 대학의 특성들이 있다. 즉 대학의 설립 유형, 재학생의 성별 분류, 대학 소재지, 대학의 중심학문 분야, 대학의 지향점, 대학의 규모, 설립시기, 특성화 추진 재원, 정부의 행․재정지원 여부, 경쟁력 수준 등이 그 예이다. 이들 특성 중 상당수가 같은 유형의 대학이라 하더라도 평가기준에 많은 차이를 가져올 것으로 예상된다.

구된다.

- 112 -

히 지속적으로 평가기준을 개발하는 평가기획팀을 갖추도록 하는 것이 바람직하

다.

물론 학문분야 평가 역시도 이러한 기조를 유지할 것이며 전체적인 사회 질 관리차원에서 유관기관이나 기구들과의 협력체제를 견지할 필요가 있다. 마지막으로 대학종합평가인정제의 목적 달성과 직결되어 있는 것은 평가결과 활용 문제이다.

- 113 -

*41 2002-1-21

5IF 6OJWFSTJUZ 1BSBEJHN 4IJGU BOE 6OJWFSTJUZ 2VBMJUZ TTVSBODF

발GGGG행2002년 4월

발G행G인이 기 준

발G행G처한국대학교육협의회

주GGGG소서울시 영등포구 여의도동 27-2 사학연금빌딩 12층

(전화: 783-3065/ 팩스: 783-3645)

인G쇄G처선명인쇄주식회사

보고서 내용의 무단 복제를 금함.(비매품)