Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review Report
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMITTEE
OF HONG KONG
TEACHING AND LEARNING QUALITY
PROCESS REVIEW
of
THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG
MAY 1996
Teaching and Learning Quality Process Review (TLQPR)
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Introduction
1. The Chinese University of Hong Kong takes pride in
its culture of teaching quality, and the TLQPR Panel found
considerable evidence to support this view. The teaching and
learning climate is good, and the academic staff appear to
be conscientious about teaching despite the recent emphasis
placed by the institution on research. Well-qualified people
are doing good things--because they want to. This is
consistent with the University's stated philosophy: that its
goal is to provide the space needed to allow students and
staff to develop in their own ways.
2. The terms of the TLQPR preclude any direct
assessment of teaching and learning quality. However, the
Panel is satisfied that, given the University's culture,
sufficient improvement and assurance processes are in place
to warrant a satisfactory degree of confidence about the
University's current quality of teaching and learning. But
the Panel also believes that the University should make more
explicit and integrated efforts to maintain and improve
teaching standards in the face of conflicting pressures and
changing conditions. In particular, we observed significant
instances where the lines of accountability for quality
assurance are insufficient. Fixing such accountability
lines should be a strong institutional priority. The last
section of the report describes some areas for improvement
identified by the Panel.
3. Annex A presents a framework for the Teaching and
Learning Quality Process Review. As described in paragraph 2
of the framework, the goals of the TLQPR are: (a) to focus
attention on teaching and learning as the primary mission of
Hong Kong's tertiary institutions; (b) to assist
institutions in their efforts to improve the quality of
teaching and learning; and (c) to enable the UGC and the
institutions to discharge their obligation to maintain
accountability for the quality of teaching and learning. The
Panel focused on the following five teaching and learning
process elements, which should exist in some form at every
academic programme level :-
- curriculum design
- pedagogical design
- implementation quality
- outcomes assessment
- resource provision
Readers may wish to consult Annex A, which illustrates the
kinds of questions used to define each process element,
before proceeding further.
4. The following CUHK processes, in particular,
currently provide noteworthy support for teaching and
learning quality.
- The Committee on Academic Policy and Development (which
has responsibility for teaching quality)
- Teaching as a required element of staff review
- Mandatory student course evaluation questionnaires
- Teaching awards
- The Teaching Development Unit
- Teaching orientation sessions and assistance for new
staff
- A broadened remit for the visiting examiner system
- Dependence of one-line budgets on student numbers, and
hence on quality and relevance as perceived by students
The Task Force on Teaching Quality, organized to prepare for
the TLQPR and chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, also appears
to have made a significant contribution--however, it is not
clear whether the Task Force will be continued on a
permanent basis. Likewise, we found instances where the
External Examiner System has been supplemented with
comprehensive internal Departmental Reviews, but this does
not appear to be a general policy.
Review Process
5. In June 1995 the University, at the request of the
UGC, submitted an outline of its TLQPR document. Following
the Panel's acceptance of the outline, the University
submitted, in July 1995, its full twenty-page document
describing its quality improvement and assurance processes.
Subsequently, at the request of the Panel, the University
submitted a supplementary document (together with supporting
documentation) relating its QA process to the five sub-
processes outlined in paragraph 6 of Annex A. (Copies of
both these documents can be obtained from the University.)
6. The Panel held a discussion session with a cross-
section of academic staff and students of the University in
September 1995. At this session the purposes and methods of
the Review were outlined and explained. The Panel's
formal Review Visit took place on 4 - 5 January 1996 and
followed the pattern described in paragraph 3 of Annex A.
Institutional Self-Assessment
7. The University provided the Panel with a description
and self-assessment of its teaching and learning quality
processes. Summaries are provided in the following
paragraphs, along with comments by the Panel where
applicable. More extensive comments are presented in the
last section of the report, "Areas for Improvement."
Overview
8. The University believes that provision of a quality
education to students is its primary function. The
introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise seems to
have accentuated the importance of research. Hence it is
important that all members of the University should be
sensitized to the primary function of the University and
urged to pursue quality in teaching and learning. The TLQPR
has served well in providing an impetus in this regard. The
University emphasizes that research and teaching are not two
exclusive activities. Research by its outcome in the
creation of knowledge will ultimately enrich teaching and
learning. This has been true in every leading university
world-wide.
9. The University believes strongly that the best
approach to teaching and learning quality is to provide
freedom for teachers and students to undertake self-
motivated improvement activities. People are urged to
pursue quality, but the university's most important quality
goal is to create space for people to continuously improve
on their performance.
10. The aforementioned principle of providing freedom
and space for teachers and students to improve and to excel
represents the cornerstone of the University's academic
strategy. As a result, day-to-day decision-making processes
are largely decentralized to the faculty/department
level--though they remain subject to certain university-level
policies. The University believes strongly that it should
function mainly as an enabling body, that it should strive
to provide an institutional environment which is as
conducive as possible to quality teaching and learning. It
recognizes that procedures and their documentation are
useful in pursuing quality improvement, but it believes that
over-organization could be dangerous.
11. The University is concerned lest over-
bureaucratization of quality assurance processes become
counter-productive in enhancing teaching and learning
quality. It points out that quality assurance frameworks
cannot simply be copied from somewhere else, and to require
excessive documentation and reporting would turn the process
into a time-consuming paper exercise. Instead, the
framework should be evolved within an institution as part of
an on-going process of self-reflection and self-evaluation.
The Panel agrees, but notes that the quality assurance
system that does evolve within the institution should be
strong and effective.
12. Generally, the University feels that it has good
systems for assuring quality in place already and they are
largely subscribed to and followed by the various units of
the University. However, it feels there are areas,
described in the following paragraphs, to which more
discussion and efforts should be devoted to help build a
more effective framework. The Panel agrees that over-
organization would not be desirable, but, as stated under
"Areas for Improvement," we are concerned about a possible
undue reliance on implicit quality processes. We believe
that greater self-consciousness about the processes that
contribute to teaching and learning quality can be achieved
without bureaucracy, and that the results of greater
attention to quality processes will be worthwhile.
Curriculum Design
13. The University believes it has adequate procedures
for the design, review and improvement of programme
curricula. In addition to the expertise and knowledge of the
serving teaching staff which form the main input, views are
sought from students, visiting scholars, and
external/visiting examiners, graduates, and where
appropriate, employers and professional bodies.
14. The external examiner gives advice on the
appropriateness of the curricula and the areas for further
improvement and advancement. The system has been in place
since the inception of the University and has been
periodically reviewed and improved for greater impact on the
curricula and teaching. It has evolved from a system that
was mainly concerned with the output standard (degree
examination) to an expanded system which also provides
expert advice on design, review and improvement of the
curricula. As noted in paragraph 33, the Panel endorses the
expanded external examiner concept, but would like to see
more explicit integration with the University's other
teaching and learning quality improvement programmes.
15. In many departments which do not train students to
take up a specific profession, the solicitation of views and
feedback from alumni and employers lacks a systematic
framework, although the Office of Student Affairs conducts a
general Graduate Employment Survey annually with a view to
identifying general employment trends and views of graduates
on their first career placement. There is however an
intrinsic difficulty with most departments, particularly
those in the humanities, social sciences and general science
which are not vocational subjects: the employment of
graduates has been so diverse that it is extremely difficult
to canvass employers' opinions on the strengths and
weaknesses of the education graduates received.
Pedagogical Design
16. The Panel agrees with the University's statement
that for many years, teaching and learning were activities
that could easily be taken for granted, but that teachers
and students now are becoming more aware of educational
effectiveness or the lack thereof and the possible ways and
means of improvement. (Indeed, students no longer see
themselves as the passive receiving end of the teaching
process.) In recent years, as tertiary education transforms
from elitist education to mass education, the ability span
of the incoming students stretches wider and teachers feel
the need to adjust teaching methods. The University
recognizes that an institutional framework should be set up
to help teachers adjust their teaching methods more
responsively, and the Panel emphatically agrees.
17. With the advance of information technology, new
modes of teaching and learning have begun to capture the
interest of teachers and students. The University reports
growing awareness among departments that exploration of new
teaching methods is worthwhile, and hence that resource
requests to support such activities are increasing. They
also report a burgeoning demand for workshops and seminars
on pedagogical methods. All in all, there appears to be
heightened awareness of the need for improvements.
18. The establishment of the Teaching Development Unit
(TDU) helps serve this need. The University's earlier
efforts in its early days in setting up an Office of
Instructional Development had failed to bear fruit as
teachers then did not see the linkage between the research-
based experimentation and their day-to-day teaching tasks.
The remit of the new Unit therefore focuses on the
cultivation of an environment for teaching and learning
enhancement. It aims to make available the facilities and
expertise required to encourage and facilitate teachers to
engage in teaching development activities. To help
promulgate a reflective mood on teaching, workshops,
seminars and forums on teaching developments are organized
to provide opportunities for interested teachers to get
together and exchange views. The Panel endorses the TDU's
remit. We believe the University should take steps to ensure
that such activities become an integral part of the culture
of all departments, not just the responsibility of the TDU.
Implementation Quality
19. The University reports that teaching performance has
always been an independent assessment criterion for staff
appraisal purposes (during substantiation, promotion, or
crossing efficiency bars). While recognizing that there are
limited incentives for good teaching, the University has
made conscious efforts to reward excellent teaching
performance. Promotion had in the past been effected even
to the Reader level for a teacher whose research was not
that outstanding, but who had performed very well in
teaching. However, the number of such cases is small. The
University will continue to find ways to provide incentives
for good teaching, and the Panel strongly endorses the
University's efforts in this regard. Recently measures have
been introduced in some faculties or departments to reward
good teaching e.g. Best Teacher Award Scheme. While such a
scheme may be worthwhile, the Panel cautions that its
inauguration should not be regarded as a substitute for the
careful consideration of recognition of teaching in the
existing, extrinsic reward structure of the University.
20. Student course evaluation is a compulsory exercise
at the University. Its implementation is devolved to the
faculties, thus providing flexibility for each faculty to
design a course evaluation programme which will best suit
its requirements and circumstances. With effect from 1995-
96, course evaluation has been used as one of the elements
in teaching staff appraisal exercise. For the first time,
there is a more objective and comprehensive set of data on
teaching performance to enable the University to implement
the policy of using teaching performance as a criterion for
staff appraisal.
21. The University states that it places a high priority
on improving the perceptions of both teachers and students
with respect to course evaluation. Some teachers are not yet
convinced that all students approach the exercise with the
necessary degree of maturity and some students are not yet
convinced that teachers take the findings from the
evaluation seriously. The University takes the view that
the majority of teachers and students are participating in
the exercise in a mature and serious manner. It believes
that improvements will be possible as experience
accumulates, and as more and more research and discussions
are held regarding validity of these findings. The Panel
congratulates the University on its forthright assessment of
the situation, which it confirmed with its own observations,
and endorses the idea that addressing the need for
improvement in perceptions should be a matter of high
priority.
Outcome Assessment
22. The University reports a universal framework for the
grading and assessment of students. Examination Panels are
set up to monitor both the methods and outcomes of
assessment. The external/visiting examiner system provides
an outside input in the assessment of students and ensures
that the University's academic standard will be on a par
with good universities in other parts of the world.
23. Statistics on the distribution of academic abilities
of new entrants and overall performance of students after
admission are monitored at various institutional levels for
the purpose of detecting trends which might require
adjustments to curricula and teaching methods. But the
University cautions against mechanically linking outcome
assessments to teaching and learning quality, on grounds
that no reliable measures of the value added by the teaching
process have as yet been developed.
Resource Provision
24. Under the University's one-line budget system,
increased flexibility is provided to enable the deployment
of resources to priority areas as seen by the budget holder.
Additional funding to build extra excellence in teaching and
research is also available on a competitive basis. However,
the University encounters difficulty mounting small group
teaching given the existing resource level. The Panel agrees
that the one-line budget system provides a sound base upon
which continuously to improve the quality of teaching and
learning. However, as indicated in paragraph 32 below, we
feel the University has not yet organized itself to take
full advantage of this potential.
Unit-Level Observations
25. During the Panel's visit to the University on 4 - 5
January 1996, Panel subgroups visited twelve academic units
in addition to holding plenary meetings with institutional
leaders, academic staff with specific responsibility for
quality, and students. Our conversations revolved around
several underlying themes: (a) do colleagues have a degree
of agreement and a sense of collective responsibility
concerning their academic discipline and teaching quality;
(b) how do they relate to one another in collegial terms;
(c) how do they relate to their students as recipients of
their services and as future colleagues; (d) how do they
relate to the changing needs and demands of the larger
university environment and of society?
26. From the subgroup conversations, we were able to
detect certain tensions which have significant impact on
teaching quality: tensions between centre and department,
between teaching and research, between formal and informal
channels of communication and practice, and between
established traditions/cultures and new policy demands. The
subgroup meetings went well, though in at least one case a
breakdown of communication within the University about the
need to provide documentation prior to the Panel's visit
hindered our efforts.
27. Annex B records our main observations arising from
the sub-group visits and conversations. These observations
are drawn from the reports from the Panel sub-groups to the
Panel as a whole during and after the visit. Because the
material is not based on formal reviews at the unit level,
the observations are intended to be illustrative only. (That
is why they have been placed in an annex.) The units are not
identified, except for the Teaching Development Unit (TDU),
which we felt should be identified because of its special
nature and importance to the University's teaching and
learning programmes.
28. The Panel notes that changes in Hong Kong's overall
higher education environment (i.e., the dramatic recent
increase in participation rates and attendant change in
student characteristics), an increasing degree of career-
orientation on the part of students, and the decentralized
character of academic institutions are putting great
pressures on faculties and departments.
29. The issues illustrated in Annex B should not be
viewed as criticisms of the individual operating units. The
Panel is convinced that the illustrations are representative
on average, but given the brief nature of the unit-level
reviews we cannot vouch for the accuracy of all the details.
The issues should be addressed by the University as a whole
institution. Therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to
focus criticism primarily on the individual units.
Areas for Improvement
30. While the Panel believes that the University should
be commended for its encouragement and support of teaching
quality, and the level of quality that has evidently been
achieved, we do have some concerns. Our main concern is that
there may be an undue reliance on implicit quality
processes, and upon the University's extant culture of
quality in teaching and learning. The Panel fully endorses
the principles that implicit processes must carry the main
burden of quality improvement and assurance, and that a
culture of quality is a prime requisite for effective
teaching. However, we believe that a certain emphasis on
explicit processes is essential to maintain the efficacy of
implicit processes and cultural norms, and to adapt to
changing circumstances.
31. The improvement of explicit processes begins with
greater self-consciousness, at all institutional levels,
about the improvement and assurance of teaching and learning
quality. Such self-consciousness should involve vigorous
discussion and debate about teaching quality issues. The
debate should be informed by energetic and systematic review
of best practices and potential innovations in relevant
organizational units within the institution and elsewhere,
and by similar inquiries of students and external groups.
However, we found more indications than we would have liked
that CUHK's quality processes are implicit to the point of
breeding passive cooperation rather than bubbling ferment.
This is not to say that teaching is passive--we are speaking
here of the meta-processes that sustain and improve
teaching. The Panel believes that active self-consciousness
is a necessary condition for quality teaching and learning
over the long run.
32. More explicit processes would also improve the
integration of quality programme elements. For example, the
Committee on Academic Policy and Development might
collaborate with the Resource Allocation Committee to
develop a method by which faculty and departmental quality
assurance systems would become central elements of the
University's five-year planning processes and planning and
the effectiveness of these quality assurance systems would
become significant determinants of the faculty and
departmental one-line budgets. The Panel recognizes that
student perceptions about teaching quality currently
influence budgets via enrolment shifts, but we believe
further improvements can be achieved by making teaching and
learning quality processes an explicit central University
priority. This also would address our concern that the
University's plan to increase the weighting of research
performance in budget determination (which may well be a
good idea) might, over time, erode the staff's focus on
teaching unless mitigated by a counterbalancing force based
on teaching quality.
33. The visiting examiner system provides another
example of how teaching quality might be improved by more
explicit and integrated planning. We endorse the expansion
of the visiting examiner remit to include curricular and
pedagogical design and teaching quality, but suggest that
the examiners look as well at teaching quality process
questions. Improvements also might be made in the selection
and perhaps the number of examiners, and in the specificity
of their terms of reference. Likewise, there could be more
analysis of the performance of examiners to make sure they
are fully covering the expanded remit. The Panel does not
wish to discourage the use of visiting examiners, but rather
cites the system as another example of how a more self-
critical and quality-centred approach could pay dividends.
34. Our review unearthed evidence that all is not well
with the 'bilingual setting' which is claimed by the
University to be an essential aspect of its TLQ. It appears
that there are serious differences of opinion on matters of
language policy and a lack of co-ordination in the
organization and resourcing of the University's English
language programmes (remedial as well as enhancement): some
students get a great deal, others little or nothing. In the
laissez-faire philosophy that underpins the system, a
student can leave the University without having had any
English language teaching. (We heard of students who left
with less English proficiency than when they entered.) The
Panel urges the University to address the bilingual aspect
of its TLQ programme as a matter of high priority.
35. In summary, the level of teaching quality at CUHK
appears good, and progress has been made in stimulating
improvement. Nevertheless, the Panel believes that the
University should implement explicit and integrated QA
processes to maintain and improve teaching standards in the
face of conflicting pressures and changing conditions. Our
inquiries suggest that some departments and staff might
welcome additional guidance-including guidance about how to
develop workable explicit processes-in support of their
efforts to sustain and enhance teaching and learning
quality. Furthermore, institutional leaders at all levels
should increase their efforts to ensure that operating units
within their purview maintain their accountability for
teaching and learning quality.
UGC Secretariat
May 1996
Annex A
Framework for the Teaching and Learning
Quality Process Review
1. This Annex describes the framework used by the UGC
in conducting and reporting on the first round of Teaching and
Learning Quality Process Reviews. The framework, which emerged
during preparation for the reviews and during the reviews
themselves, provides a way of thinking about teaching and
learning quality in tertiary education institutions. The UGC
and its Review Panel will continue to develop the framework
during subsequent TLQPR rounds.
TLQPR Goals
2. The goals of the TLQPRs are as follows:
(a) to focus attention on teaching and learning as the
primary mission of Hong Kong's tertiary
institutions;
(b) to assist institutions in their efforts to improve
the quality of teaching and learning; and
(c) to enable the UGC and the institutions to discharge
their obligation to maintain accountability for the
quality of teaching and learning.
The UGC, the TLQPR Panel, and the institutions share these
goals and view the review as a collegial process.
TLQPR Methods
3. The TLQPR process begins with a preliminary visit by
the Panel to each institution for the purposes of
familiarizing staff with the purposes and methods of the
Review, and the preparation by the institution of a twenty-
page document describing its quality improvement and assurance
processes. The Review visit lasts one and one-half days, which
are utilized as follows:
- The first half day is devoted to three meetings: with the
institution's senior leadership, with the leadership plus
academic staff associated with the quality improvement and
assurance programme, and with students.
- The second half day involves meetings at the faculty
level or with academic departments or quality programme
support units. The Panel divides itself into six
sub-groups for this purpose. Each subgroup meets with
academic staff, students, and the leadership from two
operating units, which allows visits to twelve units in
all.
- The third half-day begins with a private session where
the Panel formulates its preliminary impressions about the
visit. The visit ends with a final meeting with the
leadership and staff involved in quality assurance, where
the preliminary impressions can be conveyed and discussed.
4. The TLQPR Panel consists of eighteen people: nine
(including the Chair) members of the UGC's Quality
Subcommittee; two non-UGC overseas members with experience in
higher education quality assurance; and one member from each
of the seven Hong Kong institutions. The local members were
designated by a larger TLQPR Consultative Committee of local-
institution representatives, which has assisted the UGC in
designing the TLQPR methodology. Because the TLQPR is
collegial, the local Panel members participate fully in the
reviews of their institutions.
Report Preparations
5. Report preparation proceeds in several stages.
First, the institution's self-analysis and discussion notes
from the early plenary sessions are scrutinized for emergent
themes and examples of exemplary and questionable practice.
(The self-analysis summary uses the institution's language to
the extent possible.) The subgroup reports are similarly
scrutinized, and a summary is prepared. The draft of this
part of the report is reviewed by the Panel, and then by the
institution for factual accuracy before submission to the
UGC's Quality Sub-Committee. The "Areas for Improvement"
section is drafted concurrently and reviewed by the Panel, the
Quality Sub-Committee, and the UGC before the final Report is
transmitted to the institution. The institutions, in turn,
have committed to make the reports public along with a
statement describing the actions they plan to take by way of
improvement.
TLQPR Dimensions
6. Teaching and learning quality can be viewed from two
different perspectives. First come the teaching and learning
processes themselves; in other words, the activities performed
by academic and support-unit staff in performing their duties.
Second come the methods by which institutions, faculties,
departments, and similar units work to continuously improve
teaching quality and assure themselves that the activities are
appropriate and well executed.
7. The Review Panel recognizes that decisions with
respect to both quality perspectives must be made by the
institutions themselves, and that variety among and within
institutions is necessary for an effective tertiary sector.
The Panel's fundamental standard, therefore, lies not in
specifying any particular approaches to teaching and learning
quality, but rather in asking whether institutions and
academic staff have given careful thought to both of the
quality dimensions and whether they can articulate and defend
the choices made.
Teaching and Learning Processes
8. Teaching and learning processes can be described in
terms of the following five sub-processes, which form one
dimension of the Panel's inquiry. Each sub-process is
illustrated by questions which might be asked of an
institution, a faculty, a department, or an individual staff
member. However, the questions are presented by way of example
only. The Panel does not presume that all the questions, or
indeed any of them, are applicable in any particular
situation. However, we do ask the institutions to organize
their documentation in terms of the five sub-processes and we
refer frequently to the five in our deliberations.
9. Curriculum design: by what processes are programme
curricula designed, reviewed, and improved? Some useful
process elements follow:
(a) Design inputs from the academic discipline, mainly
staff-based
(b) Design inputs from employers, feedback from current
outcomes assessments, past students, professional
bodies (where applicable), and other inputs dealing
with "fitness for use"
(c) Integration mechanisms: how are these two kinds of
inputs brought together? How are controversies
resolved?
(d) Faculty and institutional review mechanisms; what
are they and how do they work?
(e) External review mechanisms; e.g., visiting
committees
10. Pedagogical design: by what process are the methods
of teaching and learning decided and improved?
(a) To what extent are pedagogical methods the subject
of active consideration by staff, departments,
faculties, etc.? Do staff spend sufficient time
working together on these matters?
(b) How broad is the definition of "pedagogical method"?
For example, does it focus on learning as well as
teaching? Does it integrate feedback about learning
attainment with the delivery of academic content?
(c) Degree of innovation in pedagogical method? Have the
methods been changing over time? For example, have
they been trending toward active as opposed to
passive learning? Have they been taking sufficient
advantage of information technology?
11. Implementation quality: processes related to how
well the staff perform their teaching duties
(a) How broad is the definition of "teaching"? Does it
include out-of-class student contact (including
advising) and student assessment (including feedback
about the assessments) as well as class contact?
(b) What are the incentives for good teaching? What are
the disincentives? (It is important to consider
staff perceptions as well as the programmes
themselves.)
(c) How is teaching performance evaluated? (Possible
mechanisms include self-evaluation, student
evaluation, and peer evaluation.)
(d) How are teaching evaluations utilized? For example,
are they used in staff evaluation reviews? Are they
shared among staff as part of a mutual-improvement
process? Do they result in specific self-improvement
efforts, such as utilization of teaching improvement
centres?
12. Outcomes assessment: how do staff, departments,
faculties, and the institution monitor student outcomes and
link outcomes assessments to teaching and learning process
improvement?"
(a) Academic performance: for example, normed
examinations and the use of external examiners
(b) Other performance; for example, satisfaction as
expressed in exit conferences, success in the job
market
(c) Feedback from past students, employers, etc.?
(d) Are processes for working with students to help them
achieve the desired teaching and learning outcomes
in place and fully functioning?
13. Resource provision: are the human, technical, and
financial resources needed for quality made available when and
where needed?
(a) Are the activities needed to achieve and assure
teaching and learning quality given an appropriately
high priority in the institution's resource
allocation process?
(b) How do staff recruitment processes promote and
safeguard the quality of teaching and learning?
(c) How does the institution's incentive and reward
environment further the teaching and learning
quality agenda?
(d) To what extent does the institution offer technical
assistance and training to staff who wish to improve
their teaching and learning quality performance? To
what extent are these resources utilized by staff?
Quality Improvement and Assurance
14. The Panel does not approach its task with any
preconceived view of what an appropriate quality improvement
and assurance programme should look like. On the contrary, we
emphasize that the institutions should define their own
processes-that the Panel's job is to see whether such
processes have in fact been defined and, once defined, whether
they are being followed diligently. This view is consistent
with the emergent international understanding of teaching
quality in tertiary education, and with the fact that
universities in Hong Kong are self-accrediting.
15. Certain broad areas of consideration for successful
quality assurance have emerged from the Panel's queries and
discussions, and these are presented below. We use them to
convey examples of potentially useful quality assurance and
improvement methods and to provide an organizing paradigm for
our reports, but not as a template for judging an
institution's quality programme. However, the Panel does
believe that to be fully effective, the assurance and
continuous improvement of quality require a degree of self-
consciousness and articulation-which should be observable in
the Review documents and site visit.
16. Quality programme framework: mission, vision, and
policy statements pertaining to quality and quality assurance,
expressed at the institutional level and at the level of
faculties, departments, and other operating units. The
framework provides a road map for individual and group action
aimed at furthering and assuring teaching and learning
quality.
17. Direct quality programme activities: undertaken by
mainline teaching and administrative staff at the
institutional level and at the level of faculties,
departments, and other operating units. These activities are
organized to assure quality levels and continuous quality
improvement in the teaching and learning activities described
in paragraph 6.
18. Quality programme support: funded special projects
or activities undertaken by special teaching development or
similar units organized to aid mainline teaching and
administrative staff in performing their duties.
19. Values and incentives: the motivational environment
for the improvement and assurance of teaching and learning
quality-driven by institutional, faculty or departmental
values (intrinsic rewards) and formal or informal incentives
(extrinsic rewards).
Sample Approaches
20. The following matrix presents some examples of how
the four quality improvement and assurance methods can be
applied to the five teaching and learning process dimensions.
We observed each example in at least one of the institutions
we visited, either centrally or at the level of a faculty,
department, or other operating unit. The examples illuminate
our framework for the TLQPR, but they are not intended to be
definitive or prescriptive. Discussion of the various items
and observations relevant to the individual institutions we
visited is contained in the body of the report.
Sample Approaches
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
| | Quality | Direct quality |Quality programme | Values and |
| | programme | programme | support | incentives |
| | framework | activities | | |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
|Curriculum |-Programme mission|-Curriculum review |-Visiting |-Intrinsic values |
|design | statements | committees | scholars, | based on the |
| |-Course goal |-Departmental | consultants | academic |
| | statements | reviews | | discipline |
| | |-External | |-Accreditation by |
| | | examiners | | professional |
| | | | | bodies |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
|Pedagogical | |-Departmental |-Teaching |-Views about how |
|design | | workshops on | improvement units | to achieve |
| | | teaching method | workshops and | educational |
| | | innovation | consultation | quality |
| | | (e.g., using | |-Desires to save |
| | | information | | time or money |
| | | technology) | | |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
|Implementation |-Written |-Student |-Teaching |-Caring about |
|quality | statements on | evaluation | improvement units | students |
| | teaching quality | questionnaires |-Assistance on the |-Professional |
| | & the balance of |-Student-staff | design and | pride |
| | teaching and | consultative | processing of |-Teaching awards |
| | research | committees | teaching |-Inclusion of |
| |-Policies |-Peer review of | evaluation | teaching |
| | regarding student| teaching | questionnaires | evaluation in |
| | feedback on |-Workshops on | | staff reviews |
| | teaching quality | improving one's | | and promotion |
| |-Policies | teaching | | committees |
| | regarding use of | | | |
| | teaching | | | |
| | improvement units| | | |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
|Outcomes | |-Tracer studies of |-Research projects | |
|assessment | | graduates | dealing with | |
| | |-Discussions with | student outcomes | |
| | | employers | | |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
|Resource |-Planning |-One-line |-Special funds for |-Desires to |
|provision | processes | budgeting based | teaching | maintain or |
| | associated with | on student | improvement | enhance staff |
| | resource | numbers ("market | projects | size |
| | allocation | forces") | |-Teaching |
| | | | | evaluation at |
| | | | | the time of |
| | | | | appointment |
+-----------------+------------------+-------------------+-------------------+------------------+
Annex B
Unit-Level Observations
This department provides a good example of a group working
toward high quality in teaching and learning using the
'standard' set of processes such as external examiners, end of
year student questionnaires, etc. Staff believe in
individuals' self motivation and discount outside influences
and accountability. They are confident, but somewhat
complacent in their attitudes. They did show some slight
interest in other TLQ ideas that might be used on other
departments. The students feel that their input is taken
seriously, but they would like to have feedback on how their
input is used and why certain ideas cannot be implemented. In
summary, the departmental staff have a strongly internalized
culture of quality except for not being particularly interested
in possible innovations nor in benchmarking their teaching
quality processes.
This department displays a rather top-down collective approach
to teaching and research based on the intellectual pride and
confidence of its senior members. The leadership believes that
the centre is prepared to support teaching quality, but is not
sure about formal, quantitative methods of evaluation. To
them, teaching and learning should remain a gentleman's
pursuit.
The department is exemplary in several aspects. Its written
documentation is concise. Supplementary materials were
referred to during the presentation by the chair. Comments
from other colleagues and students complemented each other.
The degree of preparation and involvement in the self
assessment highlights a sense of commitment and collective
responsibility towards teaching and learning quality. Staff
members expressed appreciation for this exercise as a balance
to the research emphasis triggered by the RAE. Relationships
in the department (including the students) seemed relaxed and
democratic. In sum, the department inspires confidence in its
collective effort to treat teaching and research as an
integrative process and to find creative ways to provide
multiple channels of communication among its staff and
students.
The key University processes for TLQ assurance were found to be
present in the department. The teachers and students were very
positive about the teaching and learning environment. The fact
that the department is popular with students probably
contributes to this atmosphere. The staff were tuned in to the
new initiatives in the University to assure TLQ. The
department had quite a few additional interesting processes,
like academic advisor system, electronic bulletin boards,
alumni surveys. The staff we saw were all quite young,
reflecting rapid growth of the department in recent years, and
this helped to create an open atmosphere among teachers and
between teachers and students.
The key University processes for TLQ assurance were found to be
present in the department. One senior faculty member
proclaimed that it was pure joy to teach such excellent
students as found in the department, and he volunteered to
teach an additional course. We came away with a strong feeling
that this is a confident and outgoing department, and that the
students are enthusiastic and positive about the teaching and
learning environment. The basic processes for quality
assurance as mandated by the University are in place and are
apparently functioning well. We had the impression that there
is very effective communication between teachers, students and
alumni. On the other hand, the extent and scale of the formal
processes is unimpressive compared with similar schools in the
US, where student and alumni inputs are eagerly canvassed. The
teaching award programme represents an interesting innovation,
especially the idea of setting some absolute standard which has
long term positive individual incentive effects. When asked
what other efforts they would undertake to enhance TLQ in the
future, they failed to give anything concrete beyond their
aspiration to become one of the leading programmes of their
type in the world.
The sub-group found a good deal of enthusiasm in this
department. Staff members are committed to both research and
teaching, and they interact well with the students. The
department exhibits an open and lively atmosphere. Its policy
seems to be in tune with those set down by the central
management and the staff members were positive in the face of
constraints. The department is flexible in adapting to
changing situations.
Staff have their own culture of good teaching and concern for
learning. They do, however, feel detached from the central
culture, and they would benefit from a central, coordinated set
of policies and processes.
The department benefited from several cross-departmental
contacts within CUHK, but at the same time was somewhat of an
island in the Faculty, where the department felt left to itself
for most practical purposes. Students felt that they had
adequate formal opportunities to give their opinions, but a
major obstacle was the lack of energy in students to
participate in the relevant meetings. The students did feel
themselves occasionally overworked during their project work.
A major concern was the need for more intermediate feedback
from and to teachers. However, the students did not feel
themselves taken seriously and they shied away from pressing
issues such as the lack of follow up on course evaluations.
This is a department with a positive attitude towards quality
in teaching and some distinct results in pedagogical design.
However, the quality structure and processes need tightening
up.
The Faculty is broadly supportive of TLQ and doing some good
things to encourage it. However it is still in a state of flux
on encouraging and implementing teaching and learning quality
(TLQ) processes. The Faculty's Teaching Quality Assurance
Review Committee is surveying TLQ efforts in the departments,
but it apparently has no remit beyond this survey. The members
at our meeting welcomed the UGC's emphasis on TLQ and our
review and indicated that they would welcome the University
establishing more specific rewards and incentives to help the
Faculty in encouraging TLQ. The Faculty feels that some
teaching development money from the block grant or from UGC
Teaching Development Grants could be well spent at the Faculty
level rather than primarily at the TDU. The students felt quite
strongly that the old, four-year degree structure was better
than the three-year scheme as it allows them taking more
general education courses and a smoother transition into
university life. In summary, quality processes seemed well in
hand, except that the Faculty appeared to feel that TLQ was
only marginally supported by concrete overall university
procedures.
The Faculty's documentary submission included examples of the
design, planning and review of programmes as well as details of
the various Faculty committees and the quality assurance
process. The presentation was comprehensive and the processes
appeared well embedded and effective. The Faculty has accepted
responsibility for quality matters, and both executive and
committee responsibility was clear. Emphasis is placed on the
departmental meeting as the forum for serious debate on
curricula and pedagogic issues, but Faculty committees are
required to endorse proposals first. Course evaluation is
taken seriously and students feel that there was sufficient
opportunity, formal and informal, to make their views known.
Student questionnaires have been mandatory on all courses for
10 years. The Faculty is well-networked locally and has
systematically sought and used feedback in course design. Peer
review of teaching is still under consideration, although it
has so far been rejected by departments. However some team
teaching takes place and various forms of staff monitoring are
in use. On-going curriculum review and development was
reported. Major reviews take place from time to time. This is
a cohesive and professionally committed Faculty with active and
open student involvement. Their discussion of quality issues
was lively and self-critical. Design inputs from variety of
sources are actively utilized and integrated; feedback loops
are operating effectively.
The relevant forum of decision and policy-making is not the
Faculty Board, but the Executive Committee of dean, associate
deans, sub-deans, and heads of departments. In this context,
the relationship between Faculty leadership and heads of
departments was described by the former as one of 'passive
cooperation.' The Faculty leadership gives clear signals about
the high priority it places on the teaching quality. This
priority has not produced any real controversy and the subgroup
was not able to provoke any discussion on this theme. In the
documentation from the Faculty, a concern is visible that not
all students will have sufficient maturity to provide feedback
on teaching quality without bias. In contrast, the students
interviewed considered the formal conditions and atmosphere of
dialogue with departments and staff on the whole satisfactory.
Concerning course evaluations, students could rarely perceive a
direct feedback on critical remarks, but in several cases
follow up and positive action on student criticism might
eventually be identified. Though this Faculty takes a more top-
down approach than most, it can point to noteworthy
achievements in setting up the formal procedures and mechanisms
for assurance of quality. But at the same time, it is a
Faculty with a task ahead in terms of assuring dissemination
and acceptance in departments of the focus on quality in
teaching.
Teaching Development Unit
The Teaching Development Unit was established in February 1995
within the Faculty of Education, using 50% of CUHK's Teaching
Development Grant for 1994/95. Total establishment is 5, but
additional staff are promised for 1996-97. The TDU draws on
expertise of the Faculty of Education. The TDU's precursor, the
Office of Instructional Development, was reportedly
unsuccessful because it failed to win over Faculty and
departmental staff and because it focused on provision of
teaching packages. Therefore, the TDU was established in the
Faculty of Education. It emphasizes liaison and consultation
with academic colleagues.
The TDU's mission is to support teaching, specifically not to
assess or evaluate teaching quality. Its principal activities
are workshops, seminars, orientation programmes for academic
staff and induction training (in teaching and research
methodology) for postgraduate students. TDU also provides
educational technology resources and training: for example,
video-taping of teaching as an aid to self-evaluation
(voluntary) and introduction to use of the World Wide Web.
The TDU was established mainly as a top-down initiative,
apparently in response to UGC indications of concern for
teaching and learning quality and the provision of teaching
development grants. However, its creation does reflect the
University's recognition of the need for a teaching support
unit. All activities so far have been experimental/pilot
schemes. Some departments have been receptive; others resistant
or skeptical.
There is general acceptance among academic staff of the
importance of quality teaching, but concern is widespread that,
despite protestations to the contrary by the University
authorities (and the UGC), research is and will remain more
highly valued for appointment, substantiation and promotion
(and funding).
The TDU is primarily responsible for providing advice and
support services in respect of the how of teaching, not the
what or why. It is still at a very early stage of development.
Its relationships with other faculties and departments, and its
own credibility, have yet to be established, but it already is
seen as a useful initiative as a traditional staff development
and resource unit.
The Unit has a clear brief: to assist in the improvement of
teaching. It has realistic targets and has addressed its task
effectively and with some success. There are some interesting
initiatives: for example, building up a video bank to
demonstrate excellence in teaching, and the use of teaching
cells to promote dialogue and possibly lead to peer
consultancy. The Unit's approach fits well with the culture of
the University as a cohesive and caring academic community.
Its hope is to build on and enhance collegiality and to enlist
peer support in improving both the techniques of teaching and
the devotion and commitment of staff to it.
[Previous Page]