The response of higher education institutions to the recommendations in the Higher Education Quality Committee audit reports

Abstract

The first cycle of quality assurance (QA) was conceptualised and developed between 2001 and 2004 as reflected in the policy documents of the Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC). The HEQC as the national QA agency was created as the permanent sub-committee of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) to take care of the QA responsibility in 2001. The national QA agency had to operate within the divisions created in higher education under apartheid, which often created perceptions based on prejudice about the distribution of quality. The South African higher education landscape has been exposed to the first cycle of the Higher Education Quality Committee QA cycle during which conducted 34 institutional audits, accredited approximately 5000 new programmes, subjected 85 programmes to national reviews, trained approximately 550 institutional auditors and 1500 programme evaluators and conducted many workshops and training opportunities for higher education institutions (HEIs). The main aim posed by this study was to determine the response of HEIs to the recommendations in the HEQC audit reports. The sub-questions of the research are (i) What process was followed to develop the quality improvement plan? (ii) Who were the role-players in the development of the quality improvement plan? (iii) What influenced their actions in the development of the quality improvement plan? (iv) What value did the quality improvement plan development have for the institution? (v) How does the quality improvement plan fit into the comprehensive quality management system of the institution? To answer the research questions, interviews were carried out on six participants. The findings were that the primary research question has been addressed conclusively by the three institutions through the experience of participants. The responses indicate how they have embraced improvement at the respective institutions which in turn have grown as a result of the HEQC audit process. The conclusion was an in depth response to the recommendations in the audit reports, illustrating ownership of quality improvement plan processes within the institutions. From the results of the secondary research questions it is concluded that the participants’ responses provided the richness of the quality improvement plan process in the audit process. The responses reflected and confirmed the processes followed in developing the quality improvement plans and the role and influence of role- players in the quality improvement plan process. The responses reflected the value of this process and revealed how it had been incorporated into the comprehensive annual planning processes of the institutions. The study concludes that the participating institutions responded differently and effectively to the recommendations in the HEQC audit reports, with the improvement reflected in the manner and approach institutions displayed when responding to recommendations, reflecting systematic processes. Copyright