CC BY
29
УДК 378(517.3)
DOI 10.17150/2500-2759.2019.29(4).594-604
СОСТОЯНИЕ И ЗАДАЧИ СИСТЕМЫ ВНУТРЕННЕГО КОНТРОЛЯ КАЧЕСТВА ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ В ВЫСШИХ УЧЕБНЫХ ЗАВЕДЕНИЯХ МОНГОЛИИ
Ганбаатар Чанцалдулам1, И.С. Кородюк2, Г.Н. Войникова2
1 Университет Мейджи, г. Токио, Япония
2 Байкальский государственный университет, г. Иркутск, Российская Федерация
Информация о статье
Дата поступления 27 сентября 2019 г.
Дата принятия к печати 10 декабря 2019 г.
Дата онлайн-размещения 20 декабря 2019 г.
Ключевые слова
Контроль качества; высшее учебное заведение; система внутреннего контроля качества образования; Монголия
Финансирование
Грант Российского фонда фундаментальных исследований 18-514-94002 МОКН_а «Национальные интересы России и Монголии в треугольнике отношений Россия — Монголия — Китай: проблемы, противоречия, сценарии»
Аннотация
Проблема контроля качества образования, даваемого в высших учебных заведениях, вышла на глобальный уровень. В связи с этим в Монголии в целях развития системы контроля качества образовательной деятельности вузов страны были предприняты усилия по поиску действенных методов осуществления такого контроля, согласующихся с мировыми стандартами. Основная цель исследования состояла в выявлении проблем, встречающихся в системе высшего образования Монголии. Особое внимание было уделено вопросам оценки уровня качества подготовки специалистов в высших учебных заведениях. В ходе исследования авторы пришли к выводу о том, что качество образования должно определяться в первую очередь внутренним самоконтролем, т.е. вниманием к качеству со стороны вуза. Также его образовательная деятельность должна оцениваться заинтересованными сторонами с опорой на принятые стандарты и показатели эффективности. В статье даны подробные рекомендации по разработке эффективной системы внутреннего контроля качества образования в высших учебных заведениях Монголии и ее применению на практике.
CURRENT SITUATION AND CHALLENGES OF INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE IN MONGOLIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS
Ganbaatar Chantsaldulam1, Igor S. Koroduk2, Galina N. Voynikova2
1 Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan
2 Baikal State University, Irkutsk, the Russian Federation
Article info
Received
September 27, 2019
Accepted December 10, 2019
Available online December 20, 2019
Keywords
Quality assurance; higher education institution; internal quality assurance system; Mongolia
Abstract
Quality assurance in higher education has become an endeavor of global proportions. With the increasing necessity of quality assurance system, the efforts have been initiated within the higher education sector in Mongolia to seek a feasible internal quality assurance system that is in line with the international standards. The main objective of this article is to identify the problems encountered Mongolian higher education system specifically to the implementation of internal quality assurance in HEIs and explore factors that are influential to the implementation of internal quality assurance system of Mongolia. Thus, this article is expected to give recommendations at institutional level by pinpointing the facts that should be taken into account in developing and implementing a workable and effective internal quality assurance system for Mongolian higher education institutions. This article reviewed literatures on the quality assurance systems in higher edu-
© Ганбаатар Чанцалдулам, Кородюк И.С., Войникова Г.Н., 2019
ISSN 2500-2759
Acknowledgements
Grant Of the Russian Foundation for basic research 18-514-94002 «National interests of Russia and Mongolia in the triangle between Russia — Mongolia — China: issues, contradictions, scenarios»
cation area, and determined the current situation and challenges encountered in quality assurance of Mongolian higher education institutions. The findings of the article indicate that the four main issues — the factors influential to the establishment of effective IQA system, quality assurance structure, lack of understanding towards IQA activities and implementation as the view of preparing only for self-evaluation report, and the lack of transparent information system. The article finds that the participation of both external and internal stakeholders in quality assurance process and activities is the key to the development and implementation of an effective internal quality assurance system.
Current Situation and Challenges of Internal Quality Assurance in Mongolian Higher Education Institutions
This paper discuss the main issues of current situation of quality assurance in higher education institutions and will help answer the question «What are the issues on quality and its assurance in higher education institutions of Mongolia?».
«Quality is a matter of negotiating between all the parties concerned»' Quality assurance is defined by Vroeijenstijn as 'a systematic, structured and continuous attention to quality in terms of quality maintenance and improvement [1].
The impacts of globalization and massifica-tion have completely changed the traditional relationship between the state and institutions of higher education and motivated policymakers to seek new means for assuring academic quality in higher education2.
Quality assurance in higher education is described as the systematic, structured and continuous attention to quality in order to guarantee the improvement of quality in higher education and aims at making higher education meet the needs of students, employers and financiers3.
As defined in the study conducted by Martin and Stella, IQA is referred as «the policies and mechanisms implemented in an institution or program to ensure that it is fulfilling its own purposes and meeting the standards that apply to higher education in general or to the profession or discipline in particular».
In the context of higher education, quality assurance is viewed as the ongoing development and implementation of mindset, policies, and processes that aim to maintain and enhance quality as defined by articulated values and stakeholder needs [2]. In line with this, Cheng and
1 AUN-QA 2006. Manual for the Implementation of the Guidelines ASEAN University Network. Bangkok, 2006. P. 11.
2 Constructing knowledge societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education. Washington, World Bank, 2002. 236 p.
3 A Road map to Quality. Vol. 4: Implementation of a
Quality Assurance System. DAAD, 2010.
Tam noted that in higher education system, any quality assurance activities should concentrate on assessing input, process and outputs [3].
And also, among the basic principles of activity of states, governments, all institutions of society, the principles of accessibility, equality of opportunity, full and effective involvement and inclusion in society are laid. All of the above requirements form a team multidisciplinary approach [4, p. 2].
The approach to quality assurance consists of accreditation (external quality assurance) and internal quality assurance. When looking back at the history of quality assurance, quality assurance in the form of accreditation was first introduced in 1989 in Central and Eastern Europe, and later moved gradually to Western Europe.
It is mentioned in the AUN4, that a good monitoring system should include:
- student progress;
- pass rates and dropout rates;
- outcomes of the structured feedback from employers;
- outcomes of the structured feedback from alumni.
Russian author V.V. Bratishchenko draws attention to the formation of a student's electronic portfolio, which includes centralized data storage in a database, students uploading data on a local network and the Internet, teachers accessing student data, transferring student work to the library system, strict separation of powers between all users who have access to the student portfolio [5, p. 2].
For its responsibility in institution, Sursock has identified five primary functions of QAUnit:
- supportive role and providing expertise: the quality assurance officer visits faculty regularly and provides expertise in developing their quality assurance processes;
- coordinative role: particularly when there is a process of evaluations that is organized by the university or when the process of evaluation is devolved to faculties;
4 A manual for the implementation of the AUN-QA Guidelines. URL: www.aunsec.org.
<S 0 H
01 S) 5<
a h T
n *
o
o
o
a
S)
o
H
05
o
X X
o
H
o y
X
<s
n s
H
o
H
H
M
o ^
H
H M
z
le
H p
№ 9
o 4
o
to
9 IA
IX &
O
9 N
g
0
N
£
4M ß
1
iE
3
0) 4*
n
(0 «
£
"(3 m
o
IE m
- interpretative role: quality assurance officers interpret the national quality assurance requirements so as to adapt them to the institutional contex;
- monitoring role: the office provides instructions, collects information, points out the problems, but does not get involved in solving them.
- administrative role: organizing and preparing external evaluation visits orprocessing institutional questionnaires [6, pp. 32-33].
Overview of the questionnaire survey
Higher education has an important role to play to create knowledge, and it must provide a high quality of educational services addressing individual needs of those who will be building a knowledge-based economy in Mongolia [7].
This survey was intended to identify quality assurance processes in place in higher education institutions and the need for the establishment of the internal quality assurance unit in HEIs of Mongolia. The questionnaire was designed to include 20 questions based on the conceptual framework in order to obtain the perception and insights of the staffs responsible for the quality assurance issues in the higher education institutions toward the existing quality assurance mechanisms in the organization.
Respondents & Data Collection
This survey involved only staff working for the unit responsible for quality assurance issues in 16 higher education institutions including 11 public and 5 private HEIs, institutes and
colleges, which accounted for 16 % of total number of 100 higher education institution in Mongolia. Participants of the survey were 23, since some HEIs have more than one unit in charge of quality issues. These 11 public HEIs have somehow started an internal quality assurance system in the organization and 5 private HEIs are most distinguished high ranking among the private institutions5.
Cover letters explained the research purpose. They were first sent through the email to the head of the departments taking care of quality issue such as the monitoring and evaluation unit or quality assurance units in higher education. The questionnaire survey was distributed and collected in paper form.
Survey Results Quality assurance structures in HEIs
The quality assurance has taken into special consideration recently; however, most of the responding HEIs have not established policies and structures and process in place. Although institutions tend not to systematically identify or call all QA practices in place, according to the demography of the respondents, most institutions have internal monitoring, inspection and evaluation departments which function partially as internal quality assurance units (See Fig. 1). It reveals that very few HEIs have actually started development and integration of internal quality assurance systems through establishing quality assurance unit.
5 Statistics of Higher Education. URL: www.meds. gov.mn.
Participating HEI's in Questionnaire Survey
Public N Private
University of Science and Technology 1 Otgontenger University
National University of Mongolia 2 Khuree Institute
Khovd University 3 Institute of Finance &Economics
Dornod University 4 lkh Zasag University
Mongolian National University of Education 5 Urlakh Erdem Fashion Design Institute
Health Science University of Mongolia
Defence University of Mongolia
Mongolian University of Life Sciences
Responding HEIs
Monitoring, Inspection and Evaluation Academic quality affairs Quality assurance unit Total
9 3
23
Fig. 1. Units responsible for quality assurance issues
Roles and functions
Regarding question number two, 17 out of 65 respondents answered that producing self-assessment report for accreditation is the major task of the their department which is responsible for quality assurance, while 15 of them said control and check are main roles of their department. According to the AUN6, one of the important tools in IQA is self-assessment, thus production of an annual self-assessment report is one of the main roles of the IQA unit to assess the educational quality internally. Both preparing for attestation and providing training and development on quality issues received 10 answers of all the responses. Second most answered option, control and check is common practice in HEIs and it shows that the perception among the academic staff toward the quality assurance unit is more about the control and check rather than improvement. Theoretically, the IQAU should ensure that faculties and educational unit assess their strengths and weaknesses and propose ways to develop their operations to enhance their strengths and to strengthen their weak areas rather than just controlling and checking.
Participation of stakeholders
The participation of staff and students is one of the key principles in developing both quality culture and quality assurance processes. However, HEIs give less importance to the influence of student participation as well the importance of a feedback loop and informing the students about the follow-up of QA activities they participated in. Figure 3 shows that while the involvement of academic staff seems to be systematic and common in all stages, from curriculum design to involvement in formal QA processes, student
6 AUN-QA 2006. Manual for the Implementation of the Guidelines ASEAN University Network.
involvement is not as widespread, except for participation in surveys. Students are the end users of the programs designed to educate them; however, their consideration regarding curriculum and program development is not taken into any account. In most HEIs, external stakeholders (employers, experts, alumni...) are involved in QA processes in various ways, but the level and the nature of their participation varies, from sitting on governance bodies to being consulted as sources of information the latter of which seemed to be the more common.
The use of information system and evaluation instruments
Practically, 43,5 % of the responding HEIs have an information system for monitoring their activities, while 39 % of them do not have a systematic information system. Institutions tend to collect information about their profile and what they offer, but the information related to evaluation and resources available to the students (such as library services, computer facilities, etc.) are more limited. Moreover, the information collected is not necessarily the one made public. Usually the information made public is the one on study programs, although even this does not often include information on graduate employment.
Most of the responding HEIs utilize evaluation instruments, particularly by conducting surveys on teacher, student and staff satisfaction with the frequency of 3 to 4 times in an academic year. In addition, 26 % of the HEIs employ KPIs to evaluate the academic activities and performances.
The link between collecting information and informing the staff or students involved in this data collection is not obvious, as some information (such as teachers' performances) is typically considered as confidential or accessible only at leadership levels. Regarding the
Control and check
Produce self-assessment report for accreditation
Prepare for attestation
Coordinate evaluation process
Provide training and development on quality issues
5
Fig. 2. Roles and Functions of unit taking care of quality assurance
By informally providing information on the emerging issues
Through formal participation in designing curriculum and program
Through formal involvement in self-evaluations or other evaluation activities
Through formal participation in governance bodies
T
20
T
40
60
r
80
Academic staff ■ Administrative staff □ Students Employers S Experts H Alumni
Fig. 3. Participation of stakeholders in QA Activities, %
disclosure of the results of the evaluation, 14 of the 23 people said that evaluation report is published and 3 of them answered their institution do not inform others of the results of the evaluation at all. According to the responses of the question number 11, half of the HEIs share and discuss the evaluation results among the staff to some extent, while, 13 % of them do not review the outcomes of the surveys. This shows the ineffectiveness of the QA process and the lack of obligatory policy. Students who provide feedback through surveys are not informed about the results and follow-up actions in about half of the HEIs, although a significantly higher percentage (41 %) of institutions do actually conduct student surveys. Data also show that institutions that have processes in place to use results of the evaluation in the decision making process. Whereas, the oblige policy to improve teachers performance should be taken into consideration regarding the results and utilization of evaluation instruments.
Moreover, respondents were asked about the their views regarding the difficulties in utilization of evaluation results, and the answers can be grouped into 3 main catego-
ries: 1) purpose of the evaluation is not often coherent and the process is not consistent, 2) it takes great amount of time to process collected information, and 3) results of the evaluation should be discussed effectively among the staff in order to be reflected in decision making. Therefore, it is observed that establishment of specific internal quality assurance unit could promote the quality assurance mechanisms within the organization.
Institutional setting and capacity
When respondents were asked about what is lacking in institutional settings and capacity for operating quality assurance system, most of the respondents (39 %) indicated professional human resources, while manuals and guidelines for the implementation of IQA was 29 % (See Fig. 4). It is observed that availability of financial and human resources (including staff development scheme) is an influential factor towards the implementation of internal quality assurance. In most cases, units responsible for QA are formed of academics, for whom the QA is an additional task. It also implies that the presence of committed and engaged staff seem
39
Professional human resources
M Financial resources □ Rules and regulations E of obligatory procedure for corrective action
Fig. 4. Institutional setting required for HEIs, %
Manuals to implement systematic quality assurance activities
40
Knowledge in educational management and quality
assurance
Knowledge of educational evaluation activities
24
□ Skills in data analysis and statistics
Skills in writing self-evaluation reports
Fig. 5. Necessity of knowledge and skills for QA staff, %
to be essential for the implementation of quality assurance mechanisms in HEIs. «Beyond the priorities of the QA officers and the functions of the office, the more successful quality officers are those who have ready access to senior leadership, the social skills to communicate effectively with and to engage and support academics» [6, p. 34].
Besides, HEI should develop, maintain and follow a quality assurance manual, which should be the main document to describe all
the QA policies, procedures, operations and tools of the HEI in a structured format. To this end, HEI should make QA manual which is in line with the national and international standards, using tailor-made approach.
In terms of institutional capacity, Figure 4 illustrates that knowledge of educational management and quality assurance system is the most required skills for the QA staff to implement a quality system within the HEIs. 24 % of the respondents defined the knowl-
<s n
H
01 S) 5<
a
a r
n *
o
o
o
a
S)
o
H M
<s
X X
o
H
o y
X
<s
n s
H
<s
H
H
M
o ^
H
H M
z
¡o
H p
№ 9
o 4
edge of educational evaluation activities is the second most required skills for the respective staffs. In addition, 18 % of the respondents answered equally that statistical and data analysis skills and writing self-evaluation reports are crucial for the QA staff. From this data, capacity building of the respective staff is essential for the HEIs to establish robust internal quality assurance system, likewise, development of regular staff training to provide knowledge, keep employees informed, and to support quality assurance activities and provide expertise to the staff are the important components.
Challenges in Mongolian HEIs to implement Internal Quality Assurance System
To sum up, quality assurance mechanisms are in place in most of the responding HEIs at different levels; however, it is still in the early formative stage. It is shown that there is no quality assurance structure, policies, and consistent processes with regards to the quality assurance issue.
The results of some HEIs suggest that they assume internal quality assurance within higher education institutions means only preparing self-assessment reports, without any reference to learning outcomes-based and improvement-oriented internal quality assurance systems. In addition, some HEIs have established a control system and they claim that it is a quality assurance system. However, some of these systems focus on measuring the performance of staff and/or units rather than promoting and improving quality. This suggests there is a need to increase the focus on internal quality assurance in HEIs of Mongolia, which is supported by the results of 100 % agreed responses that quality assurance unit will lead to institutional quality improvement and accountability in HEIs.
According to the open-ended question regarding participant's views towards the challenges and issues hindering implementation of quality assurance system in HEIs, there are no legal framework and the terms and manuals to be used for the establishment of internal quality assurance system in HEIs. Additionally, the engagement of private HEIs into quality assurance implementation is necessary as they are often ignored in the initiatives and programs conducted by the government. It is also essential to adopt international best practices into Mongolian HE not simply copy them as it is done in most cases.
There major findings and challenges towards quality assurance practice are as follows:
- lack of organizational structure including quality assurance unit, policy and quality assurance manual;
- lack of institutional arrangements and capacity/professional staff;
- ineffective utilization of information system and evaluation instruments.
The conclusion drawn from the questionnaire survey is that there is a need to revise the multiplicity of internal quality control tools and move from control to enhancement mechanisms by establishing robust and coherent internal quality assurance units taking care of all the processes run by HEIs.
Findings of the paper What are the issues on quality assurance in higher education institutions of Mongolia?
The result of this study showed that 16 responding HEIs have quality assurance mechanisms in place although institutions tend not to systematically identify or call all QA practices in as such. Most of the HEIs have QA staffs at administrative level in their respective departments such as monitoring and inspection.
Additionally, the findings under this study also show that very few HEIs have explicit QA activities, which refer to the activities that the university does in a regular and systematic manner to assure the quality of its provision even in the absence of accreditation, for example, the conduct of internal monitoring and evaluation surveys at institutional level.
Nevertheless, important findings from this study worth noting are that in terms of the implementation of IQA within higher education institution, there are at least 3 things in common among Mongolian HEIs as follows:
Lack of QA structure and implicit QA process
The results of this study showed that most of the responding HEIs have different units for quality assurance in place. All units have their functions and working procedures. Most of them confirm their role in coordinating other units within the HEIs to conduct self-evaluation while some of them gradually fulfill the role of monitoring QA activities in their HEIs.
Nevertheless, QA processes are still not explicit in the HEIs. Most of the HEIs have formulated their missions; however none of them have applied a clear model of quality assurance mechanism to provide a holistic view with respect to the goals and missions that they are pursuing. Monitoring systems are not well developed at all responding HEIs.
Particularly, most of the HEIs do not have centralized information system, which may result in the ineffective way of monitoring internal operational activities.
At the primary process, HEIs have not been described in terms of QA with regards to design curriculum, monitoring curriculum, and evaluation of the curriculum. Therefore, it can be concluded from the findings that HEIs have still not developed explicit QA processes even though they have QA mechanisms in place.
Considering the conduct of self-evaluation reports as IQA implementation
Findings from the questionnaire results revealed that in some units taking care of quality, the role of QA tasks is overshadowed by other tasks, for example inspection or monitoring. In addition to that fact, the confusion between IQA's nature and accreditation has led the HEIs to focus only on carrying out self- evaluation reports at institutional level. Also, there is a tendency that HEIs consider the conduct of self-evaluation as the implementation of IQA. Evidently, most of the HEIs do not have other QA activities except the preparation for accreditation processes.
Nevertheless, to some extent, the self-evaluation requirements from MEDS can generate a level of QA activities in the HEIs, such as HEIs' recognition of the need for the conduct of feedback or the value of assessing HEIs' activities more regularly. In this regards, accreditation processes can actually promote the implementation of QA in the HEIs. However, since the accreditation processes have still not been implemented well at system level, in other words the clear consequence of accreditation has not yet been available, HEIs are not motivated to implement an explicit IQA processes, and instead they just focus on the conduct of self-evaluation.
According to the AUN one of the important tools in IQA is self-assessment, thus production of an annual self-assessment report is one of the main roles of the IQA unit to assess the educational quality internally7.
Feedback system as IQA implementation
Another emerging theme from the findings under this study is that besides self-evaluation, it appears that the development of evaluation instrument was paid attention by almost every university. Most of the HEIs have developed questionnaires for university's stakeholders, for example
7 AUN-QA 2006. Manual for the Implementation of the Guidelines ASEAN University Network.
survey on students, teachers and academic staffs. It is seen that conducting surveys on alumni and employers are less common in HEIs. The results in this study also showed that students are not informed the results of how their feedbacks are used in teachers' assessments. This lack of transparency can lead to the possibility that students will not be interested in giving the HEIs valuable feedback information. Additionally, many HEIs further emphasized that the results of feedback are not used effectively for the improvement of educational programs or curriculum. Therefore, it can be concluded that even though HEIs consider the development of feedback system as the implementation of IQA, the objectives of closing the feedback loops in the process of assuring quality, which means requiring faculties or other related units to act upon the outcomes of QA results has not yet been fulfilled.
What are the factors that are influential
to the improvement of internal quality assurance in HEI's of Mongolia?
It can be inferred from the literature review that leadership is considered as a crucial role in demonstrating commitment to quality. If responsibilities are devolved to possible lower levels and that initial steer came from the top managers, explicit quality assurance mechanism tend to be more developed in the universities, where leadership can encourage staff members to have a degree of ownership toward QA processes and feel attached with it in their daily activities. This approach emphasizes the importance of the balance between centralized and decentralized approach. In this regards, leadership is expected to play an essential role in the development of universities' quality assurance process by giving initial steer and a broad degree of ownership in quality assurance mechanism.
The second factor that this present study found out to support the implementation of IQA in the universities is staff's expertise in QA. It is clear that the more explicit QA activities derive from the quality assurance units that have QA staffs with expertise in QA. Playing a mediator role between top managers and grassroots, it is essential for QA staffs to have expertise in QA in order to ensure a shared understanding of QA purpose within the institution. It was also revealed from this the study that knowledge about QA also ensures that QA staffs will not consider QA works as a burden, but will feel like an integral part of academic community
<s n
H
01 B> 5<
a h T
n *
o
o
o
a
B>
o
H
05
<s
X X
o
o y
X
o ^
n s
H
<s
H
2 o
2 z
¡o
O
№ 9
O 4
and have more ownership of quality assurance process in the institution. Furthermore, it also was found from this study that knowledge about QA (expertise in QA) is also important to university's managers. In fact, as implied from the results, accurate view on definitions and purposes of quality assurance process help senior leadership take the better lead in developing, monitoring or facilitating the process.
Degree of training about QA is the third factor that this present study found to have influence on IQA implementation in the universities. Apparently, QA training is essential to QA staffs, and once they are trained about QA, they can provide training to their colleagues. Therefore, it can be concluded that while investing in people through QA training is obviously necessary to avoid quality assurance activities becoming a burden; the finding from this present study also indicated the need for QA staffs' commitment to the development of QAUs.
Further, the fourth influential factor revealed in this study is the stimulation from accreditation activities. It could be effective if there is obligatory policy imposed on the institutions to establish the quality assurance units, may result in the motivation of institutions to implement IQA system, and thus lead to the effective implementation of quality assurance at institutional level. Therefore, clear mechanism for higher education accreditation is a factor that can influence the IQA implementation in the current context of Mongolian higher education system. A strong and transparent statement of accreditation is considered as guidance for the universities know what to expect from the accreditation process and act upon.
Last but not least, in the light of the finding, it is interesting to find out that universities appear to perceive quality assurance as the assurance on the input of an education system with little attention paid to process, outputs and outcomes. Input, in this sense, involves all resources, which include people, facilities, technology and funding needed for the entire process of education. This perspective on quality assurance actually misguides the universities to seek for the fulfillment of pre- conditions for quality, instead of focusing on the process of how to achieve the required quality based on universities' current conditions. Consequently, universities' wrong perception on quality assurance (desires to have good inputs in place) is partly a reason for their ignorance
on the serious QA process and conducting self-evaluation for the sake of external requirement but not their self-improvement. In sum, it can be referred from those findings that whilst the lack of funding for QA-related activities apparently hinders university to effectively implement IQA as it is proved to be costly; universities' perception on finding funds to ensure quality through educational inputs is a factor which also potentially have an influence on universities' approach to the development of IQA system.
Recommendations
The findings summarized above have answered the questions of this research study. Regarding how to promote the IQA implementation in the universities, a number of recommendations can be made. Those are based on the current QA practice and procedures in Mongolia focused on the gaps that have been identified through the analysis of this paper.
Recommendation 1. Mandatory policy to establish IQA Unit in HEIs. It is highly rec-ommendable to make establishment of IQA Unit in higher education institutions mandatory. Vietnam has policy on quality of higher education Ministry of Education and Training regulation requires HEIs to have Quality Assurance Center and do self-evaluation every 5year, do improvement based on self-evaluation results and findings. This initiative could be started from revising current structures of HEIs of Mongolia by eliminating the multiple units responsible for fragmented activities as monitoring, control, inspection, and audit. They should be integrated into effective and efficient quality evaluation and enhancement unit that would coordinate all the quality assurance procedures in line with the strategies adopted by given HEI. Hence, IQA Unit will be the fundamental to establish a robust, coherent internal quality assurance system encompassing functions and operations leading to establishment of an effectively and efficiently functioning organization thus help promoting quality culture in HEIs.
Recommendation 2. Development of Quality Assurance Manual. One of the common standards of quality assurance at the international level requires HEIs to have policies and procedures for internal quality assurance.
As noted by O.N. Baeva «To date, conditions have been created for academic cooperation and its practices are being formed. Most universities recognize that international experience is a central element of education for students of the 21st century» [8, p. 8-9].
So this end, the HEI should develop, maintain and follow a quality assurance manual (QAM), which should be the main document to describe all the QA policies, procedures, operations, and tools of the HEI in a structured format. The IQAU would have the responsibility to draw up the QAM and to ensure that it is kept up to date with changes or new requirements.
The QAM should describe the structures, policies, procedures, performance measures and quality assurance mechanisms that provide a systemic approach to embedding quality improvement into educational provision.
Recommendation 3. Training and staff development in HEIs. Based on the evidence from this study including literature review and questionnaire survey, implementation of an effective quality assurance system requires universities to have professional QA staff and human resource to operate quality assurance activities efficiently.
This can be facilitated by the activities of the Resource Center of Russian-Mongolian Cooperation in the field of education, science, youth policy and the environment, opened on the basis of the Baikal State University in 2018, aimed at effectively promoting bilateral cooperation between Russia and Mongolia in the fields of education and science, ecology, academic and youth exchanges (including field and economic expeditions), training highly qualified personnel for joint Russian-Mongolian projects; contributing to better training of Mongolian Russian teachers and other specialists in demand on the labor market [9, p. 24-25]. A memorandum was signed between Baikal State University and the Academy of Sciences of Mongolia, within the framework of which a very interesting joint research work has been carried out for several years, devoted to the establishment of Russian-Mongolian relations in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In the framework
of agreements on scientific and educational cooperation, cooperation has been expanding with the Mongolian National University of Education and a number of other universities in Mongolia [10, p. 18].
Thus, it is advisable for the HEIs to establish staff development arrangement within the organization and through this approach not only QA staff but also academic staff would become aware of quality assurance activities and promote quality culture within the institutions for the continuous improvement of the quality of universities' performance.
Recommendation 4. Systematic-information system with feedback mechanism. It could be recommendable that universities should have systematic information data system including feedback system from the results of questionnaire surveys, effective utilization of self-evaluation reports which should be reflected to the future quality assurance policies and activity plans.
Recommendation 5. University Research Opportunities. Scientific research is an integral part of the quality training of bachelors and masters of the university. As noted by A. Sukhodolov, the results of scientific research enrich the teaching process. In this case, students should be participants in the scientific activities of the teacher, taking on feasible functions [11, p. 135, 138]. At the same time, it is stated that a «customer crisis» is observed in university scientific research: the demand of the business sector does not provide the necessary volume for large and long-term orders for scientific research and research based mainly on state budget funds. Organizational measures are proposed for a gradual transition from teaching to scientific research, with phased confirmation of productivity: the creation of a new «university scientific department» consisting of two or more employees, regardless of their academic rank, with administrative rights and corresponding responsibility.
REFERENCES
1. Vroeijenstijn A.I. Quality Assurance in Medical Education. Academic Medicine, 1995, vol. 70, iss. 7, pp. 59-67.
2. Boyle P., Bowden J.A. Educational Quality Assurance in Universities: xAn Enhanced Model. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 1997, vol. 22, iss. 2, pp. 111-121.
3. Cheng Y.C., Tam W.M. Multi-models of Quality in Education. Quality Assurance in Education, 1997, vol. 5, iss. 1, pp. 22-31.
4. Zimina E.V., Malakhayeva S.K. Theoretical and Methodological Approaches to Socio-Psychological Maintenance of Inclusive Education. Baikal Research Journal, 2018, vol. 9, no. 4. DOI: 10.17150/2411-6262.2018.9(4).1. Available at: http://brj-bguep.ru/reader/article.aspx?id=22358. (In Russian).
5. Bratishchenko V.V. Information and Educational Environment in Baikal State University. Baikal Research Journal, 2017, vol. 8, no. 1. DOI: 10.17150/2411-6262.2017.8(1).18. Available at: http://brj-bguep.ru/reader/arti-cle.aspx?id=21392. (In Russian).
6. Sursock A. Examining Quality Culture Part II: Processes and Tools — Participation, Ownership and Bureaucracy. Brussels, 2011. 64 p.
7. Jadamba B. Openinig Remark Presented at the Education Policy Research in Mongolia International Conference. Ulaanbaatar, 2012.
<S 0 H
01 B> 5<
a &
r
n *
o
o
o
a
B>
o
H
05
<s
X X
o
o y
X
<s
n s
H
<s
H
2 o
2 z
io
O
№ 9
O 4
8. Baeva O.N., Khlebovich D.I. Successful Practices of Academic Cooperation as a Condition of Joint Educational Initiatives Beginning. In Meteleva E.R. (ed.). Evraziiskii integratsionnyi proekt: tsivilizatsionnaya identichnost' i glo-bal'noe pozitsionirovanie. Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo Baikal'skogo foruma, Irkutsk, 20—21 sentyabrya 2018 g. [Eurasian integration project: civilization identity and global positioning. Materials of the International Baikal Forum, Irkutsk, September 20-21, 2018]. Irkutsk, 2018, pp. 7-15. (In Russian).
9. Muzychuk T.L. The Resource Center must become an efficient tool of organizing cooperation between Russia and Mongolia. Rossiya i Mongoliya = Russia and Mongolia, 2018, no. 4, pp. 24-25. (In Russian).
10. Sukhodolov A.P. Russo-Mongolian cooperation from the point of view of a scientist. Rossiya i Mongoliya = Russia and Mongolia, 2018, no. 4, pp. 17-18. (In Russian).
11. Sukhodolov A.P., Anokhov I.V., Mihalyova E.O. University Science. Internal Possibilities of Stimulating Scientific Activity in Russian Universities. Ekonomika nauki = Economics of Science, 2019, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 129-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22394/2410-132X-2019-5-2-129-142. (In Russian).
Информация об авторах
Ганбаатар Чанцалдулам — магистр государственного управления, Высшая школа исследований в области управления, Университет Мейджи, г. Токио, Япония, e-mail: chaagii1008@gmail.com.
Кородюк Игорь Степанович — доктор экономических наук, профессор, проректор по социальным вопросам, Байкальский государственный университет, г. Иркутск, Российская Федерация, e-mail: KorodukIS@bgu.ru.
Войникова Галина Николаевна — кандидат экономических наук, доцент, кафедра инженерно-экономической подготовки, Байкальский государственный университет, г. Иркутск, Российская Федерация, e-mail: gnvoynikova@mail.ru.
Authors
Ganbaatar Chantsaldulam — Master in Public Policy, Graduate School of Governance Studies, Meiji University, Tokyo, Japan, e-mail: chaagii1008@gmail.com.
IgorS. Koroduk — D.Sc. in Economics, Professor, Vice-rector for Social Affairs, Baikal State University, Irkutsk, the Russian Federation, e-mail: KorodukIS@ bgu.ru.
Galina N. Voynikova — Ph.D. in Economics, Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Economic Training, Baikal State University, Irkutsk, the Russian Federation, e-mail: gnvoynikova@mail.ru.
Для цитирования
Ганбаатар Чанцалдулам. Состояние и задачи системы внутреннего контроля качества образования в высших учебных заведениях Монголии / Ганбаатар Чанцалдулам, И.С. Кородюк, Г.Н. Войникова. — DOI: 10.17150/2500-2759.2019.29(4).594-604 // Известия Байкальского государственного университета. — 2019. — Т. 29, № 4. — С. 594-604.
For Citation
Ganbaatar Chantsaldulam, Koroduk I.S., Voynikova G.N. Current Situation and Challenges of Internal Quality Assurance in Mongolian Higher Education Institutions. Izvestiya Baikal'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Baikal State University, 2019, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 594-604. DOI: 10.17150/2500-2759.2019.29(4).594-604.
