 |
 |
Summary of the discussion of Group 1 |
|
|
| Group: |
1 |
| Question: |
What should be the chief purpose of the review - accountability, improvement of practice, funding? If the outcome of the review is to be linked to funding decisions, is there a practical way to achieve this objective? |
| Facilitator: |
Prof Edmond I Ko (CityU) |
| Secretary: |
Ms Cecilia Yeung (CityU) |
Observations on the first round of TLQPRs
There were many positive outcomes. An area that deserves attention in the next round is how to improve the communication channels among the stakeholders. The university management needs to connect better with the front-line staff; the relationship between review results and funding could be made clearer; inter- and intra-institutional sharing of good practice should be promoted; and the review results should be disseminated widely to the public in layman’s language.
Accountability versus Improvement of Practice
Accountability is more backward looking, whereas improvement of practice is more forward looking. The two are not mutually exclusive, so the issue is on balance and orientation. In the last round of TLQPR, all institutions met the test of accountability. So the next round should focus on the improvement of practice. Institutions will continue to be held accountable in their commitment to improvement processes. The review must reach the grass-root level (staff in departments/programmes) in order to change the culture of teaching and learning fundamentally. Selected interviews with several departments/programmes should be sufficient to capture the culture of the institution. Thus the burden on the visiting panel should not be onerous. The review should lead to inter- and intra-institutional sharing of good practice in improvement processes.
Outcome of the review
The review should lead to both tangible and intangible outcomes.
On the tangible side, if the review affects funding, then the signal should be one of positive encouragement. For example, there could be earmarked grants for good performers to pursue special projects. Whatever the funding mechanism is, it should not be strictly formula-driven as some subjective judgement is inevitable in an evaluation. It would be undesirable to use student number as a reward as it may disrupt the stability and planning of institutions.
On the intangible side, there is the element of pride if the review results are widely and appropriately publicised. Coupled with a better education of students and parents on what the results mean, institutions that perform well should benefit from recruiting better students. In the long run, the review could lead to an improved quality culture.
|
|
|
