Abstract
This research analyzes the scheme proposed to assess the quality of higher education institutions in China, namely, the Quality Assessment of Undergraduate Education (QAUE) scheme. This article aims to determine the impact of the QAUE on universities and explore the reasons that intended effects have or have not been generated in the evaluated universities by conducting case studies of three Chinese universities with different statuses. The empirical studies show the effects on the various dimensions of quality provisions at different universities were not the same. It was found that the impact of the QAUE was not a linear consequence of policy implementation, but the result of an interaction between the external quality assessment scheme and the evaluated universities. Quality assessment is regarded to be an external force to cause universities to change. This empirical study of the QAUE shows that changes will only take place when the external force is integrated with the evaluated universities’ internal motivation and capacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Firstly, the HEEC identified the date that an institution was going to be evaluated and arranged the panel of evaluators. Then, the university began its self-evaluation, which lasted for about 1 year. The self-evaluation reports were prepared by the institution using the fixed format designed by the HEEC, and submitted to the external evaluators. The self-evaluation was followed by a site visit of the expert committee, which lasted for about 1 week.
The evaluation results not only impacted universities’ public funds but also had implications for the number of students recruited by the universities (which is allocated by the central government in China) and the authorization of master’s and doctoral programs, which are quite significant for the reputation and development of HEIs.
The 985 Project began in 1998, and has sponsored 39 Chinese universities to build “world-class” universities with advanced research outcomes and a high international reputation.
Two faculties, which specialize in the subjects of humanities and social science, and science and technology respectively, were selected. This selection considered the differences of university changes caused by subject culture, as discussed by Csizmadia et al. (2008).
According to the evaluation criteria of the QAUE, the teaching documents needed to be completed in standardized formats, such as teaching syllabus, handouts, criteria of student performance assessment and students’ examination papers, and all these documents had to be collected and archived for storage and reference.
References
Barnetson, B., & Cutright, M. (2000). Performance indicators as conceptual technologies. Higher Education, 40(3), 277–292.
Becher, T., & Kogan, M. (1992). Process and Structure in Higher Education (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Buckingham: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press.
Brown, R. (2004). Quality assurance in higher education: The UK experience since 1992. London: Routledge Falmer.
Cheng, M. (2011). ‘Transforming the learner’ versus ‘passing the exam’: Understanding the gap between academic and student definitions of quality. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 3–17.
Csizmadia, T., Enders, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2008). Quality management in Hungarian higher education: Organisational responses to governmental policy. Higher Education, 56(4), 439–455.
Daniel, J. (2004). Incentives and accountability: Instruments of change in higher education. Higher Education Management and Policy, 16(1), 9–18.
Haapakorpi, A. (2011). Quality assurance processes in Finnish universities: Direct and indirect outcomes and organisational conditions. Quality in Higher Education, 17(1), 69–81.
Harvey, L. (2001). Defining and measuring employability. Quality in Higher Education, 7(2), 97–109.
HEEC (2012). Information collected on the organisation’s website. http://www.pgzx.edu.cn/index.jsp. Assessed 10 April 2012 (in Chinese).
Hodson, P., & Thomas, H. (2003). Quality assurance in higher education: Fit for the new millennium or simply year 2000 compliant? Higher Education, 45(3), 375–387.
Houston, D. (2010). Achievements and consequences of two decades of quality assurance in higher education: A personal view from the edge. Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 177–180.
Kogan, M., & Hanney, S. (2000). Reforming higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Kondakci, Y., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Institutional imperatives versus emergent dynamics: A case study on continuous change in higher education. Higher Education, 58(4), 439–464.
Liu, S. (2009). Study of the impact of the quality assessment of undergraduate education policy in China: Students’ perceptions. INQAAHE Biannual Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE.
Liu, X. (2011). Exploration on individuality education in higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education, 32(3), 1–9. (in Chinese).
Ma, T. (2008). On the teaching responsibility of university faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 29(5), 20–25. (in Chinese).
Maassen, P. A. M., & Stensaker, B. (2003). Interpretations of self-regulation: The changing state-higher education relationship in Europe. In R. Begg (Ed.), The dialogue between higher education research and practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Malau-Aduli, B., Zimitat, C., & Malau-Aduli, A. (2011). Quality assured assessment processes: Evaluating staff response to change. Higher Education Management and Policy, 23(6), 1–24.
MOE. (2004). Project of quality assessment of undergraduate education. Beijing: Ministry of Education. (in Chinese).
MOE. (2010). Chinese education yearbook. Beijing: People’s Education Press. (in Chinese).
Morley, L. (2003). Quality and power in higher education. Berkshire: SRHE and Open University Press.
Olsen, J. P. (2005). The institutional dynamics of the European University. Arena. Working Paper, 15. Arena: University of Oslo.
Rebora, G., & Turri, M. (2011). Critical factors in the use of evaluation in Italian universities. Higher Education, 61(5), 531–544.
Reed, M. I., Meek, L. V., & Jones, G. A. (2002). Introduction. In A. Amaral, G. A. Jones, & B. Karseth (Eds.), Governing higher education: National perspectives on institutional governance. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Rowan, B. (2006). The new institutionalism and the study of educational organisations: Changing ideas for changing times. In H. Meyer & B. Rowan (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Shin, J. (2010). Impacts of performance-based accountability on institutional performance in the US. Higher Education, 60(1), 47–68.
Stensaker, B. (2003). Trance, transparency and transformation: The impact of external quality monitoring on higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(2), 151–159.
Stensaker, B. (2006). Governmental policy, organisational ideals, and institutional adaptation in Norwegian higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(1), 43–56.
Stensaker, B. (2008). Outcomes of quality assurance: A discussion of knowledge, methodology and validity. Quality in Higher Education, 14(1), 3–13.
Støren, L., & Aamodt, P. (2010). The quality of higher education and employability of graduates. Quality in Higher Education, 16(3), 297–313.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Trow, M. (1996). Trust, markets and accountability in higher education: A comparative perspective. Higher Education Policy, 9(4), 309–324.
Turri, M., Rebora, G., & Huisman, J. (2007). The effects of quality assurance in universities: Empirical evidence from three cases. In L. Purser, L. Wilson, & E. Froment (Eds.), Introducing Bologna objectives and tools (pp. 1–28). Stuttgart: Raabe.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (1995). Improvement and accountability: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. In Higher education policy series, 30. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Wang, Y., & Liu, B. (2009). The thirty-year Chinese educational reforms: Higher education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. (in Chinese).
Yin, R. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. London: Sage.
Zhong, B., Zhou, H., Liu, Z., & Wei, H. (2009). Summarise the experiences and lessons, study the contexts and trends, and reform the quality assessment: Exploring the principal problems with the first round of the quality assessment of undergraduate education I. China Higher Education, 1, 33–36. (in Chinese).
Zhou, X. (2010). From government accountability to social accountability: Connotation, types and change of Chinese university accountability. Journal of Higher Education, 31(1), 34–40. (in Chinese).
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the support of National Social Science Fund of China (Project CIA120142) and Centenary Scholarship from Institute of Education, University of London, UK.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, S. Quality assessment of undergraduate education in China: impact on different universities. High Educ 66, 391–407 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9611-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-013-9611-2