One of my presentations on Raising quality in universities-students still sing Gaudeamus Igitur at OEW22 8 March 2022

1. Raising quality
in universities -
students still
sing
Gaudeamus
igitur" ("So Let
Us Rejoice")
Ebba Ossiannilsson, Stephen Dobson,
and Muhammad Zuhdi, Swedish
Association for Distance Education,
Victoria University of Wellington, NZ
and State Islamic University, Jakarta

2. The webinar
will discuss
the need for
a new quality
agenda in
Higher
Education

3. Students voices
Students around the world still sing Gaudeamus
igitus (so let us rejoice) with Latin roots back to
1287: “While we are still young, after a pleasant
youth, after a troubling youth, the earth will
have us.” University students are universally
known for revelry during and on completion of
their studies. Increasingly they ask for
something more: ‘what’s in it for me?’ A
graduation certificate and the promise of
employment is no longer enough.

4. Students
agenda
Students want to be looked after in a caring, pastoral manner
- wellbeing. Not surprisingly interest has grown in health and
wellbeing as a key indicator of university quality. Students
even want to actively collaborate on quality assurance
processes. Will the collective voice of students be enough to
make a difference and raise quality? Or will student power be
silenced by other competing or mandated measures of
university quality? Once they might have been the main
clients of a university, but today communities, industries and
the government demand the ear of the university, along with
evidence of global recognition and ranking.

5. University
agenda
Universities around the world have
indeed invested in quality assurance
processes to meet national and
international accreditation. It is
increasingly a mandatory process for all
degree programmes and repeated every
4-5 years. One of the most important
steps is consultation with students, both
past and present. Appointed external
reviewers interview a sample of students,
asking them for their opinion on
university programs and services.
Students who have had a good
experience will speak candidly, while
others will be more hesitant and consider
if it is wise to share their dissatisfaction.
With limited experience of other
universities many students are not well-
equipped to make comparative
judgements on quality.

6. Spectrum of Quality
Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open
education around the globe: State of the art and recommendations. Oslo: International Council for Open and
Distance Education.

7. Different
Levels
Image: Ebba
Ossiannilsson (2022)
• Meta
Macro
• Macro
Meso
• Meso
Micro
• Micro
Nano
• Nano

8. ICDE reports
on Quality

9. ICDE reports
on Quality
Conclusion
The continued work of the ICDE Quality Network represented here in the 7
reports from world regions make clear how the COVID-19 pandemic has
accelerated the breakdown of sectoral boundaries in terms of Quality
Assurance between campus-based and online learning institutions. The
reform and development of Quality Assurance systems for a hybrid institution
that now works in online and blended modes is a valuable process in itself,
and will enhance institutional capacity and understanding as to how quality is
to be defined and implemented. While there are valuable sources which can
assist in such a development phase, such as guidelines found in the EADTU
system for quality assurance in online learning E-Excellence (EADTU 2021),
Higher Education institutions and Ministries of Education new to online and
digital Higher Education will, we hope, be supported with this report in building
their own new approaches.

10. APEC (Asian Pacific Economic
Cooperation) Quality Assurance
of Online Learning - Toolkit
Sourse Adapted from
Ossiannilsson (2012)

12. A brave new
world of
sustainable
quality as the
way forward
The future of higher education requires a new
quality assurance agenda with a weighting
towards processes that are more inclusive and
target wellbeing. This will have more to do with
core values that reflect socio-emotional needs,
well-being, impact, access, satisfaction,
sustainability and resilience. Longer-term
revenue-generating innovations remain
undoubtedly important, but not if this fails to
take other values seriously.

13. A brave new
world of
sustainable
quality as the
way forward
The goal remains to ensure the quality of education,
strengthening it as a public good and making it
accessible to all with opportunities across the
lifespan. This aligns with UNESCO’s call
that education must move away from an over-
reliance on teacher-directed instruction and
individual achievement. Instead, cooperation,
collaboration and solidarity should be emphasized.
Curricula, often organized as individual subjects,
must emphasize ecological, intercultural, and
interdisciplinary learning. Reducing barriers to
transnational quality assurance and accreditation
are central, as noted by the European Commission.
The higher education ecosystem is not just about
accreditations and rankings. It is also about
glocalization - seeing the global but acting locally,
resilient leadership, innovation, sustainability,
partnership, collaboration, and the power of student
voice to make a difference and improve quality. It is
necessary to acknowledge the increasing voices of
students as they comment on the quality of
education in which they take part. Student
engagement must reach beyond feedback on
course and program design. It must seek to embed
lifelong learning and wellbeing within university
studies and prepare for global citizenship. Reaching
beyond grade point averages and future salaries,
degrees need to be increasingly relevant to
wellbeing.

14. What is needed
of a framework
A gold stand quality assurance system in higher education must
seek to balance these interests and ensure that students are
actively engaged in this important task. In the words of
Ossiannilsson (et.al, 2015) we need:
Multifaceted systems that view quality holistically, and as an
ecosystem, considering strategy, policy, infrastructure,
processes, and outcomes,
Representative quality to balance the perspectives and needs of
various interested stakeholders including students and staff,
Dynamic flexibility built into systems to adapt to rapid changes in
technology and social norms, with a focus on services for users
rather than specific technological measures,
Mainstreaming all quality measures that permeate throughout the
institution, used by individual staff in their daily work for further
reflection and advances in practice,
Multifunctional quality that serves a triple function providing a
culture of quality within an institution, a roadmap for future
improvement and serving as a seal of quality for outsiders.

15. DISCUSSION/
QUESTIONS
WHY? WHAT? HOW? WHO? WHICH? WHEN?
1. Why is this important to discuss?
2. What kind of Quality Agenda do we want?
3. Who will be in charge?
4. How to move forward?

16. My
Footprints
www.i4quality.se
Ebba.Ossiannilsson@gmail.
com
info@i4quality.se
THANK
YOU!
CARING IS SHARING, SHARING IS
CARING
OERAC
LINKEDIN