1 Introduction
Tertiary education has seen substantial transformations globally over the last twenty years, particularly in the expansion of the number of institutions and student enrolment. Due to severe global competition for talent and resources in the era of tertiary education massification, tertiary education institutions (TEI s) are expected to respond to these ‘new’ challenges. Following this expanding mission of tertiary education, there is an increasing demand for HEI s to demonstrate their accountability, value for money and relevance to global and local contexts (Loukkola et al., 2020; Kaiser et al., 2022). The 2020 pandemic disruption exerted external influences in tertiary education and elicited widespread attention over the quality of new providers and non-formal education, such as short learning programmes, third mission, social impacts, sustainability, etc. (Mok et al., 2021; Hou et al., 2022).
Concurrently, “efficiency”, “relevance” and “transformative power” are considered as the three core components that quality assurance bodies and accreditors should be equipped with, in order to meet unexpected crises and challenges in a fast-changing society (INQAAHE, 2022). Most importantly, quality assurance (QA) should have a transformative power to meet social demand and to present impact. According to Harvey (2004), “efficiency” is defined as the extent to which an activity achieves its goal whilst minimising resource usage, which is often associated with value for money. Regarding relevance, OECD (2019) defines it as the extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor. Transformation involves a ‘qualitative change’ from one state to another (Harvey & Green, 1993). It entails changes within quality assurance bodies so that it is better equipped to transform TEI s under its purview transforming learning, research,
Thus, quality assurance bodies (EQAB s) and accreditors cannot stop evolving in order to “meet both the changing expectations of universities, governments, and students” (Matear, 2018, p.1). Typically, QA in tertiary education operates on a dual axis of internal and external mechanisms. Internal quality assurance (IQA) facilitates institutions to introspectively review their quality policy, processes, standards and outcomes (Harvey, 2004; Stensaker et al., 2011; INQAAHE, 2018). External quality assurance (EQA), in contrast, requires a third-party assessment, often at the behest of governing bodies, to affirm if these institutions adhere to a set of established educational standards (Martin & Stella, 2007; Karakhanyan & Stensaker, 2020; Kaiser et al., 2022).
2 Purpose of the INQAAHE Global Study II (Asia-Pacific Region)
The 2020 Global Study in the Asia Pacific region demonstrated that human capital, financial stability and transparency were three issues that EQABS s in Asia should improve. Besides, there was a gap in quality culture building between EQAB s and TEI s (Hou et al., 2020a). Lifelong learning, online learning, and student learning outcomes started to draw EQABS s’ attention. In 2022, INQAAHE published the International Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (ISG s), introducing three new QA modules on cross-border education, short learning programmes, and distance education (INQAAHE, 2022). One of the major purposes of the INQAAHE ISG s is to provide new reference for quality assurance bodies and accreditors to ensure that academic quality is relevant to “growing demand for flexible learning opportunities and pathways, formal and non-formal education and modalities of delivery” (INQAAHE, 2022, p. 9).
Under neoliberalism, QA in Asia was initially doomed to be an extended arm of government to regulate TEI s in the era of TE massification (Hou et al., 2015). The pandemic in 2020 unleashed many negative impacts on tertiary education quality, pressuring EQAB s to build their capacity and to address emerging issues after the global crisis. Based on above, two research questions of the INQAAHE global study in Asian region are as follows:
What are the main characteristics of global quality assurance schemes of tertiary education according to INQAAHE GGP and ISG s? Are there any significant differences between sub-regions?
How could quality assurance agencies and Tertiary education institutions in Asia ensure efficiency, respond to the relevant needs of society, and develop transformative capacity?
3 Methodology
3.1 Data Collection and Documents Review
The study adopted varying approaches to collect data. First, various types of documents were comprehensively collected from the Asian context, including official documents from governments, related literature and studies, reports, national and global databases, etc. Moreover, published documents and reports from international organisations, such as UNESCO, INQAAHE, and APQN were included. Reviewing documents and collected data enabled a general analysis of characteristics of EQAB s and HEI s in the Asia-Pacific region. As to baseline data, the study developed a profile of each sub-region and its respective countries, as well as an overview of the regional TE and QA landscape. Enriching the data analysis framework of the 2020 Global Study, the following data were collected, including the number of TEI s, student populations, the number of quality assurance bodies, and the number of countries/territories with national qualification frameworks, etc.
3.2 Survey and Responses
The global study conducted two surveys to investigate the current development of EQA and IQA in the Asia-Pacific region- External Quality Assurance (EQA) for External Quality Assurance Bodies (EQAB s) and Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) for Tertiary Education Institutions (TEI s). The purposes of the surveys are, (1) describing the EQA/IQA landscape regionally and globally (2) diagnosing the “health” of EQA/IQA regarding its efficiency, relevance, and transformative power (3) identifying regional and global trends and challenges in EQA/IQA. The surveys consisted of three sections: (1) EQA/IQA provider: the functions, operations, and impact on the system (2) Relevance of the standards (3) Resilience and sustainability of the EQAP/IQA: impact of external factors. From October 4th, 2023, to January 31st, 2024, the questionnaires were distributed via e-mail to EQAB s and HEI s in Asia Pacific. In total, 37 EQAB s and 167 HEI s responded to the surveys respectively (see Table 8.1 and Table 8.2).
Regions distribution of 37 participants from EQA survey
| Region | Country/Territories | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific | Australia | 1 | 3 |
| Samoa | 1 | 3 | |
| New Zealand | 2 | 5 | |
| ASEAN | Indonesia | 4 | 11 |
| Malaysia | 4 | 11 | |
| Philippines | 1 | 3 | |
| Viet Nam | 1 | 3 | |
| South Asia | Bhutan | 1 | 3 |
| India | 3 | 8 | |
| Pakistan | 6 | 16 | |
| East Asia | China | 4 | 11 |
| Hong Kong SAR | 1 | 3 | |
| Japan | 2 | 5 | |
| Mongolia | 1 | 3 | |
| Taiwan | 2 | 5 | |
| Central Asia | Kyrgyzstan | 3 | 8 |
| Total | 37 | 100 |
Regions distribution of 167 participants from IQA survey
| Region | Country/Territories | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific | Maldives | 1 | 1 |
| New Zealand | 6 | 4 | |
| ASEAN | Cambodia | 1 | 1 |
| Indonesia | 21 | 13 | |
| Malaysia | 9 | 5 | |
| VietNam | 1 | 1 | |
| South Asia | Bangladesh | 4 | 2 |
| India | 6 | 4 | |
| Pakistan | 95 | 57 | |
| East Asia | China | 5 | 3 |
| Japan | 2 | 1 | |
| Macau SAR | 2 | 1 | |
| Taiwan | 14 | 8 | |
| Total | 167 | 100 |
3.3 Focus Group Discussions
To gain a deeper understanding of the trends and development of EQAB s and HEI s, four focus groups were conducted between March 19th and April 22nd, 2024. Two focus groups were held for EQAB participants from the Pacific region, East Asia, ASEAN, and South Asia, while the other two were held for TEI participants. In total, 25 participants shared their views in focus groups.
Regions distribution of QA bodies focus group participants
| Region | Country territories | QA body | Participants | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific | New Zealand | NZQA | 1 | Deputy Chief Executive |
| ASEAN | Thailand | ONESQA | 1 | Director |
| Malaysia | MQA | 1 | Head | |
| Vietnam | VNU CEA | 1 | Director | |
| South Asia | Pakistan | HEC | 1 | Director |
| East Asia | China | EQEA/CEEI | 2 | EQEA: Officer
CEEI: Director |
| Hong Kong SAR | HKCAAVQ | 1 | Senior Registrar | |
| Japan | JUAA/ NIAD-QE | 2 | JUAA: Associate Director
NIAD-QE: Executive Director |
|
| Mongolia | MNCEA | 1 | Senior Officer | |
| Taiwan | HEEACT | 1 | Director | |
| Total | 12 |
Regions distribution of TEI s focus group participants
| Region | Country territories | HEI s | Participants | Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASEAN | Thailand | CHULA | 1 | Professor |
| Malaysia | UNIMY/OUM/WOU/UCSI | 4 | UNIMY: Head
OUM: Senior Officer WOU: Officer UCSI: Director |
|
| Indonesia | IPB/ITB/UI | 3 | IPB: Director
ITB: Lecturer UI: Head |
|
| South Asia | Pakistan | JSMU | 1 | Director |
| East Asia | China | YNU | 1 | Professor |
| Taiwan | CCU/TNUA/NCCU | 3 | CCU: Vice president
TNUA: Professor NCCU: Officer |
|
| Total | 13 |
Forty-eight (48) countries/territories in five sub-regions were included in the study: Pacific region, ASEAN region, South Asia, East Asia, and Central Asia. The distribution by sub-region is presented as follows
3.5 Case Studies
This study also adopted a case study approach to examine QA systems and the development of TEI s in Asian countries. Specifically, it conducts an in-depth analysis of three selected countries: China, Malaysia, and Indonesia. These countries were chosen based on the maturity levels of their IQA and EQA systems that could provide a clearer picture of the advancement of QA in the region and allow for a more nuanced comparison of institutional responses to quality assurance mechanisms.
China, the world’s largest tertiary education system, is evolving into a “system of collaborative practices” including a national overarching external evaluation structure and individual tertiary education institutions’ internal quality insurance practices (Shi et al., 2018). The Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) is recognised as a “global-level agency for quality assurance in Tertiary education,” and its primary mission is to “establish a quality assurance system aligned with internationally accepted practices” (MQA, 2020). MQA plays a pivotal role in implementing the National Qualifications Framework (NQF), ensuring high-quality and internationally recognised education across both public and private TEI s in Malaysia (Marnnoi et al., 2024). Indonesia has made
Asia-Pacific countries/territories by regions
| Pacific region | ASEAN region | South Asia | East Asia | Central Asia | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Australia | 19 | Brunei Darussalam | 29 | Afghanistan | 36 | China | 44 | Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran) | |
| 2 | Cook Islands | 20 | Cambodia | 30 | Bangladesh | 37 | Democratic People’s Republic of Korea | 45 | Kyrgyzstan | |
| 3 | Fiji | 21 | Indonesia | 31 | Bhutan | 38 | Hong Kong SAR | 46 | Tajikistan | |
| 4 | Kiribati | 22 | Lao People’s Democratic Republic | 32 | India | 39 | Japan | 47 | Turkmenistan | |
| 5 | Maldives | 23 | Malaysia | 33 | Nepal | 40 | Macao SAR | 48 | Uzbekistan | |
| 6 | Marshall Islands | 24 | Myanmar | 34 | Pakistan | 41 | Mongolia | |||
| 7 | Federated States of Micronesia | 25 | Philippines | 35 | Sri Lanka | 42 | Republic of Korea | |||
| 8 | Nauru | 26 | Singapore | 43 | Taiwan | |||||
| 9 | New Zealand | 27 | Thailand | |||||||
| 10 | Niue | 28 | Vietnam | |||||||
| 11 | Palau | |||||||||
| 12 | Papua New Guinea | |||||||||
| 13 | Samoa | |||||||||
| 14 | Solomon Islands | |||||||||
| 15 | Timor-Leste | |||||||||
| 16 | Tonga | |||||||||
| 17 | Tuvalu | |||||||||
| 18 | Vanuatu | |||||||||
3.6 Limitation of the Study
The limitations of this study include restricted access to updated information on government websites, and limited number of official government reports in English, particularly in developing and smaller countries/territories. These factors would likely affect the overall validity of major findings.
4 Tertiary Education and Quality Assurance Landscape in Asia Pacific
4.1 An Overview of EQA and HE Development
Since the late 1990s, tertiary education in Asia Pacific has been expanding rapidly and now is in the massification phase (Hou et al., 2023). Due to the variations in demographic and economic development, national Tertiary education systems are vastly different in size and growth. To date, the total number of TEI s in Asia Pacific has increased to 72,057 with more than 144,467,844 million students enrolled. To respond to social demands, system expansion and privatisation in tertiary education, as well as to assure the quality of local tertiary education providers, the establishment of quality assurance systems has become a national agenda in most Asian nations (Martin & Stella, 2007; Hou et al., 2023). As of 2024, there are 162 quality assurance bodies and accreditors in Asia, and 119 are public agencies and 43 self-funded agencies (e.g., health, engineering, psychology, technology, architect). Most of quality assurance bodies and accreditors are in ASEAN, followed by East Asia 32, Pacific 11 and South Asia 10 (Table 8.1). Among all EQABS s, 46 are professional accreditors specializing in fields such as engineering, business, medicine, and others.
4.2 HE by Sub-Regions
This section analyses tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific region, organised into five sub-regions: ASEAN, East Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, and the Pacific. Key statistics highlight the number of universities and tertiary student populations in each sub-region, which are sourced from UNESCO statistics or Ministry of Education in each country/territory during 2017 to 2024.
4.2.1 ASEAN Region
The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), established in 1967, has grown to include ten member countries. The ASEAN University Network
Number of quality assurance bodies in Asia by region and nature
| QA agencies (N = 162) | Public | Private |
|---|---|---|
| ASEAN | 58 (49%) | 13 (30%) |
| East Asia | 32 (27%) | 13 (30%) |
| Central Asia | 8 (7%) | 10 (23%) |
| South Asia | 10 (8%) | 3 (7%) |
| Pacific | 11 (9%) | 4 (9%) |
| Total | 119 (100%) | 43 (100%) |
4.2.2 East-Asia Region
East Asia includes eight countries/territories: China, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Mongolia, and North Korea. This region contributes nearly 39% of international students globally and shows a strong focus on expanding Tertiary education (Stewart-Rozema & Pratts, 2023). Countries/ territories like South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Japan have high gross enrolment rates, surpassing global averages. Most students in East Asia attend private institutions, with Japan and South Korea enrolling over 75% of students in private HEI s (Programme for Research on Private Tertiary Education [PROPHE], 2024). China dominates in terms of total institutions and students, with 3,012 TEI s and 55.35 million students (87% of the regional total). However, the region faces challenges such as declining birth rates, leading to
4.2.3 South Asia Region
South Asia includes India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, and Afghanistan. The region has seen steady growth in tertiary education, driven by increasing secondary education completion rates and population growth. India dominates the sector, with 56,205 institutions (most of which are affiliated colleges) and 94% of the student population in the region. In contrast, countries/territories like Nepal and Bangladesh have far fewer institutions, reflecting disparities in Tertiary education infrastructure.
4.2.4 Central Asia Region
Central Asia’s tertiary education development varies across its five countries/ territories: Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran), Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Iran (Islamic Republic of Iran) leads with 400 TEI s, followed by Kyrgyzstan (80). In terms of student distribution, Uzbekistan accounts for 43% of the student population, followed by the Tajikistan (25%). Despite recent progress, Central Asian countries face challenges related to resource allocation, quality assurance, and internationalisation.
4.2.5 Pacific Region
The Pacific region includes Australia, New Zealand, and several small island nations, with a total of 771 TEI s. New Zealand and Australia have the highest numbers, followed by Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Similarly, student distribution shows that the Pacific region has a total of 2,186,674 students. Among them, Australia and New Zealand account for over 91% of the student population, while other Pacific Island states make up less than 10%.
In summary, while the Asia-Pacific region demonstrates significant diversity in tertiary education development, common challenges such as demographic shifts, market saturation, and resource limitations require innovative solutions to ensure sustainable growth and equitable access across all sub-regions.
5 Evolution of Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education in Asia Pacific
5.1 Transformative Phases in Asian Context
Quality assurance bodies and accreditors are becoming more efficient, relevant, and transformative, following global trends and guidelines. EQA systems
As a policy instrument influenced by neo-liberalism (2000–2010), the first phase of QA development in Asia was not merely a technical mechanism for improving performance, but a key tool for restructuring tertiary education along market-oriented lines. Under this paradigm, QA was employed to enforce higher education providers’ accountability, efficiency, and competitiveness (Harvey & Newton, 2007; Shin, 2018; Hou et al., 2020a), and to promote the pursuit of academic excellence as defined by neo-liberal priorities (Jarvis, 2014; Shin, 2018; Hou et al., 2023). In this phase, EQAB s and HEI s in Asia also found themselves grappling with the challenge of aligning with international educational standards and started to borrow quality policy, accreditation modes, and standards from advanced systems. Notably, several international organisations, such as INQAAHE, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (ENQA), APQN, and the Washington Accord, provided key quality guidelines, accountability principles, and frameworks for recognising QA agencies and accreditors. These efforts have contributed to enhancing QA professionalism in the region, while also promoting the “fitness for purpose” approach (Karakhanyan & Stensaker, 2020).
Linking to qualification recognition and regional Convention due to a rapid growth of international student mobility (2011–2019). In the second phase, the inclusion of new quality assurance modules in the national qualifications framework and overseas qualifications recognition system gained greater attention regionally owing to a growing number of Asian students pursuing international education. Australia, Japan and China are the most popular destinations for international students in Asia (Baer & Martel, 2023). Revised in 2011, the Tokyo Convention has played a significant role in providing a legal framework for facilitating regional cooperation in tertiary education qualification recognition. As of June 1, 2023, there are 12 State Parties to the Convention, including Australia, China, New Zealand, Japan, Republic of Korea, Holy See, Mongolia, Turkey, Fiji, Russian Federation, Afghanistan, and Armenia. In November 2019, the UN Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Tertiary Education was adopted, establishing universal principles for the fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory recognition of Tertiary education qualifications. Four states ratified Global Convention, including Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and Republic of Korea.
A shift of multi-facet QA roles during the pandemic (2020 to present): In the third phase, a call for “the build-up of new systems for external quality assurance” is getting stronger. Some quality assurance systems grew in maturity after several cycles of accreditation, subsequently, they determined to apply for the
Transitional framework for QA evolution according to INQAAHE guidelines in Asia
6 Case Studies: China, Malaysia, Indonesia
The Tertiary Education in China
China
Since the early 20th century, especially after the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, China’s tertiary education has undergone several major reforms, such as the restructure of tertiary education institutes
a. External Quality Assurance (EQA)
Since the 1990s, different EQAB s have been established by China’s Ministry of Education (MoE), provincial governments and the TEI s. Some social EQAB s also began activities of university ranking (UR). The EQAB s can be divided into 4 types: (1) the EQAB s by the central government, such as the China Education Quality Evaluation Centre (EQEC) of the MoE; (2) over 20 provincial EQAB s, such as the Shanghai Education Evaluation Institute (SEEI); (3) over 2,000 evaluation offices in more than 2,000 HEI s; and (4) over 20 social organisations, such as Webbig (China) Co., Ltd., China Alumni Network, and China Management Science Research Institute, etc. (Liu, 2016).
b. Internal Quality Assurance (IQA)
All the HEI s, required by the Higher Education Law of the People’s Republic of China, have established their special QA units/offices of internal quality assurance (IQA), responsible for self-evaluation and continuous improvement to ensure internal monitoring and enhancement of educational quality (Ministry of Education of China, 1998). The QA content includes teaching quality monitoring, course evaluation, student feedback, teacher training, etc. For instance, with clear objectives and specific standards, Heilongjiang Institute of Construction Technology has established an internal quality assurance (IQA) system that emphasizes five key pillars: decision-making and command, resource development, support services, quality management, and supervision and control (Heilongjiang College of Construction, 2024).
c. Relationship between EQA, IQA and the Government
Governments effectively monitor and manage both internal and external QA by formulating policies, establishing regulatory mechanisms, providing
d. International Exchange and Cooperation of EQAB s
With the acceleration of globalisation and the in-depth development of internationalisation in tertiary education, China’s EQAB s have continuously strengthened their cooperation and exchanges with international education QA organisations such as INQAAHE and APQN, jointly addressing new challenges and issues emerging in the era of tertiary education internationalisation. This helps to introduce and absorb internationally recognised QA standards and methodologies, promoting the continuous improvement of domestic education quality. For instance, the China Engineering Education Certification Association (CEECA) has joined the “Washington Accord”, marking the alignment of China’s engineering education professional certification with international standards, which is conducive to enhancing the international competitiveness of engineering education.
The Tertiary Education in Malaysia
Malaysia
a. Malaysia’s Tertiary Education Landscape
Malaysia’s tertiary education system has a history dating back to 1905 with the establishment of the King Edward VII Medical College in Singapore. In 1947, it merged with Raffles College to form the University of Malaya, serving both Singapore and Malaya. After Malaysia’s independence in 1957, the
b. The Role of MQA and Internal Quality Assurance (IQA)
With the expansion of HE institutions, ensuring quality became crucial. Initially, public universities operated with limited oversight by the Ministry of Education, but in 1996, the National Accreditation Board was established to manage standards in private institutions. Over time, this responsibility grew, leading to the creation of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA) in 2007. The MQA, which oversees both public and private HEI s, introduced the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) as a national benchmark for qualifications at all levels, ensuring consistent standards and encouraging international recognition of Malaysian qualifications.
The MQA emphasises strong internal quality assurance (IQA) practices within HEI s. Through the Code of Practice for Programme Accreditation (COPPA) (MQA, 2017) and discipline-specific standards, the MQA outlines quality requirements in seven critical areas of programme evaluation. About 18 collaborating professional bodies have their own professional standards reflecting the COPPA which equally emphasises the need for a strong IQA system. This integration of IQA in HEI s ensures that quality is embedded across educational offerings, aligning with both national priorities and international standards.
MQA applies the same external quality assurance (EQA) standards to transnational education (TNE), especially for franchised programmes albeit with some adaptations to ensure comparability with home country requirements. Since 2010, it has granted self-accrediting status to institutions with well-established IQA systems, allowing them greater autonomy in quality management.
The MQA has proactively addressed emerging educational trends. Since 2011, it has championed the recognition of prior experiential learning, allowing students to earn credits or qualifications based on relevant professional experience. The COPPA standards have been updated to support
c. MQA’s Role in Adapting to New Educational Standards
Consistent with the latest INQAAHE ISG, the MQA is proactive in adapting to evolving learning models, such as cross-border Tertiary education, short learning programmes, and distance education. In response to the growing interest in micro-credentials, the MQA introduced guidelines in 2020 and 2023, enabling HEI s to offer stackable short courses that can count toward formal qualifications. Moreover, non-HEI providers can now receive MQA verification, bringing these courses under MQF’s scope and potentially allowing them to integrate with traditional HE credentials. Malaysia’s HE sector has grown rapidly, driven by both public and private institutions and supported by strong quality assurance frameworks.
The Tertiary Education in Indonesia
Indonesia
a. Tertiary Education in Indonesia
The first public university established by the Indonesian government is Universitas Gadjah Mada which was inaugurated on 19 December 1949, and the second one is Universitas Indonesia which was established on 2 February 1950. Up until the mid-80s, the tertiary education sector in Indonesia was still considerably small, with the total providers of less than 100 and gross enrolment rate of less than 10%. To date, the Indonesian tertiary education system constitutes more than 4500 tertiary education providers and is housing more than 9 million students.
b. Quality Assurance System for Tertiary Education and the roles of the National Accreditation Agency for Tertiary Education (BAN-PT)
The term quality assurance was first introduced in the late 80s as part of the government tertiary education development strategy called New
With the establishment of other accreditation agencies for tertiary education, BAN-PT remains to be the main national accreditation agency for tertiary education in Indonesia. In addition to its mandate to carry out institution level accreditation, it also serves the function to oversee and regularly evaluate the performance of the discipline-based agencies. For the establishment of new agencies, the ministry will seek recommendation from BAN-PT. In addition, the assignment of programmes to a particular accreditation agency is also in the hands of BAN-PT. BAN-PT is also responsible for assessing foreign accreditation agencies for recognition by the ministry. Only recognised foreign agencies are allowed to operate in Indonesia.
7 Major Findings – Efficiency, Relevance, and Transformative Power
7.1 EQA Survey
Tertiary education institutions (TEI s), professional associations, and government bodies emerged as key participants in EQAP governance and QA procedures, while students, alumni, and labour unions were less involved. The findings also revealed the underdeveloped state of QA policies for non-formal and informal education, such as workplace learning and short
7.1.1 Stakeholder Engagement in Governance and QA Procedures
The study showed that the public TEI s, private TEI s and professional associations are the key members serving the review panels, decision-making bodies, and governing boards, with the highest number of respondents on the three indicators. Additionally, governments, employers/ industry representatives, and invited experts were also recognised as key participants in the review process. In contrast, students, alumni, and labour unions remained the least represented groups in this process (Figure 8.2) very much mirroring the low involvement of students in HEI s QA.
Diversity of stakeholders in QA procedures
Regarding defining quality and related policies, and developing standards and procedures, governments, public TEI s and private TEI s are the
Diversity of stakeholders in QA developments
7.1.2 QA Approach Development
The study found that EQAP’s approaches were affected by national legislation and strategies most. Besides, regional quality assurance networks and frameworks, such as APQN and ENQA, SDG s, and ESG s – as well as professional association standards and INQAAHE guidelines, were also considered influential sources for shaping EQAP’s approaches (Figure 8.4). Conversely, documents from UNESCO or OECD, and UN regional or global conventions were less frequently referenced as main sources. Given that QA approaches are often affected by global trends in QA and Tertiary education, global guidelines and principles would strengthen their influences on national contexts in Asia.
Sources used to develop EQAP s procedures
The study found that 11 EQAP s incorporated short learning programmes (e.g., micro-credentials) into QA policies and procedures (Figure 8.5). In contrast, only 8 EQAP s started to embed learning at a workplace into the QA framework (Figure 8.5). However, the study also discovered that a majority of EQAP s in Asia did not consider this issue so far. QA mechanisms for non-formal and informal education are underdeveloped currently.
QA policies and procedures of non-formal and informal education
The study found that 31 EQAP s (approximately 84%) engaged external experts in the review panel. They were primarily nominated by TEI s and selected or appointed by executive directors. 27 agencies indicated that the database of external reviewers was developed. The review panel mainly constituted discipline specific experts, TEI representatives (faculty), and EQAP Coordinator. Industry representatives and international experts in the field were invited according to the special case. However, students were least considered as a review panel (Figure 8.6).
The profile of the external review panels
The study found that 25 EQAP s (approximately 68%) have a publicly available procedure for the selection and appointment of the external review panels. Moreover, 31 EQAP s (approximately 84%) have developed a pool of competent external reviewers. Regarding reviewer’s trainings, 20 EQAP s conducted both orientation/induction sessions for all experts and specialised trainings for every review panel. In contrast, 7 EQAP s just conducted orientation/induction sessions for all experts, and 3 EQAP s conducted specialised trainings for each review panel. All in all, 32 EQAP s (approximately 84%) have already established policies and procedures to address its own accountability.
7.1.5 Transformation
The study found that “accountability” and “integrity” were the top TE core values, followed closely by “transparency”, “autonomy”, and “academic freedom”. In contrast, “inclusion in TE” was less considered as the core value (Figure 8.7).
Despite their essential function, EQAB s have several ongoing problems in executing their mandates. One major issue is resource constraints, as highlighted by the survey results. While most agencies undergo periodic external reviews to ensure accountability, some face challenges due to insufficient financial and human resources, hindering their ability to conduct these processes effectively. The findings are consistent with the results of the 2020 Global Study (Hou et al., 2020a). According to the results of the current survey, the average staff size dedicated to external review coordination and developmental studies is limited, with a high standard deviation reflecting disparities in resource allocation among agencies.
Another significant challenge is stakeholder diversity and engagement. The survey reveals that government representatives and public tertiary institutions are the most frequently engaged stakeholders in defining quality and developing standards. However, EQAB s encounter difficulties in maintaining balanced representation across different groups, particularly students and alumni, whose participation rates remain low. This uneven engagement can limit the inclusivity and relevance of quality assurance policies and procedures.
The survey results offer an extensive perspective on the operational and strategic methodologies employed by TEI s across Asia Pacific concerning Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) systems.
7.2.1 IQA Mechanisms and Establishment
The study found that the setup of IQA systems within Asian TEI s varies, with the majority of institutions implementing a centralised IQA unit at the institutional level, while others operate through decentralised units within specific faculties or departments. Coordination of IQA functions is predominantly conducted at the institutional level, allowing for a more streamlined approach to quality assurance processes across departments (Figure 8.8). The institutions employ various IQA tools, including regular programme monitoring and programme reviews, along with faculty performance and student performance evaluations, ensuring a consistent focus on continuous improvement and accountability across academic programmes.
7.2.2 IQA Policy
The adoption of official IQA policies has been widespread among Asian TEI s, reflecting an institutional commitment to structured quality assurance. The survey indicates that approximately 52 institutions (31%) established their IQA policies more than a decade ago, while 40 institutions (24%) implemented these within the last five years, highlighting both long-standing and recent efforts to formalise quality assurance mechanisms. The policies typically encompass key areas such as programme design, admission, student assessment, and teaching
As the period of policy updating, 40 institutions (24%) have opted for an annual update of their policies and 25 institutions (15%) report updating their policies every three to five years. Significantly, 65 institutions (39%) update their IQA policies “as needed”, indicating a preference for flexibility that allows these institutions to promptly respond to emerging educational needs rather than a fixed schedule (Figure 8.9). These findings illustrate a balanced strategy among Asian TEI s, with the flexibility to meet both immediate and long-term quality assurance needs.
7.2.3 Evaluation Processes
Evaluation processes are a core part of IQA activities, with most institutions undergoing regular external evaluations. 77 institutions (46%) had experienced an external review in 2022, while 31 institutions (19%) had been assessed during the last five years. National regulatory bodies (49%) and national quality assurance bodies (34%) serve as the principal external evaluators, while a minority of institutions (12%) collaborate with international accreditation bodies. External evaluations’ recommendations are typically included into institutional planning, with 59 institutions (35%) completely adjusting their annual plans to these suggestions, indicating the importance of external perspectives in establishing institutional quality standards.
Internally, top-level management plays a significant role in IQA processes, particularly in policy development and strategic planning. External stakeholders, particularly government representatives and faculty from other TEI s, play a prominent role in various IQA processes, especially in new programme design and approval.
7.2.5 Efficiency, Relevance, and Transformation
Efficiency in IQA is supported by financial resource allocations, with 62% of institutions indicating sufficient funding to conduct IQA activities effectively. Additionally, 54% of institutions have designated budget lines for IQA functions, signifying an institutional commitment to maintaining quality assurance as an integral part of their operations. The relevance of IQA practices is demonstrated through the alignment of institutional programmes with NQF s. Programme at the bachelor’s level shows a high degree of alignment, with 101 institutions fully conforming to the NQF s.
As for the transformative potential of IQA, it is evidenced by the proactive changes implemented by TEI s in response to both internal assessments and external evaluations. Additionally, periodic IQA recommendations are followed up in institutional planning by 46% of institutions, showing a commitment to continuous improvement. 31% of institutions reported involving faculty from other TEI s in the revision of programmes, ensuring that curricula remain relevant and responsive to academic and professional developments. This external input has led to a more dynamic and adaptable IQA system, where TEI s can quickly incorporate feedback and recommendations to improve teaching methodologies, research quality, and programme design. Despite these advancements, institutions still face challenges in maintaining consistent engagement from all stakeholders, which is essential for sustaining long-term transformative change.
7.2.6 Issues and Challenges
Engaging stakeholders poses an ongoing challenge for institutions implementing IQA systems. Internal stakeholders often face barriers, such as resistance to change by faculty members and staff and limited resources for implementation. Additionally, communication barriers and a lack of comprehensive understanding of IQA processes further complicate efforts to foster collaboration within the institution. For external stakeholders, institutions must navigate a complex landscape of diverse expectations, particularly from industry partners, government representatives, and accrediting bodies. Moreover, communication and coordination issues arise frequently, making it challenging
7.3 Results of Focus Group Discussions
7.3.1 Efficiency
Flexibility: An adoption of online review enhanced efficiency. With distance education and online learning becoming the “New Norm” globally in the post pandemic era, the EQAB s have swiftly adopted virtual and online review. This transition has not only improved operational efficiency but also reduced the risks of face-to-face interactions. For example, CEEI in China shared practical experiences of collaborating with the government while ensuring its independence. During the pandemic, CEEI conducted a series of virtual reviews by applying online platforms, effectively safeguarding the quality of Tertiary education; HEC in Pakistan introduced Pakistan’s “New Guideline” on self-evaluation initiatives, emphasising the importance of utilising online tools for self-evaluation and monitoring.
Despite the convenience brought by virtual review, the EQAB s also face challenges, such as technical barriers and communication difficulties. To overcome these, they actively cultivate flexibility and establish mutual trust with the TEI s. For instance, MNCEA in Mongolia discussed Mongolia’s participation in certification projects and emphasised the importance of building trust with the TEI s. Through regular online meetings, transparent evaluation processes, and timely feedback mechanisms, MNCEA has successfully established good relationships with the TEI s.
Responsiveness to social need and digitalisation is paramount. Consequently, digital transformation is one of the significant trends in current EQAB development. By adopting digital tools and technological means, the EQABS s can more effectively collect, analyse, and utilise data, thereby improving evaluation processes and enhancing operational efficiency. Take China for example, in 2022, EQEA began the new cycle of the evaluation by using new QA tools, the specific measures include enhancing the NDP for quality monitoring; introducing a new so called “1+3+3” internal and external evaluation system; utilising internet and big data to achieve integrated online and offline evaluation; and developing high-quality online training resources.
7.3.2 Relevance
Mutual Trust: Evolving from a top down to a collaborative QA model between EQABS s and TEI s. The IQA standards are understandably diverse reflecting
In most cases, accreditation or review is mandatory or at least imposed by some public authority as part of the government strategy to promote the quality of the tertiary education sector. The relationship between TEI s and EQAB s is complex, evolving, and characterised by a growing sense of mutual recognition and collaboration. EQA is shifting from a primarily formal, compliance-oriented process to a more balanced approach, as TEI s become better equipped to establish their own IQA systems within the broader quality framework. Increasing societal emphasis on quality, particularly employability, motivates TEI s to enhance their quality assurance systems, leveraging both internal and external evaluations as students prioritise quality when choosing their educational pathways. Participants view EQAB s as influential in advancing areas, like employability, sustainable development goals (SDG s), flexible learning, internationalisation, and digital and online education.
Stakeholders Involvement: Expanding students and employers’ participation in QA and enhancing evaluation effectiveness. More EQABS s in Asia have started to involve students in the QA process, collecting information through student surveys, interviews and feedback to enhance evaluation effectiveness. For example, VNUCE in Vietnam mentioned, while introducing Vietnam’s adherence to NQF, it also focuses on student involvement and feedback. Through regular student satisfaction surveys and course evaluation activities, EQAB s can promptly understand students’ needs and expectations, thereby continuously improving educational quality. Meanwhile, ONESQA in Thailand also tried to invite students to participate in discussions and evaluation activities to ensure that evaluation results are more comprehensive and objective. However, only in limited cases, students are afforded a bigger role in the development and review of curricula or in the review panel. Likewise, with employability becoming the dominant educational objective, perfunctory employer engagement is gaining more prominence to competences of graduates.
EQAB s are considering new emerging trends in the existing QA system. While the global educational environment continues to evolve, the EQAB s are constantly exploring and introducing new evaluation standards. Not only do these standards focus on educational quality itself, but they also cover various aspects, such as SDG s, social responsibility, micro-credentials, and distance education. For example, EQABS in China highlighted its initiatives in digital transformation, noting that these aim to support new evaluation standards and requirements. Likewise, ONESQA in Thailand presented joint certification projects with Japan and Taiwan, and plans for a maturity model certification system aligned with German external review standards.
Innovation is driving change of IQA within TEI s. In most cases, TEI s are extending and extrapolating their IQA s designed for conventional deliveries to include a diversity of learning modalities. Online modality has become increasingly widespread especially after the COVID19 pandemic with standards and policies still lagging. Some countries like Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia and Thailand are promoting short learning programmes which lead to stackable micro-credentials (MC s) in support of lifelong learning and widening access to TE. Malaysia has actively moved forward with IQA and EQA arrangements for MC s by TEI s and non-TEI providers. Besides, Malaysia adapted policies to address different TEI modalities (franchise, branch campuses, degree validation etc.) while others like Indonesia are evolving their own regulatory and QA frameworks to deal with liberalisation of the HE sectors. With a focus on outcomes/competency-based, student centred and focused on soft skills, TEI s are becoming more aligned, explicit and accountable for the learning outcomes of graduates.
8 Discussions and conclusion
8.1 The Critical Role of Student Engagement in Enhancing External Quality Assurance Effectiveness
A key point worth exploring further is the role and importance of student involvement in EQAB s’ operations. While EQAB s are striving to adapt to new standards and trends, students, as primary stakeholders in tertiary education, are often overlooked in actual decision-making processes for quality assurance. Not only does enhancing student involvement provide a more comprehensive feedback, but it also strengthens transparency and accountability of quality assurance. By enabling students to play a more proactive role in the evaluation and feedback processes, EQAB s can better ensure the practical effectiveness
However, this task poses significant challenges for Asia, particularly for East Asian countries, as it demands a thorough and multidimensional approach. As Hou et al. (2022) noted, “under the influence of cultural paternalism and policy contextualisation, several East Asian QA agencies did not involve students, nor plan to do so.” This reflects the enduring debate regarding students’ capacity to participate meaningfully in quality assurance processes and the roles they should adopt within such procedures (Hou et al., 2020b; Klemenčič, 2018). Thus, effective implementation requires comprehensive consideration of the depth of student involvement, the various modes of engagement, and the criteria for selecting student participants.
8.2 The Necessity of Institutionalising Internal Quality Assurance in TEIS
The development of QA systems in the Asia-Pacific region has matured significantly, with most countries having established their national QA agencies. Most TEI s accepted the need for external review as part of QA. However, the assurance of educational quality relies mainly on periodic assessments conducted by both EQAB s and TEI s. IQA within TEI s has yet to be fully institutionalised in several regions, with challenges arising from the lack of involvement of relevant stakeholders and limitations in internal communication and coordination. This study suggests that, while EQA conducted by EQAB s serves as an essential external oversight, the key to guaranteeing educational quality lies in whether TEI s can establish their own IQA mechanisms. Beyond the influence of national EQAB s, this study posits that implementing a self-accreditation system, as seen in contexts such as Taiwan and Malaysia, may encourage TEI s to establish more robust IQA systems. Alternatively, the design of indicators within EQA frameworks could prompt TEI s to adopt and implement internal QA concepts.
9 Conclusion
In order to enhance efficiency and accessibility, QA in the Asia-Pacific has been advanced through digital transformation, with an adoption of online review and assessment tools. The alignment of NQF s with international standards has strengthened recognition and mobility, while collaborative QA models have empowered institutions with robust IQA systems to gain self-accrediting status. Employers’ involvement in curriculum design also highlights a shift
In summary, this chapter concludes with reflections on the challenges faced by government-funded EQAB s and self-funded EQAB s in terms of efficiency, relevance, and capacity for transformation. It was found that despite significant progress made by the EQAB s in terms of flexibility and responsiveness, emerging trends and standards, and mutual trust, they still face challenges and difficulties. Currently, EQA and IQA moved into a collaborative mode and pay greater attention to new trends, such as digitalisation, SDG s, stakeholders’ engagement, alignment with qualification framework. Thus, some recommendations for EQAB s and TEI s in Asia Pacific are addressed as follows. First, the INQAAHE shall continue to play a significant role of connecting varying QA stakeholders. Second, QA professionalism and independence as the two core values shall support reliability and validity of QA systems. Third, both EQAB s and TEI s shall strengthen their capacities in digital transformation and technological innovation. Finally, it is imperative to engage varying stakeholders in EQA and IQA systems, particularly students and employers. Looking ahead, the EQAB s will continue to play important roles in safeguarding educational quality in Asia Pacific. Through continuous innovation and practice, the EQAB s will better adapt to changes and challenges in the global tertiary education, contributing more to a sustainable society.
References
Baer, J., & Martel, M. (2023). Spring 2023 snapshot on international educational exchange. Institute of International Education.
Cheok, M. (2017). Fifty years on, Southeast Asia emerges as global growth leader. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-06/fifty-years-on-southeast-asia-emerges-as-global-growth-leade
Davidson, H., & Lin. C.-H. (2024). Feature: Nation’s declining birthrate forces schools to close. Taipei Times. Retrieved November 2, 2024, from https://english.moe.go.kr/sub/infoRenewal.do?m=050101&page=050101&s=english
Harvey, L. (2004). Analytic quality glossary. http://qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Tertiary Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
Harvey, L., & Knight, P. T. (1996). Transforming tertiary education. Open University Press/Society for Research into Tertiary Education.
Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: Moving on. In Quality assurance in tertiary education: Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (pp. 225–245). Springer Netherlands.
Heilongjiang College of Construction. (2024). Establishing the “25512” internal quality assurance system to enhance college governance capabilities. Baijiahao. https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1796473368598783171
Hou, A. Y. C., Hill, C., Guo, C. Y., Tsai, S., & Justiniano Castillo, D. R. (2020b). A comparative study of relationship between the government and national quality assurance agencies in Australia, Japan, Malaysia and Taiwan: Policy change, governance models, emerging roles. Quality in Tertiary Education, 26(3), 284–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2020.1778613
Hou, A. Y. C., Hill, C., Lin, A. F. Y., & Justiniano, D. (2022). The battle for legitimacy of ‘student involvement’ in external quality assurance of Tertiary education from Asian QA perspectives–does policy contextualization matter? Journal of Asian Public Policy, 17(3), 666–684. https://doi.org/10.1080/17516234.2022.2092385
Hou, A. Y. C., Ince, M., Tasi, S., & Chiang, C. L. (2015). Quality assurance of quality assurance agencies from an Asian perspective: Regulation, autonomy and accountability. Asian Pacific Educational Review, 16, 95–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9358-9
Hou, A. Y. C., Lu, I. J. G., Chen, K. H. J., & Guo, C. Y. (2023). Roles of quality assurance and national qualification frameworks. In The oxford handbook of tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific region.
Hou, A. Y. C., Zhang, C., Justiniano, D., Lu, G. & Jun, G. (2020a). Internal and external quality assurance of tertiary education in the Asia-Pacific region. In Global trends in tertiary education quality assurance (pp. 168–224). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004440326_008
Hou, A. Y. C., Tao, C. H.-Y., Zhou, K. Z.-W., Lin, A. F.Y., Su, E. H. C., & Chen, Y. (2024). Evolution of quality assurance in tertiary education from INQAAHEGGP to ISG s − Are quality assurance agencies in Asia ready to the emerging modules? Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 26(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/JICE-09-2023-0022
International Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (INQAAHE). (2018). INQAAHE guidelines of good practice. INQAAHE.
International Network for Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education (INQAAHE). (2022). International standards and guidelines for quality assurance in tertiary education. INQAAHE. https://www.inqaahe.org/sites/default/files/INQAAHE-International-Standardsand-Guidelines-ISG.pdf
Jarvis, D. S. L. (2014). Regulating tertiary education: Quality assurance and neo-liberal managerialism in tertiary education – A critical introduction. Policy and Society, 33(3), 155–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2014.09.005
Kaiser, F., Melo, A. I., & Hou, A. Y. C. (2022). Are quality assurance and rankings useful tools to measure ‘new’ policy issues in tertiary education? The practices in Europe and Asia. European Journal of Tertiary Education, 12(1), 391–415. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2022.2094816
Karakhanyan, S., & Stensaker, B. (2020). External quality assurance: The landscape, the players and developmental trends. In Global trends in tertiary education quality assurance (pp. 11–36). Brill.
Klemenčič, M. (2018). The student voice in quality assessment and improvement. In Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in tertiary education (pp. 332–344). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Liu, S. Y. (2016). External tertiary education quality assurance system in China. Chinese Education & Society, 49(1–2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2016.1192380
Loukkola, T., Peterbauer, H., & Gover, A. (2020). Exploring tertiary education indicators. European University Association, 38(6), 1278–1300.
Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA). (2017). Code of practice for programme accreditation. https://www2.mqa.gov.my/qad/v2/2021/June/COPPA%202nd%20Ed%20110621.pdf
Martin, M., & Stella, A. (2007). External quality assurance in tertiary education: Making choices. Fundamentals of educational planning – 85. International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) UNESCO.
Matear, S. (2018). Evolving quality [Conference presentation]. The 10th Tertiary Education Conference on Innovation and developments in Teaching and Learning Quality Assurance, Macao Polytechnic Institute, Macao, China.
Ministry of Education of China. (1998). Tertiary education law of the people’s Republic of China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/sjzl_zcfg/zcfg_jyfl/202204/t20220421_620257.html
Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2011). Opinions on the evaluation of undergraduate teaching in regular tertiary education institutions. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A08/s7056/201802/t20180208_327120.html
Malaysia Qualifications Agency. (2020). Quality assurance framework for tertiary education. Ministry of Education Malaysia.
Ministry of Education of China. (2024). There are 291 million students enrolled in various levels and types of academic education nationwide – Basic Statistics on the Development of National Education in 2023 Released, People’s Daily Online, Beijing, China. http://www.moe.gov.cn/fbh/live/2024/55831/mtbd/202403/t20240301_1117755.html
Mok, K. H., Xiong, W., Ke, G., & Cheung, J. O. W. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on international Tertiary education and student mobility: Student perspectives from mainland China and Hong Kong. International Journal of Educational Research, 105, 101718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101718
Marnnoi, J., Jehma, H., & Marn-In, P. (2024). Examination of quality assurance mechanism in tertiary education: Comparative analysis of tertiary education frameworks in South Korea and Malaysia. European Journal of Education Studies, 11(8).
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2019). Better criteria for better evaluation: Revised evaluation criteria definitions and principles for use. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/15a9c26b-en
Programme for Research on Private Higher Education (PROPHE). (2024). Global private and total tertiary education enrollment by region and country, 2015. PROPHE. Retrieved November 1, 2024, from https://www.prophe.org/en/global-data/global-data/global-enrollment-by-region-and-country/
Sunarto, K. (2017). The rise of quality assurance in Indonesian tertiary education. In M. Shah & T. N. Quyen-Do (Eds.), The rise of quality assurance in Asian tertiary education. Chandos Publishing.
Shi, J., Luo, Y., Wen, W., & Guo, F. (2018). “Chapter 28: Governing quality in a transforming tertiary education system: The case of China”. In Research handbook on quality, performance and accountability in tertiary education. Edward Elgar Publishing. Retrieved July 4, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785369759.00039
Shin, J. C. (2018). Quality assurance systems as a tertiary education policy tool in Korea: international convergence and local contexts. International Journal of Educational Development, 63, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.005
Stensaker, B., Langfeldt, L., Harvey, L., Huisman, J., & Westerheijden, D. (2011). An in‐depth study on the impact of external quality assurance. Assessment & Evaluation in Tertiary Education, 36(4), 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903432074
Stewart-Rozema, J., & Pratts, C. (2023). International student enrollment statistics. Ministry of Education. Retrieved November 9, 2024, from https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/international-student-enrollment-statistics/
The Asahi Shimbun. (2024). Japan’s private universities fight to survive as penalties loom. The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved November 3, 2024, from https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15480870
Zhang, J. X. (2016). The path of connotation development with quality improvement as the core: The history of quality assurance in Chinese tertiary education. Regional Tertiary Education Prospects, 2020(1).