Although the academics welcomed some broader aspects of quality assurance, they were uncomfortable when
the procedures impacted directly on them and threatened their autonomy or were under scrutiny, perhaps, indicating
insecurity. There was also a general feeling that quality assurance procedures and processes were being
implemented at a time when academic standards were dropping and the development needs of the academic to cope
with new demands were not being catered for. As Respondent D comments “You also have to look at the people in
the front line delivering the service, the lecturers, there should be an equal focus in that direction as well”.
The findings were consistent with Trowler’s (1998) and Henkel’s work (2000) in that it was difficult to identify
one unifying academic response to change. Although there were attempts to consult with the academics in the
development of quality assurance procedures, the direction and momentum for change came from the top. There did
not appear to be any significant attempt to understand the academics viewpoint on quality assurance and the
objective appeared to be one of getting the academics to agree with managements’ view and have the procedures
and processes implemented on schedule. The academics appeared to accept this at an early stage and retreated to the
sanctuary of the classroom where they felt they retained control, “it was a fait accompli” (Respondent C) and
adopted an approach of ambivalence/passiveness towards meetings, consultations etc. Therefore, a consultation
process must be meaningful to ensure engagement from staff.
The adoption of quality assurance procedures is only one phase of the quality assurance implementation process.
The procedures still have to be implemented and it is at this stage, in the classroom, “cocooned in their own syllabi”
(Respondent E) where the academic indicated they were still in charge and could influence change.
Although the academics welcomed some broader aspects of quality assurance, they were uncomfortable whenthe procedures impacted directly on them and threatened their autonomy or were under scrutiny, perhaps, indicatinginsecurity. There was also a general feeling that quality assurance procedures and processes were beingimplemented at a time when academic standards were dropping and the development needs of the academic to copewith new demands were not being catered for. As Respondent D comments “You also have to look at the people inthe front line delivering the service, the lecturers, there should be an equal focus in that direction as well”.The findings were consistent with Trowler’s (1998) and Henkel’s work (2000) in that it was difficult to identifyone unifying academic response to change. Although there were attempts to consult with the academics in thedevelopment of quality assurance procedures, the direction and momentum for change came from the top. There didnot appear to be any significant attempt to understand the academics viewpoint on quality assurance and theobjective appeared to be one of getting the academics to agree with managements’ view and have the proceduresand processes implemented on schedule. The academics appeared to accept this at an early stage and retreated to thesanctuary of the classroom where they felt they retained control, “it was a fait accompli” (Respondent C) andนำวิธีการของ ambivalence/passiveness ต่อประชุม ให้คำปรึกษากับฯลฯ ดังนั้น ให้คำปรึกษากระบวนการต้องมีความหมายให้หมั้นจากเจ้าหน้าที่ของกระบวนการประกันคุณภาพเป็นขั้นตอนเดียวของกระบวนการดำเนินงานประกันคุณภาพยังมีกระบวนการที่จะปฏิบัติ และก็อยู่ในขั้นตอนนี้ ในห้องเรียน "cocooned ใน syllabi ของพวกเขาเอง"(ตอบ E) ที่ศึกษาการแสดงพวกเขาก็ยังอยู่ในค่าธรรมเนียม และสามารถมีอิทธิพลต่อการเปลี่ยนแปลง
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..