This document compares quality assurance mechanisms for student learning outcomes between Taiwan and England. It conducted interviews and reviewed documents from a university in each country. Some key similarities were that both countries have national quality assurance organizations and emphasize student learning outcomes. However, differences were found in the audit levels (national vs. institutional) and responsibility for quality assurance. The Taiwan university had each department develop mechanisms, while the England university had university-wide mechanisms. Academics perceived issues with bureaucracy, balance of regulations vs. autonomy, and flexibility in implementation.

1. Comparing Quality Assurance Mechanisms for Student Learning Outcomes between Taiwan
and England – in the Field of Education
Po-Chun Li, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol, UK
Introduction
Methods
Since 2012, the Foundation for Higher Education
Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan
(HEEACT, 2013) has been conducting the second 5year cycle of higher education evaluation. The aim
of this evaluation is to examine the mechanisms
and practice of each department and graduate
school for ensuring their student learning
outcomes. The issue of student learning outcomes
is an important trend in the global higher
education, but some challenges must be dealt with
in Taiwan during the processes of policy borrowing
(Phillips, 2009) since the new policy mainly refers
experience to the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency
for Higher Education (QAA) and the US’s
accreditation systems. The primary challenges are
the construction and implementation of the
quality assurance mechanisms for learning
outcomes in Taiwan, and it has been argued that
some implicit and non-cognitive learning
outcomes are difficult to assess (Chen, 2013).
1. In-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews
Research aims
1. To compare the quality assurance mechanisms for
undergraduate student learning outcomes between Taiwan
and England at national, institutional and departmental
levels.
2. To explore academics’ perceptions of quality assurance
mechanisms for undergraduate student learning outcomes
in Taiwan and England.
Email: jamesli299@gmail.com
Table 2. Differences between Taiwan and England
1. Audit level
Table 1. Interviewees in the two case universities
The Central University The Hillside University
(Taiwan)
(England)
The HEEACT directly
The QAA only audits
audits each department each higher education
and graduate school
institution
2. Responsibility
for quality
assurance affairs
within
universities
Three level
administrative
committees (no specific
unit for quality
assurance affairs)
Three level University,
Faculty and
Departmental Learning,
Teaching and Quality
Committees
3. Quality
assurance
mechanisms for
learning
outcomes with
universities
Each department and
graduate school must
develop their own
quality assurance
mechanisms for learning
outcomes
The university develops
a whole quality
assurance mechanisms
for learning outcomes
and implements the
machanisms in each
programme and unit
The Central
The Hillside
University (Taiwan) University (England)
University level
2
2
Faculty level
1
2
7
6
10
10
Departmental
level
Total
2. Document analysis: public meeting minutes and
internal quality assurance policies about student
learning outcomes within the two universities were
analysed.
Initial research findings
1. Key similarities of quality assurance mechanisms for
learning outcomes between Taiwan and England.
(1) The two countries have established national quality
assurance organisations to audit higher education
institutions.
(2) Student learning outcome is one of the important
issues in the two countries’ national quality
assurance policies in higher education.
(3) The two case universities have constructed a serial of
internal quality assurance mechanisms for ensuring
learning outcomes.
2. Key differences of quality assurance mechanisms for
learning outcomes between Taiwan and England.
3. Academics’ perceptions of quality assurance mechanisms
for learning outcomes:
(1) The bureaucracy of implementing the mechanisms.
(2) Appropriate balance between the regulations of quality
assurance and academics’ professional autonomy.
(3) More flexibility when implementing the mechanisms.
References
Chen, M. L. (2013). Collective wisdom for higher education evaluation.
Evaluation Bimonthly, 42, 27-29.
Phillips, D. (2009). Aspects of educational transfer. In R. Cowen & A. M.
Kazamias (Eds.), International handbook of comparative
education: part two (pp.1061-1077). London: Springer.
The Foundation for Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation
Council of Taiwan (2013). 2012 Annual report. Retrieved 15 May,
2013, from http://www.heeact.edu.tw/public/Data/34916371871.pdf