Comparing the Role of Independent Quality Assurance System for Chinese and British Higher Education: Curriculum Standards and Monitoring Confusion

Jindao WANG, Weisha WANG, Yang DONG

Abstract


The curriculum of higher education is designed to reflect the overall objectives and process of university talents cultivation, and curriculum is also the ground for cultivating talents. The monitoring of the construction and implementation of the curriculum standards of Chinese and foreign universities is the starting point and the basis of the third party supervision and evaluation on the school work. Compared with the curriculum standards of Chinese and British curriculum standards, process and evaluation mechanism, China curriculum quality standard monitoring faces many problems. The curriculum quality standards are not in accordance with the personnel training objectives in curriculum of Chinese higher education, its outline structure conflict with its form, and also, the goals to be achieved and requirements are not specific enough. When using the existing curriculum standards to check or evaluate curriculum, the “third party” supervision often encounters the embarrassing situation of what curriculum standards is in the process. The “third party” power can help to improve the curriculum construction, evaluation and quality control. The establishment and improvement of the “third party” power of colleges and universities become the key to solve the problems and confusion in teaching quality monitoring.


Keywords


Third party; University; Curriculum standard; Evaluation; Supervision

Full Text:

PDF

References


Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing quality in higher education: An international perspective on institutional assessment and change. Open University Press.

Byrne, M., & Flood, B. (2003). Assessing the teaching quality of accounting programmes: An evaluation of the course experience questionnaire. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 135-145.

Craft, A. (1999). Creative development in the early years: Some implications of policy for practice. Curriculum journal, 10(1), 135-150.

Ding, X. F., & Xie, X. (2006). The quality of teaching in the UK is better than that of Oxford university evaluation of educational quality and its enlightenment to China. e-Education Research, (1), 58-63.

Guan, Q., & Meng, W. (2007). China’s new national curriculum reform: Innovation, challenges and strategies. Frontiers of Education in China, 2(4), 579-604.

Hu, Y. B., & Wang, Y. L. (2015). A quasi-study of the teaching and teaching quality evaluation of postgraduate course with multi-level coordination and supervision. Science & Technology Information, (12), 165.

Kang, C. P., & Wang, Q. S. (2014). A study on the policy of higher education curriculum in China—Policy contents and orientation of the university curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, (2), 85-92.

Laughlin, R., & Broadbent, J. (1996). Redesigning fourth generation evaluation an evaluation model for the public-sector reforms in the UK? Evaluation, 2(4), 431-451.

Liu, Y. (2010). Reference and reflection on quality supervision system of British supervision. Seeker, (12), 180-181.

Luxon, T., & Peelo, M. (2009). Internationalisation: Its implications for curriculum design and course development in UK higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 51-60.

Ma, Y. N. (2009). Exploration of curricula criterion management at the university. Journal of Hexi University, (1), 112-122.

Ministry of Education. (2001). Basic education curriculum reform program (trial). Retrieved from http://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_309/200412/4672.html

Philips, D. (2000). Curriculum and assessment policy in New Zealand: Ten years of reforms. Educational Review, 52(2), 143-153.

Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-150.

Roxburgh, M., Watson, R., Holland, K., Johnson, M., Lauder, W., & Topping, K. (2008). A review of curriculum evaluation in United Kingdom nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 28(7), 881-889.

Shen, T. J. P. (2010). The monitoring and evaluation of school curriculum quality. China Agricultural Education, (3), 17-18.

Tong, L. J., & Meng, W. D. (2013). The construction of the third-party evaluation system of higher education. Forum on Contemporary Education, (3), 25-28.

Wang, L. (2013). Present institution, functions and inspecting force construction of school inspection system in England. International and Comparative Education, (10), 34-38.

Wang, W. L. (2009). Talent training model: The primary problem of educational quality. China Higher Education, 8, 24-26.

Watmough, S., Taylor, D., & Garden, A. (2006). Educational supervisors evaluate the preparedness of graduates from a reformed UK curriculum to work as pre-registration house officers (PRHOs): A qualitative study. Medical Education, 40(10), 995-1001.

Wyse, D., & Torrance, H. (2009). The development and consequences of national curriculum assessment for primary education in England. Educational Research, 51(2), 213-228.

Xu, A. P. (2015). Defining quality audit properly to facilitate its implementation. Higher Education Development and Evaluation, 31(1), 17-22.

Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45(4), 477-501.

Zhu, W. Q. (2006). “Based on curriculum standards”: connotation and meaning. Contemporary Education Sciences, (8), 18-21.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/9408

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Jindao WANG, Weisha Wang, Yang DONG

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to [email protected]，or [email protected] for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:[email protected]; [email protected]

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture