International Trends of Quality Assurance of Higher Education and Direction of Institutional Accreditation Improvement

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국비교교육학회
· 수록지 정보 : 비교교육연구 / 21권 / 3호 / 147 ~ 169페이지
· 저자명 : 이영호

초록

This study aims to explore whether university evaluation is optional or required based on analysis on international spread status of university evaluation with adoption of international standards on quality assurance of higher education in 2005, and to explore new model of university evaluation theoretically that can reflect the feature of university and overcome uniform university evaluation, the main requirements of many universities.
In summary, conclusion of this study is conclusion based on the results of analysis on the practical status of international university education. 2011 the current 29 countries in Europe, Asia-Pacific's 33 countries held Institutional Accreditation for higher education and results of analysis on the practice status of international Accreditation for higher education prove that 'internationally, university evaluation is not optional but regarded as a necessary trend.' It is emphasizing on that it is required to encourage the university society to voluntarily participate in the university evaluation by improving awareness toward the university evaluation, reestablishing the university evaluation institute and organizing the relevant system.
Following are the main conclusion based on the study results of new『Theoretical Model on Diversified Institutional Accreditation 』reflecting new feature of university. For evaluation reflecting features of university, it suggests ① diversification of evaluation indexes including common evaluation index, core evaluation index reflecting university feature and selection evaluation index reflecting university feature, ② selection of evaluation index in consideration of size and function of university, ③ organization of more professional evaluation committee members, one step further from the existing peer evaluation, ④ extension of evaluation period for in-depth evaluation, ⑤ reinforcement of evaluation committee member education along with development of detailed evaluation manual that allows effective execution of quality evaluation, ⑥ minimization of administrative and financial burden for university evaluation.

참고자료

· 없음