Don’t ignore the expertise within your university

Over the past three years I have been invited to support a number of different universities in developing countries as they embark on a process of external programme accreditation. The broad aim in all countries is to ensure that the university continues to successfully contribute to the development of human, economic and social capital for the country.

In some instances, the university is the only provider of higher education in the region. In all instances, the universities have had their fair share of in-house challenges associated most often with matters related to unstable internal governance. These issues are exacerbated by these education institutions having to operate within a climate of frequent political turmoil, which hinders timely handover of ‘promised’ government funds to support university operations.

Social troubles such as high youth unemployment, excessive alcohol and illicit drug consumption, high levels of violence including domestic violence, along with too frequent natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and flash floods all take their toll on already poorly resourced communities.

Yet despite the vast hardships, it is astonishing and impressive to see university students show up eager for their classes each day when some don’t have access to a clean water supply, or power, or an internet service, reliable public transport... the list goes on.

But these students consider themselves the fortunate ones – the small percentage who completed their final year of schooling and can now work towards achieving a qualification and employment that will allow them to break out of the cycle of poverty and support their family to do the same. It is an incredibly sobering experience for someone visiting from an affluent society.

A badge of quality

The benefits offered by any university successfully achieving external accreditation are invaluable to that institution and its stakeholders. The process provides feedback about and authenticates the extent to which the institution has met recognised professional quality standards.

Current and prospective students, industry groups, the professions and staff want to know that the courses offered meet expected national and, hopefully, international quality standards certified by an independent external authority.

For a newer university in a developing country with much to prove, the stakes involved are very high. To gain full externally ratified accreditation of their degree programmes means an enhanced international profile and the capacity to attract more high-quality students, not only locally and nationally, but from the broader region.

The tasks involved in achieving the desired outcome are considerable, as is the investment in such an exercise. It relies most times in developing countries on financial aid as well as academic expertise from elsewhere.

While that support is often times warranted and gratefully received, one of the major learnings for me over the past three years is how underused internal expertise that exists within the university is. The default first step is too frequently to request funding to secure the services of external expert consultants and basically hand over all related tasks to them.

The academic leadership within these universities appears reluctant to acknowledge and-or appreciate the capabilities that exist within its own institution.

In three such universities, close to 50% of the academics came with prior higher education experience from elsewhere, including Australia, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Iraq, Italy, Libya and Zimbabwe. There were also local staff who had completed masters level and doctoral studies in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. These represent a rich resource group within the university.

The value of such a ready-made resource and the positive as well as not so positive learnings these staff can share with others should be tapped into. They have had practical experience with teaching-learning practices, processes, systems and programme development in the higher education sector.

Of course, it requires leadership from within the university to facilitate and progress such shared learning sessions and encourage these academics to communicate their knowledge and understandings of alternate practices, but it would undoubtedly be worth the time and effort.

Local expertise

Just as importantly, there should also be opportunity to acknowledge and share exemplars of ‘good’ curriculum design and teaching-learning practice occurring within the university by local academics. All teaching academics are expected, at minimum, to deliver curriculum to students, which means making decisions about how to connect expected student learning outcomes to selected learning activities, content and associated student assessment tasks.

It can be a meaningful activity for academics to talk through with colleagues the design process they adopted in planning their subject and how they engage students in the learning process. It is also a chance to receive feedback from colleagues about alternate ways they might approach these aspects and to hear different methods from fellow academics.

Again, this requires leadership to ensure such forms of professional development are conducted in a useful, respectful and cooperative manner.

Although most universities have a formally endorsed unit that has as its mandate to support staff in curriculum development and to provide formal training in the latter and teaching-learning related matters, regular informal professional development for staff that builds a constructive, complementary community of practice is often of equal if not more worth.

Issues covered should be about topical, practical teaching-learning areas identified by staff on a needs basis, such as a perennial favourite – developing authentic student assessment tasks. The outputs from these shared sessions could form part of a bank of resources for all staff and be communicated broadly via a relevant online site. Such dissemination is critical if continuous quality improvement is to occur.

Towards a quality curriculum

In closing, developing a quality curriculum that ensures successful external accreditation is a continuous process. It is essentially an ongoing cycle of implementation, appraisal, reflection and redevelopment of what is offered to students, based on evidence from staff, students and external stakeholders. The process should be part of an institution’s internal educational quality assurance system aimed to regularly improve its practices.

Universities in developing countries should not overlook the expertise within their own institution that can support the process. Procedures should be implemented to acknowledge ‘good’ practices and ensure these are shared with all relevant stakeholders.

Nita Temmerman (PhD) is a former university pro vice-chancellor (academic) and executive dean of the faculty of education at the University of Southern Queensland, Australia. She is currently visiting professor to Ho Chi Minh City Open University and Papua New Guinea University of Technology; academic reviewer at the University of Queensland, Australia; invited specialist with the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications; invited external reviewer with the Oman Academic Accreditation Authority, and a published author.