Comprehensive quality assessment of Czech higher education institutions

Abstract

Purpose – The paper aims to sum up the principal and original set of information related to the special project covered by Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports, which was oriented to quality assurance and assessment at Czech higher education institutions. It brings main results and lessons learned from comprehensive quality assessment methodology pilot testing. Design/methodology/approach – Brainstorming conferences, seminars, comparative analysis, interviews, design review and validation were used by the expert team to develop and to test the comprehensive quality assessment methodology. Findings – The EFQM Excellence Model is the most comprehensive tool for quality assurance and quality assessment. It is pragmatic and practical, but it is necessary to adapt this model for effective use at Czech higher education institutions as a set of assessment criteria. The comprehensive quality assessment approach does not only examine what universities and other higher schools have achieved in the past (through lagging indicators), but it also includes assessment of their potential for the future through the so-called leading indicators. Research limitations/implications – The pilot testing of designed methodology of comprehensive quality assessment was performed within 12 Czech higher education institutions, but the lessons learned have common validity for any Czech higher education institution. Originality/value – The proposed methodology of comprehensive quality assessment is a quite new approach from the point of Czech higher education institutions view. It offers new and efficient tool for next higher schools and universities development.

EFQM model’s application in the context of higher education

“…4.1.5 HEIs' ownership. As may be observed in Table VI, although five of the papers published did not clarify readers about HEIs' ownership (Zink and Schmidt, 1995;Osseo-Asare et al, 2005;Burli et al, 2012;Nenadál, 2015;Talanak and Omidian, 2015), it is undeniable that most of the research conducted has been realized in public HEIs. In fact, only two of the studies performed were clearly conducted in private HEIs (Adel, 2009;Sadeh and Garkaz, 2015).…”

Quality Assurance Driving Factors as Antecedents of Knowledge Management: a Stakeholder-Focussed Perspective in Higher Education

“…Another key step to assure quality education is the formation of an institutional team of internal assessors for comprehensive quality assessment. Such a team is responsible for internal reviews, and liaise with various internal and external stakeholders for quality management (Nenadál, 2015). Again, cross-cultural understanding and management is useful for recognising cultural gaps and ensuring zero errors in quality management through the culturally accepted quality standard in higher education (O'Mahony and Garavan; 2012).…”

“…Internal evaluations/selfassessments and follow-ups Wahlen, 2004;Kristensen 2010;Chase and Evert, 2011;Kettunen, 2012;Pettersen, 2015 Normative/Formal Stakeholder management External quality audits Gynnild 2007;Stensaker et al, 2011;Kettunen, 2012;Liu, 2015 Faculty autonomy Weusthof 1995;Enders et al, 2013 Compliance-driven QA Marginson, 2013;Cardoso et al, 2015 Institutional structure of a QA team O'Mahony and Garavan; 2012; Mårtensson et al, 2014;Nenadál, 2015 Online-centred quality management Keay et al, 2014 Sharing best practices among the institutions Dill, 2000;Newton, 2002;Hénard and Roseveare, 2012 Soft/Knowledge dissemination Students' influence and engagement Wahlen, 2004;Clarke et al, 2013;Stalmeijer et al, 2014 Other stakeholder communication, cooperation and engagement Anderson et al, 2000;Wahlen, 2004;O'Mahony and Garavan;Houston and Paewai, 2013 Capacity building Stephenson and Yorke, 1998;Dill, 2000;Fullan, 2009 Cross-cultural management and QA O'Mahony and Garavan; 2012; Viverg and Grönlund, 2013 Trust and social responsibility Bengoa and Kaufmann, 2016 Table 1 summarises the key factors that are discussed in the previous section as quality assurance driving factors in higher education. Since all these factors of Table 1 influence the quality assurance processes in the contemporary higher education service, they are recognised as quality assurance driving factors in higher education.…”

A Study of Quality Assessment in Higher Education within the Context of Sustainable Development: A Case Study from Czech Republic

“…On the other hand, the higher education institution's maturity quantification is only a recommended and voluntary activity. See [13,43] for details. Activity 0 is not considered a natural part of this assessment, but it is a prerequisite for all remaining steps.…”

“…Presently, all project outputs are available on a special web site of the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic [13]. Some additional information regarding the proposed methodology of the internal quality assessment was also published at [43]. With pleasure, we are able to say that, as a direct response to the project, the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of South Bohemia inČeské Budějovice was awarded the Czech National Quality Award for the Public Sector in 2015.…”