Quality Assurance in Education & Skill Development

Daniel (2003) suggests that there is ample evidence of distance education (DE) in Asia making great strides with regard to access, equity, and cost-benefit. What is uncertain, however, is whether DE in Asia is providing quality education.

Over the last few decades, there has been a substantial growth in DE in Asia. There are now at least 10 mega-universities, over 70 open universities, and a growing number of conventional institutions offering DE, as well as a rapidly growing number of private and/or for-profit DE providers operating in Asia (Latchem & Jung, 2009). With the phenomenal expansion of DE and an increasing dependency on DE to provide education, especially higher and further education, there has been growing public concern over the quality of DE delivered.

The meaning of quality in DE, in particular, has attracted debate. As suggested by Perraton (2000), the goal of DE for some countries (or providers) is to achieve a level of quality on par with that of face-to-face education. However, Stella and Gnanam (2004) have suggested that DE is so distinctive that the aims and methods of face-to-face education cannot be applied in assessing its quality. Furthermore, as Koul (2006) has commented, DE should be judged by the standards of face-to-face education while factoring in some distinctive features of DE, such as open entry, flexible operations, and technology-based course delivery.

In addition, quality in DE has presented different meanings for governmental policy makers, institutional administrators, teaching staff, and students. Governments may be more interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and public accountability (Koul, 2006), whereas DE providers may be more interested in the quality of their management, staffing, courses, and graduation rates (Hope, 1999). Teachers may be more concerned with the quality of the learning processes and outcomes (Jung, 2011), while students may be more preoccupied with the costs, flexibility, and interactions in their learning (Cashion & Palmieri, 2002; Ehlers, 2004). Moreover, societal and cultural environments affect quality assurance (QA) policies and practices, as indicated in Jung’s (2010) ecological model of QA in DE. QA depends upon reconciling all of these different perspectives, considering societal and cultural variations, and reaching agreement on the quality criteria and standards by which to judge the quality of input, process, and output of DE.

Various national, regional, and international initiatives have been undertaken with regard to QA in DE, including e-learning. Examples of national initiatives include the UK Quality Assurance Agency’s Guidelines on the Quality Assurance of Distance Learning (see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeofpractice/distancelearning/contents.asp), the Norwegian Association for Distance Education’s Quality Standards for Distance Education (see http://nettskolen.nki.no/forskning/DISTUMQualityAssurance.pdf), the Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning’s benchmarks for DE and e-learning (see http://acode.edu.au/resources/ACODE_benchmarks.pdf), and the National Association of Distance and Open Education Organizations of South Africa’s quality criteria for designing and delivering distance education. To mention a few examples of regional and international initiatives, the African Union Commission developed the African Higher Education (including DE) Quality Rating Mechanism (see http://www.africa-union.org/root/UA/Conferences/2007/aout/HRST/06-10%20aout/African%20HE%20Quality%20Rating%20Mechanism-%20E.doc), the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities produced the Quality Manual for E-learning in Higher Education (see http://www.eadtu.nl/e-xcellenceQS/files/members/E-xcellenceManualGrey/index.htm), the Asian Association of Open Universities offered the AAOU Quality Assurance Statements of Best Practice, and the International Council for Open and Distance Education launched a pilot project (see http://www.icde.org/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=1765) to identify regulatory frameworks for distance and online education in different regions, to investigate the best practices, and to examine the rules and regulations hindering distance and online education development.

In Asia, several countries have recognized the need for well-defined QA policy frameworks for DE to assure that quality education is delivered to both students and the public, to safeguard against unscrupulous practices, and to initiate development of QA systems, specifically for DE. This study investigates national QA systems for DE at the higher education level in Asia. Its primary objective is to develop a better understanding of the current development of QA in Asian DE and to offer policy makers directions for developing and elaborating QA systems for DE in their own jurisdictions. DE in this study refers to various forms of technology/media-supported education, such as e-learning.

The study was carried out between January and December 2010 and employed three data collection steps: (a) 11 cases (10 countries and one territory) from East, South, and Southeast Asia were carefully chosen to include those with relatively well-established QA systems, those just introducing QA systems, and others still in the process of developing QA concepts in DE; (b) formal documents published by QA agencies (research institutes and governments in the selected countries/territories) and other references were analyzed to delineate DE development, QA policies, procedures, standards, and criteria for higher education in general and DE specifically; and (c) face-to-face, email, or telephone interviews with local experts working in the QA agencies and DE institutions were conducted to verify the data obtained. No quantitative data related to QA policy development and implementation (e.g., the number of accredited/assessed DE institutions, the number of QA criteria, and standards) were collected because they were not considered necessary for the purposes of this study. This paper outlines the development of DE in each of the 11 cases, discusses differences and similarities, and concludes with a set of recommendations for the further development of QA for Asian DE.

Development of Distance Education

The following section outlines the development of DE and national QA systems in China, Hong Kong SAR (China) (Hong Kong hereafter), India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea (Korea hereafter), Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka to provide a basis for subsequent analyses.


The Open University System of China (OUSC) (combining former China Central Radio and TV University, which was established in 1979, with other radio and TV universities across the country) was the country’s sole DE provider for 20 years. Then, between 1998 and 2003, the Ministry of Education (MoE) licensed 68 online colleges operating from within conventional universities such as Tsinghua University, Peking University, Beijing Normal University, and other institutions to become online providers. By 2008, the number of active distance students in China was 3,560,000, or 12% of all students in the higher education sector. Of these, some 2,250,000 were studying through the OUSC, while 1,310,000 were in the online colleges. However, facing growing public concern over the quality of the courses and programmes offered, the MoE in 2003 ceased granting approval for new online colleges and introduced a QA system that required both the OUSC and online colleges to comply with the guidelines and documents provided by the MoE and imposed nationally standardized examinations upon them. The institutions were also required to follow the Annual Reporting and Censorship procedure, which involves annual internal reviews and external audits by the Distance and Continuing Education Office in affiliation with the Department of Higher Education of the MoE.

Hong Kong

DE arrived in Hong Kong with the establishment of the Open Learning Institute of Hong Kong (OLIHK) in 1989. OLIHK was granted self-accrediting status in 1996 by the Hong Kong Council for Academic Accreditation (HKCAA). In 1997, the OLIHK was conferred the title of university by the government and renamed the Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK). As of 2010, over 13,000 students were enrolled in the university’s DE programmes. As a university with self-accrediting status, programmes offered by OUHK no longer need to be subjected to external accreditation. However, the institution is required to undertake periodic institutional audits. Other DE/online education institutions/programmes in Hong Kong include the Cyber University of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Hong Kong Virtual University consortium, and the School for Professional and Continuing Education of the University of Hong Kong. In 2007, with the enactment of the Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications Ordinance (see http://www.legislation.gov.hk/blis_pdf.nsf/6799165D2FEE3FA94825755E0033E532/08A299C8E01C2F21482575EF001FFE6F/$FILE/CAP_592_e_b5.pdf), the HKCAA was renamed the Hong Kong Council for Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ).Indonesia

Since the mid-1950s, Indonesia has used DE to train teachers, but it was not until 1984, when Universitas Terbuka (UT) was established, that DE became widely accepted and recognized within the country. Although it has been permissible for conventional universities to offer DE courses and programs since 2001, UT remains the only higher education institution that is entirely employing an open and distance education system in Indonesia. UT’s total student body was over 650,000 as of 2010. As a public university, UT must adhere to all of the quality standards and regulations applicable to higher education institutions in Indonesia, including the submission of semester-based self-assessment reports to the Ministry of National Education. UT has been accredited by the independent National Accreditation Board of Higher Education (BAN-PT). In addition, UT has voluntarily sought accreditation from other international organizations, including the International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE) and the International Organisation for Standardisation/ISO for ISO 9001:2000/2008.


The Open University of Japan (OUJ) (formerly the University of the Air) first offered bachelors’ programmes in the greater Tokyo area through terrestrial TV and radio and correspondence in 1985. In 1998, it went nationwide, using satellite digital broadcasts and a network of study centres. It served almost 100,000 students in 2010. Since 2001, OUJ has also provided graduate programmes, but e-learning has not yet been mainstreamed into OUJ’s system. Besides OUJ, 42 conventional universities, two cyber universities, and several graduate schools also offer DE programmes. Since 2004, all higher education institutions have needed to be reviewed and accredited every seven years by one of three QA agencies approved by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. These are the National Institute of Academic Degrees and University Evaluation (NIAD-UE), the Japanese University Accreditation Association (JUAA), and the Japanese Institute for Higher Education Evaluation (JIHEE). Despite this, no specific QA or accreditation system has been established for DE institutions or their programmes.


The Korea National Open University (KNOU), established in 1972, was the sole DE provider in Korea until the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) legislated for the creation of cyber universities in 2001. As of 2010, there were 18 cyber colleges and universities offering bachelors’ and masters’ degrees in various majors. KNOU has over 170,000 students, while the cyber universities served over 30,000 students in 2010. All universities offering four-year programmes, including KNOU, must conduct self-evaluations at least once every two years and submit their findings to the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE)—the only government-recognized agency allowed to accredit four-year universities as of 2011. In the case of cyber universities, the Korea Education and Research Information Service (KERIS) monitors their quality programmes based on guidelines established in the Cyber University Evaluation Handbook.


DE programmes have been offered by DE units located within conventional universities such as the University of Science, Malaysia since the 1970s. During the past decade, three dedicated distance universities have been established in Malaysia: Open University Malaysia, established in 2000, Wawasan Open University in 2006, and Asian e-University in 2008. Together they served approximately 90,000 distance learners in 2010. The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) was established in 2007 to monitor the QA practices of all higher education institutions—including distance universities—and to accredit their programmes. Until 2010, programmes offered by the DE universities were accredited using guidelines, criteria, and standards developed for conventional universities. In Malaysia, both conventional and DE programmes must first obtain provisional accreditation from the MQA before approval can be given by the Ministry of Higher Education for student recruitment. Programmes with a provisional accreditation status are required to undertake the full accreditation audit in the semester prior to the graduation of their first graduates. Universities that have successfully completed several cycles of programme accreditation may be invited by the Minister of Higher Education to undertake an institutional audit, the successful completion of which can lead to the awarding of self-accrediting status. Institutions with self-accrediting status are no longer required to undertake programme accreditation.


Mongolia does not have any dedicated DE institutions. However, some DE programmes are offered by a number of institutions, including four public universities (Mongolian University of Science and Technology [MUST], National University of Mongolia, University of Health Science, and Mongolian Educational University) and a few private institutions. Among these universities and institutions, MUST has been the most active in developing and implementing e-learning programmes. Between 2007 and 2010, MUST offered 16 masters’ degree programmes online as well as integrated ICT in the delivery of its undergraduate courses. The Mongolian National Council for Education Accreditation (MNCEA) was established as a government initiative in 1998 to evaluate and accredit universities and colleges in an attempt to address public concerns over the quality of higher education. In 2002, it started accrediting vocational and technical institutions as well.


As an archipelago of 7,100 islands, the Philippines would seem to be an ideal place for the development of DE. However, only 17 higher education institutions offer DE programmes. Among the existing standalone DE providers are the University of the Philippines Open University (UPOU), which is part of the University of the Philippines System, CAP College, the Asian Institute for Distance Education, and the Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute. The rest are conventional universities offering a few of their programmes by way of DE. Most of the DE provision is at the graduate level, which would perhaps account for the low DE student enrolments nationwide. As of 2010, UPOU, the most comprehensive DE institution in the country, offered only two undergraduate programmes and had a total enrolment of about 2,500 students per semester. Public institutions are monitored and assessed by the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and undergo voluntary accreditation by the Accrediting Association of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines. Private institutions are required by CHED to be certified by the Federation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines, which includes the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities and the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities’ Commission on Accreditation.


The government of Singapore currently does not accredit programmes or higher education institutions. However, the Higher Education Quality Assurance Section of the MoE has been auditing universities that offer four-year degree programmes under the Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (QAFU) since 2004. The main DE provider in Singapore, UniSIM, uses a blended approach for delivering education wherein e-learning is used to supplement face-to-face classes. Its emergence can be traced back to 1992, when the MoE appointed the Singapore Institute of Management (SIM) to collaborate with the UK Open University to offer the Open University Degree Programme (OUDP). In 2002, OUDP was granted accreditation status by the UK Open University and renamed SIM Open University Centre (SIM-OUC). In 2005, SIM-OUC was granted full university status and renamed UniSIM. As of 2010, UniSIM served over 11,000 students and fell under the MoE’s Quality Assurance Framework for Universities (see http://www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2003/05/report.pdf) in terms of its institutional QA audit.

Sri Lanka

Since its establishment in 1978, the Open University Sri Lanka (OUSL) has been the only DE provider. In 2010, it had an enrolment of around 25,000 students. In recent years, with the implementation of the Distance Education Modernization Project (DEMP) of the Ministry of Higher Education, which is funded by the Asian Development Bank, several universities have developed DE programmes and DE materials. Both conventional and DE universities are accredited by the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Council (QAAC) of the Ministry of Higher Education. QAAC was established in 2003 to ensure quality, continuous development and efficient performance of Sri Lankan higher education institutions. Working jointly with the Commonwealth of Learning, the ministry produced the Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes (see http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_HE_QA_Toolkit_web.pdf) in 2009.

Quality Assurance Systems: Differences and Similarities

Asia currently has more open and distance teaching universities and more distance learners than any other region in the world (Latchem & Jung, 2009). The ever-expanding demand and increasing availability, sophistication, and affordability of technology is encouraging governments to urge more institutions to adopt DE, seek new markets, and offer their courses online. However, the biggest challenge facing all of these institutions is how to assure and improve quality, while at the same time widening access, reducing costs, and developing the kinds of mechanisms that will best support such efforts (Jung, 2005). This study revealed that diverse QA systems exist in Asia. Nevertheless, common elements are also clearly noticeable. This section discusses the differences and similarities found in various aspects of the QA systems in the 11 cases studied.

Basic Approaches to QA

An analysis of the cases shows that Asian countries have adopted three approaches to QA in DE.

The first category, as exemplified by Hong Kong, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka, considers DE as an integral part of higher educational delivery and thus applies the same procedures and criteria to all types of educational provisions. Some show consideration toward the uniqueness of DE during the accreditation or auditing processes.

  • Indonesia adjusted its accreditation instrument to accommodate the uniqueness of open and distance higher education programmes (the Accreditation Instrument for Distance Education Study Programmes) in evaluating DE programmes but does not have a separate accreditation process for purely DE and online programmes.

  • The Philippines specifies DE accreditation criteria in the CHED Memorandum Order No. 27 (see http://www.ched.gov.ph/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/CHED-Memorandum-Orders/2007-CHED-Memorandum-Orders) (Commission on Higher Education, 2005). This stipulated that only graduate-level programs with Level III accreditation could be offered at a distance, with the assumption being that undergraduate students need face-to-face contact with mentors and peers for optimal learning. However, CHED has authorized some institutions, including the University of the Philippines Open University, to offer undergraduate programmes at a distance and officially recognizes them.

  • Sri Lanka encourages the use of the Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes (see http://www.col.org/PublicationDocuments/pub_HE_QA_Toolkit_web.pdf) in evaluating and improving QA systems and policies.

  • Malaysian Qualifications Agency is currently in the process of developing the Guideline to Good Practices for Open and Distance Learning, which includes 177 benchmarked and enhanced performance indicators (PIs) across nine QA areas. The same nine areas are also used for the programme accreditation and institutional audit of conventional institutions.

  • Hong Kong and Singapore use common guidelines and standards for both conventional and DE institutions.

The second category, covering countries such as China, India, and Korea, acknowledges the distinctive features of DE and thus applies different QA procedures and criteria.

  • In China, while conventional higher education is evaluated by the General Higher Education Office, DE/e-learning institutions, including OUSC and online colleges, are managed and evaluated by the Distance and Continuing Education Office within the Department of Higher Education of MoE by applying different QA criteria and procedures from those used in conventional institutions.

  • In India, the DEC oversees QA for DE. In 2009, a New Policy on Distance Learning in Higher Education (see http://www.education.nic.in/dl/PolicyDraft-DL.pdf) was introduced, under which all new DE programmes must not only be approved by the DEC but also accredited by the National Board of Accreditation.

  • In Korea, KERIS has managed the evaluation of cyber universities using a QA framework that is different from that used for conventional institutions. In the future, however, KCUE and/or other agencies that acquire the government’s recognition as an accreditation agency may be put in charge of the quality auditing and accreditation of DE institutions.

The third category, which covers countries like Japan and Mongolia, has yet to determine its position or is in the process of developing QA procedures and criteria considerate of the distinctive features of DE.

Purposes of QA

Brennan (1999) has suggested seven purposes for QA in higher education: (1) ensuring accountability for public funds, (2) improving the quality of educational provision, (3) stimulating competition within and between institutions, (4) verifying the quality of new institutions, (5) assigning institutional status, (6) underwriting transfer of authority between the state and institutions, and (7) facilitating international comparisons.

In Asian countries, the common rationale behind the adoption of a QA system for DE is to ensure accountability and improve the quality of DE provision, although several other purposes for QA have also been observed.

To ensure public accountability and assign institutional status, accreditation is often adopted in several cases. Accreditation is the process of external assessment and peer review that determines whether an institution (or programme) qualifies for a certain status or to be recognized or certified as having met certain requirements. The result of accreditation is that an institution or programme either receives or does not receive accreditation. Accreditation for DE institutions or programmes takes place in Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines.

Under the aim of improving the quality of DE provision, academic audits are frequently used. Academic audits focus on the processes that an institution has in place to ensure quality. Typically, documents to be submitted include a critical self-analysis report and an external review verifying the self-report via an onsite visit prior to recommendations being made for improvement. A subsequent monitoring process is also put in place. Academic audits ask, “How well are you doing what you say you are doing?” They adopt either performance indicators that are developed and collected at the institutional level or standardized national performance indicators against which institutions are audited. In Asian DE, the regulatory authorities in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Singapore conduct periodic academic audits. QA also focuses on verifying the quality of new institutions and stimulating competition between DE institutions. This is particularly true in China, Korea, and Malaysia, where conventional universities are increasingly providing private DE.

To stimulate competition within and between institutions, performance-based funding has been adopted in a few cases. Performance-based funding ties public funding to the performance of an institution or a programme. In the case of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and Korea, the outcomes of accreditation or academic audits are directly or indirectly linked to governments’ funding decisions.

To provide valuable information that allows the public and policy makers to make decisions and reflect on the customer-oriented focus of DE provision, several countries have made moves to publicly disclose QA information. Performance reporting refers to a QA approach that makes reports on institutional performance available to the public and submits them to government and/or QA authorities. While most Asian countries make the reports public, some countries, such as China, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka, disclose either the final outcome on the status of accreditation or audits only or limit sharing of the reports to those within institutions and QA authorities.

In the cases of Singapore and Hong Kong, where self-accreditation has been adopted, QA provides the basis for underwriting the transfer of authority between the government and institutions.

Regulatory QA Frameworks

There exist different types of regulatory frameworks for QA in DE.

  • In China and Singapore, the government (MoE) directly regulates QA measures for DE institutions or programmes.

  • In Hong Kong, India, Korea, Malaysia, and Sri Lanka, a government QA agency regulates QA in DE.

  • Some QA bodies (Korea’s KERIS, Indonesia’s BAN-PT) are governmental initiatives, and others, as in India, are quasi-governmental structures where the QA agency has a close relationship with the government but is administered by autonomous governing structures. In Indonesia, QA in higher education is enforced both through self-evaluation monitored directly by the Ministry of National Education and accreditation by an independent accreditation agency (BAN-PT).

  • In the Philippines, both technical panels organized by a government-operated QA agency and membership-based agencies or professional associations are responsible for QA.

  • In Japan’s case, three non-governmental membership-based agencies with government recognition regulate QA of higher education institutions.

In Asia, the regulatory approaches covering accreditation and/or academic audits for DE institutions/programmes can be either mandatory or voluntary.

  • In Hong Kong, Indonesia, India, Mongolia, and the Philippines, accreditation and/or institutional audits are conducted on a voluntary basis, and the outcomes of QA processes are not directly linked to government funding. However, in the case of India and Mongolia, special development funds or government scholarships are given only to accredited institutions.

  • In other countries, such as China, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, and Singapore, accreditation and/or periodic audits are mandatory. In China, online institutions that fail to pass their annual academic audit are not allowed to recruit students the following year. In Korea’s case, the outcomes of QA activities are directly linked to financial and administrative support from the government. Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore do not link the QA results to governmental funding decisions, but Malaysia links the outcome to a rating system, as well as to levels of institutional autonomy in the case of public universities.

Table 1 outlines these features of the QA regulatory agencies/units in selected Asian countries/territories.


QA Methods and Procedures

The QA regulatory systems practiced in the 11 Asian countries/territories generally adopt both internal and external reviews and follow four common procedures.

  1. Review based on pre-determined QA criteria: A set of QA standards and criteria determined by the government or the QA agency are applied to all institutions or programmes. In developing the standards and criteria, nationwide consultations with experts are often sought.

  2. Self-assessment (self-study, self-evaluation): The institution (or programme) undergoing the accreditation/academic audit process is required to conduct a self-assessment and report on how it meets the predetermined standards or criteria.

  3. External review (peer review): A team of external peers constituted by the QA agency analyzes the submitted documents, including the self-assessment report of the institution/programme, and validates the claims made in the report, generally by visiting the institution.

  4. Final decision by the QA/accreditation agency: Based on the results of the self-assessment and external review, the QA agency makes a final decision.

Some QA agencies (e.g., Japan’s NIAD-UE and Mongolia’s MNCEA) assist the institutions by providing training on how to prepare a good self-assessment report. Many agencies provide training for external reviewers. In the case of India’s DEC, an institution’s readiness is assessed before it is put through the formal QA process.

QA Standards and Criteria

The study revealed that in places where there is a QA system for DE, the QA criteria or guidelines for self-assessment and external review are often specified to cover input, process, and output variables in most if not all of the 12 key areas listed below:

  1. Vision, mission, values, and/or goals;

  2. Assessment and evaluation;

  3. Educational resources;

  4. Leadership, governance, and administration;

  5. Finance;

  6. IT infrastructure;

  7. Teaching and learning;

  8. Curriculum and course development;

  9. Student support;

  10. Faculty and staff;

  11. Internal QA system;

  12. Research.

Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Sri Lanka apply the same QA criteria for both conventional and distance institutions/programmes. In Mongolia, these QA criteria are applied only to conventional universities. China, India, and Korea have developed specific QA criteria for DE. Table 2 reveals the following:

  • Vision, mission, values and/or goals, assessment and evaluation, educational resources, teaching and learning, curriculum and course development, and student support are included as QA areas in all 11 cases;

  • QA areas like leadership, governance and administration, finance, faculty and staff, and research are included in all cases except in China and the Philippines;

  • IT infrastructure is an important QA concern for Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, and Korea, whereas other countries do not assess this area aside from generically under learning support;

  • Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka assess whether or not DE institutions operate an internal QA system, while others do not;

  • In the case of Sri Lanka, the Quality Assurance Toolkit for Distance Higher Education Institutions and Programmes lists performance indicators for distance higher education institutions under ten QA criteria, and those of programmes under six criteria that represent the various dimensions of DE practice; these performance indicators are designed to enable institutions to (a) conduct a self-assessment of the performance of their processes in order to make the adjustments and changes necessary for qualitative improvement, and (b) monitor the processes for continuous learning and ongoing improvement. Thirty-nine countries represented by 240 international and local delegates convened in Manila, Philippines to discuss and demonstrate Education for Sustainable Development in Technical and Vocational Education and Training (ESD in TVET). The international conference, organized by Colombo Plan Staff College for Technician Education (CPSC) in collaboration with the International Vocational Education and Training Association (IVETA), Capacity Building International (InWEnt) and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), espoused the prominence of reversing the impact of climate change through technical and vocational education and capacity building approaches. It also succeeded in providing an interactive venue to understand how sustainable development could be integrated into education and facilitate interest and commitment in promoting SD for a greener TVET.

The conference launched a milestone Call to Action that proposes to undertake deliberate and conscientious efforts to fast-track initiatives to pull off the Decade for Education for Sustainable Development (DESD), a proclamation made by the United Nations General Assembly at its 57th session to achieve sustainable development by 2014 with education as an indispensible element to reach the decade.

A ten-point Call to Action, affirmed by 240-strong delegates of the conference, suggests to recommend “Integrating ESD in TVET” high on the international agenda; to mobilize towards a Green TVET Framework to support socio-economic aspects towards sustainable development; to promote capacity building to integrate ESD in TVET systems; to re-orient TVET curriculum and teacher education to integrate ESD in all levels of education; and to increase public awareness to promote ESD as an advocacy for greater community ownership.

It also recommended to strengthen networking and linkages to enhance multi-stakeholder partnership; to promote evidence-based research, monitoring and evaluation strategies for ESD in TVET; to develop clean and green technology programs to meet the needs of the green economy; and to prioritize investments in education and capacity building of the youth in creating a strong foundation of a society for sustainable development.

By fast-tracking these actions, the conference aims to mobilize the academic, policy and industry sectors towards working together for the reconfiguration of TVET system to meet the needs of the human capital as well as consider socio-economic aspects of development.

Among the countries represented were Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Cambodia, Fiji, Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Rep. of Korea, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Mongolia, Nepal, New Zealand, Palau, Pakistan, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, United States of America, Vietnam and Yemen.

The conference was formally inaugurated by the Chairman of the CPSC Governing Board, HE Dato Seri Dr. Ibrahim Saad, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Philippines and the Director General of TESDA, Secretary Joel Villanueva; Dr. Shyamal Majumdar, Director General, CPSC; Mr. Klaus Sodemann, President of IVETA and Dr. Harry Stolte, Head of Division, InWENt.

Secretary Villanueva keynoted the opening of the conference stressing that the event has placed the Philippines and the issue of sustainability in the education context at the center of necessary follow-up initiatives to realize the objectives of the Agenda 21, a comprehensive plan of action agreed to be taken globally, nationally and locally in which human impacts on the environment. He underlined that crucial role of TVET in propagating sustainable development, which he simplified to be nothing but ensuring that a common technician understands the implication of day-to-day plat operations to the environment.

Echoing the common understanding on the important role TVET plays in skilling and building qualifications, Malaysian Ambassador Ibrahim Saad on behalf of CPSC Governing Board acknowledged that open discussion on ESD from the various perspectives, such as policy dialogues, job creation, research, and education reforms. He affirmed that ESD has its multi-dimensional purpose in life, in general; and human and resources development, in particular.

Dr. Majumdar shared that one of the key strategies to achieve sustainable development is thru Education and Training. Reiterating a UN advocacy that says “the shift towards a green economy requires Education for Sustainable Development,” he emphasized that humankind won’t be able to solve the problems it faces today subscribing to the same values and approaches that created them thus ESD will provide the framework to address climate change.

Dr. Majumdar in a plenary presentation also presented the CPSC greening TVET framework which champions having a green campus, technology program, community outreach initiatives, research and culture as a holistic approach to greening TVET institutions. 
The conference tackled a range of themes that included global ESD enablers and barriers in TVET; best practices of ESD in TVET; TVET curriculum for ESD; innovative teacher education for ESD; green technology approaches in industry and education; and sustainable TVET institutions through partnerships and alliance.

Leading educationists from TVET sector as well as representatives from various development and academic institutions and government agencies shared insights and progress in utilizing education and training platforms to promote sustainable development.

These include CPSC, IVETA, InWEnt, World Bank Speakers Bureau, South East Asian Ministers of Education Organization – Regional Center for Vocational and Technical Training, Asian Institute of Technology, Asian Development Bank, ILO Bangkok, GRM International, Hong Kong Institute of Education, Botswana Training Authority, Ohio State University, University Ton Hussein Onn Malaysia.

Participating institutions in the host country were CHED, TESDA, DepEd, DAP, Western Visayas College for Science and Technology of the Philippines, Toyota Motor Philippines Foundation, Hytec Power, Eastern Petroleum Corporation, Bayan Academy for Social Entrepreneurship and Human Resource Development, among others.

Globalization and its Impact on Quality Assurance:

Globalization is a generic term and it can be defined in a number of different ways depending on the context. The definition - description - given by Knight and de Wit (1997) appears to be the best operational one for any discussion pertaining to higher education in this context. According to them, Globalization “is the flow of technology, economy, knowledge, people, values, ideas…across the borders. Globalization affects each country in a different way due to a nation’s individual history, traditions, culture and priorities.”  To cope with the ‘Globalization’, the higher education system has to re-orient its structure and function besides enlarging the scope of its provisions to meet the challenges of Globalization. This re-orientation process is termed as Internationalization. Internationalization of Higher Education is one of the ways a country responds to the demands of globalization.


Thus, the terms ‘Globalization’ and ‘Internationalization’ are to be seen as distinct but linked concepts so far as the higher education is concerned. Globalization is the cause and the internationalization is the effect in response. With this perception of these terms in focus, an attempt has been made in this article, to outline in broad terms the strategies to be followed to internationalize the higher education at the national level and to respond to the various demands rising out of the globalization of economies and related activities. Developing this strategic plan and implementing it speedily is crucial for any nation to succeed in the highly competitive knowledge driven global economy.


The globalization of economies brings in the mobility of knowledge workers and seekers across the world in volume unprecedented in the history.  If a particular country cannot produce the graduates with the skills that employers want, especially in areas like information technology, then the employers in that country may seek the employees from wherever they are available. This need not necessarily mean an influx of skilled labor into that country. There are already examples of employment in the ‘knowledge based industries’ moving to the workers rather than the workers moving. Whether the employer moves or the potential employee moves, the mobility will be dependant on the quality and standards of the qualifications offered by the educational institutions. Ensuring the quality and standards of the educational offering will constitute the first step towards internationalization of higher education. This in turn would involve restructuring of the contents, duration, quality and standards of educational offerings in line with the broad frame of higher educational systems in vogue in most of the countries of the world.  Fortunately, ensuring the parity of the content and the duration of studies with those of others may not be a major problem since the qualification framework followed in most of the countries by and large fall into a common pattern, though there may be some extent of contextualization to the national culture, language and values. This is largely due to the fact that the higher education system - universities and colleges- through out the world are patterned after the medieval European model by the historical accident. All most all the third world countries have had their institutions built on the pattern in vogue in the countries of their European rulers. On the other hand, the issues of quality and standards are the main concerns, and they need to be ensured to internationally acceptable levels through careful planning.

In this context, national level External Quality Assurance (NEQA) mechanism becomes important. The National Quality Assurance processes, whether it is assessment, academic audit or Accreditation used to assess and accredit the educational institution/programs should also conform to the international practices. In addition, they should broaden their focus to the international norms instead of the national context to which they are presently oriented. With an effective and acceptable mechanism of Quality Assurance at the national level in place, re-orienting them towards assessing the educational system for the international stakeholders may not be difficult. The reorientation of the quality assurance exercises and the outcome would in turn ensure the recognition of the qualifications across the national borders in the long run.


Outlines and trends towards globalization in the Asia Pacific Region

Massification of higher education

i.  Trough Expansion

The region with the fastest growing economies in the world is making plans to protect its economic interests by assuring world-class education through its institutions of higher learning.  China and India, two most populous countries of the world know that they have to improve their higher education system both quantitatively and qualitatively. The massification effort of higher education is continuing at a greater pace than it has been hither to. In fact, the number of students enrolled in these two countries along with others in the region has been the highest among the various regions of the world. The current enrollment figure of about 35 million students in Asia is by far the highest among the other regions like America, Europe and Africa. In China, the enrollment figure is more than 6 million and in India, it is about 8 millions as of 1999. Though percentage of population that have access to higher education in the Asia pacific countries may be lower than the corresponding figures of the developed nations, the absolute number of well trained people in this region is substantially higher and the trend continues. The annual compounded growth rate in both India and China is maintained at about 5-6% over the last two decades.


ii. Through Distance Education

The emergence of distance learning as the effective supplementary system to the traditional universities and colleges is also an important trend in the expansion of the higher education system in the region. The increasing export market in higher education and new corporate educational programs, accelerated by the new technologies that make distance education a primary medium. Realizing this, a country like India like many in the region has established both open universities and traditional distance learning units enrolling millions of students from all over the world. Their program offerings are diverse, career oriented, relatively inexpensive and therefore attract a large number of students. Besides, institutions that formerly did not have distance learning as their core mission are also now emerging, as major providers of distance education for which there are innumerable examples.


iii. Through Privatization

As part of the general thrust for increasing the size of enrollment in higher education, spurred by the need for additional resources, the countries in the region have already undertaken the initiatives to privatize the higher education. In India, establishment of new institutions by the governments (federal and State) with full grants was stopped as far back as in early 80s. All the new growth in terms of institutions, enrollment and diversification of higher education is through the private initiative. India, having the second largest network of higher education institutions in the world, with more than 265 universities and 11200 colleges, expanding its higher education system only through private resources during the past 15-20 years. From 1994-95 to 1991-99 alone, more than 2100 colleges have been established through privatization strategy. These phenomena could be seen in all the countries of the region, varying only in the relative magnitude.


iv. Through Transnational Education:

Sensing the concern for increasing the openings for higher educational opportunity in the region, many developed countries both within the region and outside have come in a large way to establish their teaching and training centers in a number of countries. More recently “transnational education” as a distinct class is emanating from countries like USA, Australia, UK, France and a few others for the countries that cannot expand the institutional base for want of adequate human and other resources. Though, this is not a major thrust in countries like China and India, transnational education is substantial in many of economically well-developed countries of the region like Malaysia, Thailand, and Singapore and to some extent Philippines. 


v. Through Diversification:

Consequent to the phenomenal growth of knowledge and the emergence of many multi-disciplinary subject areas, the range of educational offering have also increased substantially. Computer and computer related information technology area denote the domain of new knowledge emerging as a key sector of education. Areas like, Biotechnology, Management, New material sciences, Bio-medical engineering and the like are the examples of inter and multi-disciplinary areas. Besides, diversity also comes from the variety of new delivery system by the educational providers. In fact, the universities have become only one of the many actors in providing higher education. Examples of other providers include: 1. Telecommunication, cable and satellite companies, 2. Publishers including News paper groups, who are designing and delivering course materials, sometimes in partn

© 2024 International Qualifications