[AU-Harmon-AAU-QA] Some Issues on African Rating System

[Neil Butcher]

Dear Dr Woldetensae,

 

Thank you for your contribution and the various points that you make. I will
try to respond to each below. 

 

As stated in the Quality Rating document, we are in agreement that a fitness
for purpose approach should underlie the quality rating mechanism. However,
the quality rating mechanism has not been designed with the main purpose
being to support the implementation of the Mwalimu Nyerere Scholarship
Scheme. 

 

The following purposes have informed the development of the quality rating
mechanism (see pg 72 of AU Quality Rating document):

1.	To present an alternative to existing global rating systems which do
not take into consideration African contexts and realities; 
2.	To support processes to improve quality of higher education in
Africa (such as the AAU Quality Assurance Project);
3.	To contribute to the implementation of the AU Harmonisation
Strategy;
4.	To support the AUC in identifying Centres of Excellence across the
continent; and
5.	To provide a means for the AUC to make decisions regarding the
Mwalimu Nyerere Scholarship Scheme. 

 

Thus, the purpose of the proposed quality rating mechanism is far broader
than the scholarship scheme, although this is one element thereof. It has
been proposed that a developmental approach be taken such that the quality
rating mechanism explicitly supports quality improvements for institutions.
For this reason, a specific focus on Science and Technology Faculties is
limited in the broader scope of quality improvement. In particular, the
institutional level factors which influence all faculties and programmes are
of particular importance as a means to improve quality. Furthermore,
developing institutional self-evaluation processes has been shown to be an
essential component of higher education quality assurance and so, we
believe, should be included as a fundamental part of the rating mechanism.

 

It would be interesting to hear the views of other participants in this
discussion list regarding the proposed focus at the institutional and
programme level. I agree that reviewing individual programmes is a resource
intensive process. The high level implementation plan for the Quality Rating
Mechanism has attempted to take this challenge into account by proposing an
annual focus on specific areas, such as engineering programmes for example.
However, I do agree that a case could be made to focus on faculty level.

 

You suggest that the assigning of weightings by institutions depending on
their relative emphasis on teaching and learning, research and community
engagement may not be necessary given a common ‘rule of thumb’ regarding the
extent of time spent on each of these areas. While I support your suggestion
that teaching and learning is a key element of quality higher education
provision, I do not agree that we can assume a common spilt across these
areas for all African higher education institutions. Some institutions do
specifically define their vision and mission as research universities for
example. Others focus almost exclusively on teaching and learning. If we
agree that the fitness for purpose approach to quality is the correct
underlying approach, then it becomes problematic to define upfront for
institutions what we think their purpose should be. We would hope that this
weighting would not be ‘arbitrarily assigned’ by the institution, but
instead would be supported with evidence such as the institution’s vision
and mission. 

 

You last point about the extent to which ‘what can be measured’ versus ‘what
is relevant and important’ should be the principle underlying the rating
system is an important one. The proposed quality rating mechanism has sought
to begin with the principle of what is relevant and important for African
higher education, and then to assess, in more practical terms, what can be
measured. However, I think a tension still remains between these two. 

 

I look forward to reading further inputs and suggestions on these, and
other, issues.

 

Regards,

 

Neil

 

 

From: au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org
[mailto:au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Yohannes
Woldetensae
Sent: 14 September 2007 06:23 PM
To: au-harmon-aau-qa at elists.aau.org; au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org
Subject: [AU-Harmon-AAU-QA] Some Issues on African Rating System

 


Dear Prof. Oyewole and participants,


I would like to share my views on the issue of African Rating System. 

 

It is useful if we follow the FITNESS for PURPOSE approach when dealing with
the rating problem. This requires first of all considering the purpose for
developing the rating system. According to the African Union Document, the
main purpose is 

 

To identify the ‘leading African universities’ where awarded students of
Mwalimu Nyerere Scholarship would learn. The scholarship consists of
Bachelor, Masters, and PhD programs in Science and Technology.  

 

Analyzing the purpose, many points could be raised.

 

(1) What should be the focus of the ratings’ weighting to achieve the
purpose?

 

Should the weightings arbitrarily assigned by the concerned HEI depending on
its focus: teaching and learning, research, or community engagement?

OR

Should more focus be given to quality of student learning à teaching &
learning?

 

In my opinion the central focus in higher education quality is the
effectiveness of student learning. As rule of thumb, a university teaching
staff is expected to engage 75% of the time in teaching and learning
activities while 25% is for research and community engagement. It is
therefore reasonable to determine the ratings’ weighting according to this
principle.

 

(2) Should the Rating mechanism focus on Institutional-level, Program-level,
or Faculty-level criteria? 

 

The intended scholarship is designed for students joining in science and
technology fields. This requires assessing the performance of a HEI with
special focus on these areas. In my opinion, it would be purposeful to
conduct the rating mechanism with faculty level focusing on Faculty of
Science and Faculty of Technology. However, it is to be recalled that the
African Union document proposes either the institutional or the program
level. Indicators at institutional level may not indicate the performance of
a HEI in science and technology fields where as assessing at program level
would require huge financial and human resources as there are many programs
within science and technology.

 

(3) Who would conduct the rating procedure?

 

Quality Assurance Agencies of the respective countries

OR

External Assessors assigned by AAU or the African Union

 

This is more a managerial decision to be made by considering the available
resources and other factors. Mrs. Beatrice K. Njenga and other personnel
from Africa Union or AAU may reflect their opinion. 

 

It is also useful to determine whether ranking should be conducted based on
the principle  “what can be measured”, or more based on the fact “what is
relevant and important”. Once these issues are properly addressed, we could
further discuss on the possible ways for identifying quality indicators and
appropriate rating mechanism for the intended purpose.

 

I am pleased to hear the opinions of Neil Butcher, Prof. Oyewole, and other
participants regarding the raised points.

 

With Best Regards

 

Dr. Yohannes Woldetensae

Quality Assurance Senior Expert

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

  

  _____  

Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48516/*http:/surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_pan
el_invite.asp?a=7%20>  Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.aau.org/pipermail/au-harmon-aau-qa/attachments/20070919/0f509573/attachment.html