See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/284217681

Definitions of Quality in Higher Education: A Synthesis of the Literature

Article  in  Higher Learning Research Communications · September 2015

DOI: 10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244

CITATIONS READS
182 12,140

4 authors, including:

Laura Schindler
Laureate International Universities (LIU)
4 PUBLICATIONS   394 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Schindler on 19 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

Definitions of Quality in Higher Education:

A Synthesis of the Literature

Laura Schindler a, *, Sarah Puls-Elvidge a, Heather Welzant a, and Linda Crawford a

a
Academic Quality and Accreditation, Laureate Education, Inc., USA

Submitted: May 1, 2015 | Peer-reviewed: August 11, 2015 | Editor reviewed: 8/30/2013
Accepted: September 7, 2015 | Published: September 30, 2015

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a synthesis of the literature on defining quality in the
context of higher education. During a search for relevant literature, the authors intentionally cast
a wide net, beginning with a broad search in Google Scholar and followed by a narrower search
in educational databases, including Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete,
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and SAGE Premier. The authors identified both
peer-reviewed journal articles and publications from professional organizations, such as the
International Organization for Standardization. The paper begins with a discussion of the existing
challenges and strategies for defining quality. Next, the authors provide a conceptual model of
quality based on their review of the literature. Then, they examine some considerations for
defining quality assurance and provide recommendations to help bring greater clarity and
alignment to existing quality assurance practices. Their findings reveal important gaps in the
literature. First, more research is needed to determine the feasibility of developing a universal
definition of quality that would apply to different types of institutions in diverse geographic
locations. Second, more research is needed to better understand the influence of culture on the
use and meaning of quality terminology. Specifically, research is needed to determine whether
the terms, quality and quality assurance, are applicable across cultures and, if so, whether there
are distinct regional and national meanings of these terms. Finally, the relationship between
quality assurance and accreditation in the literature is unclear.

Keywords: Higher education quality; quality assurance; quality definition; quality

conceptual model; quality indicators

Introduction

In 1985, Ball asked, “What the hell is quality?” Thirty years later, those in higher education
are still trying to answer this question. Undoubtedly, defining quality continues to be difficult, with
some asserting that quality can neither be defined nor quantified and others asserting that quality
is subjective and dependent upon individual perspectives (American Society for Quality, n.d.;
Bobby, 2014; Martin & Stella, 2007; Mishra, 2007; Westerheijden, Stensaker, & Rosa, 2007).
Despite the lack of consensus, it is important to have an awareness of the existing definitions in
the literature, specifically when tasked with developing one’s own set of definitions.

*Corresponding author ([email protected])

Suggested citation: Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher
education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 3-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244
www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access

The aim of this paper is to provide a synthesis of the literature on defining quality in the
context of higher education. In the search for relevant literature, the authors intentionally cast a
wide net, beginning with a broad search in Google Scholar followed by a narrower search in
educational databases, including Academic Search Complete, Education Research Complete,
Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), and SAGE Premier. The authors identified both
peer-reviewed journal articles and publications from professional organizations, such as the
International Organization for Standardization. The article begins with a discussion of the existing
challenges and strategies for defining quality. Next, the authors provide a conceptual model of
quality based on their review of the literature. Finally, they examine some considerations for
defining quality assurance.

Challenges to Defining Quality

There are many significant challenges to defining quality. First, quality is an elusive term
for which there is a wide variety of interpretations depending upon the views of different
stakeholders (Bobby, 2014; Campbell & Rozsnyai, 2002; Cullen, Joyce, Hassall, & Broadbent,
2003; Harvey & Green, 1993; Kemenade, Pupius, & Hardjono, 2008; Martin & Stella, 2007;
Newton, 2010; Vlăsceanu, Grünberg, & Pârlea, 2007). There are four groups of stakeholders that
must be considered when defining quality: providers (e.g., funding bodies and the community,
taxpayers); users of products (e.g., students); users of outputs (e.g., employers); and employees
of the sector (e.g., academics and administrators; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2003). Each group
has a different perspective on quality. For example, students associate quality with the institution
they attend, the program in which they enroll, and the course they complete. Conversely,
employers are concerned with quality in terms of the final product, which can be demonstrated
through a qualified employee pool (Harvey & Knight, 1996). Therefore, in order to define quality
and attempt to establish a culture of quality in higher education, all stakeholders should be
involved in the discussion to ensure that different perspectives and needs are incorporated
(Bobby, 2014; Cullen et al., 2003).

A second challenge is that quality is a multidimensional concept (Green, 1994; Vlăsceanu

et al., 2007; Westerheijden, et al., 2007). Therefore, reducing the concept to a one-sentence
definition is problematic. In some cases, such definitions are one-dimensional, lack meaning and
specificity, or are too general to be operationalized (Eagle & Brennan, 2007). For example, the
following definition of quality is written so broadly that it is difficult to decipher its meaning or how
it could be consistently applied in higher education: “the embodiment of the essential nature of a
person, collective, object, action, process or organization” (Harvey, 2014, “Quality”). A third
challenge is that quality is not a static but rather a dynamic, ever-changing pursuit of excellence
that must be considered in the context of the larger educational, economic, political, and social
landscape (Bobby, 2014; Ewell, 2010; Harvey, 2005; Harvey & Williams, 2010; Opre & Opre,
2006; Singh, 2010). For example, dwindling public trust in higher education has prompted
institutions to refocus efforts on producing concrete evidence of student learning to funding bodies
and customers rather than focusing on achieving prestige (Amaral & Rosa, 2010; Ewell, 2010).
Given the challenges of defining quality, there are a number of disparate definitions in the
literature. In the next section, themes across definitions and strategies used to define quality are
examined.

Definitions of Quality

After reviewing the literature, the authors noted two strategies for defining quality. The first
is to construct a broad definition that targets one central goal or outcome, such as fulfilling a stated
mission or vision (Bogue, 1998; Harvey & Green, 1993). There are 13 broadly constructed

4 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education…

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

definitions of quality in the literature reviewed. Some definitions are primarily standards-driven,
focusing on meeting a pre-defined set of standards, specifications, and requirements, or focusing
on exceeding the highest standards in pursuit of excellence and exclusivity (Cheng & Tam, 1997;
Garvin, 1987; Green, 1994; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Martin & Stella, 2007;
Peterson, 1999; Vlăsceanu et al., 2007). Conversely, other definitions are primarily stakeholder-
driven, focusing on accountability to the public or providing a transformative learning experience
to benefit students and employers (Bogue, 1998; Harvey, 2005; Haworth & Conrad, 1997; Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2012; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002, 2004, 2007).

When the authors examined the definitions in totality, several themes emerged. For
example, as shown in Table 1, the literature revealed four broad conceptualizations of quality:
quality as purposeful, exceptional, transformative, and accountable. The conceptualizations are
consistent with those originally developed in the 1990s (Green, 1994; Harvey & Green, 1993;
Harvey & Knight, 1996) despite a number of newer publications on quality in recent years, which
suggests that the meaning of quality in higher education has remained relatively stable for the
past 20 years. It is worth noting, however, that there is a trend in many of the newer publications
towards stakeholder-driven definitions of quality (Bobby, 2014; Harvey, 2005; Nicholson, 2011;
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2012; Srikanthan & Dalrymple, 2002, 2004,
2005, 2007). This trend is consistent with educational changes in the United Kingdom and United
States over the past 20 years in which, to bolster public trust, institutions were compelled to
demonstrate quality through evidence of student learning as opposed to relying on accrediting
bodies to confirm quality based on adherence to pre-defined standards (Amaral & Rosa, 2010;
Ewell, 2010; Harvey, 2005).

Table 1. Classifications of Quality

Classifications Definitions
Purposeful Institutional products and services conform to a stated mission/vision or a set of
specifications, requirements, or standards, including those defined by accrediting
and/or regulatory bodies (Cheng & Tam, 1997; Commonwealth of Learning,
2009; Green, 1994; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Peterson,
1999)
Exceptional Institutional products and services achieve distinction and exclusivity through the
fulfillment of high standards (Bogue, 1998; Cheng & Tam, 1997; Green, 1994;
Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Peterson, 1999)
Transformative Institutional products and services effect positive change in student learning
(affective, cognitive, and psychomotor domains) and personal and professional
potential (Biggs, 2001; Bobby, 2014; Bogue, 1998; Green, 1994; Harvey &
Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Haworth & Conrad, 1997; Pond, 2002;
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2012; Srikanthan & Dalrymple,
2002, 2004, 2005, 2007)
Accountable Institutions are accountable to stakeholders for the optimal use of resources and
the delivery of accurate educational products and services with zero defects
(American Society for Quality, n.d.; Cheng & Tam, 1997; Green, 1994; Harvey,
2005; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Nicholson, 2011)

The second strategy for defining quality is to identify specific indicators that reflect desired
inputs (e.g., responsive faculty and staff) and outputs (e.g., employment of graduates) (Barker,
2002; Cheng & Tam, 1997; Lagrosen, Seyyed-Hashemi, & Leitner, 2004; Oldfield & Baron, 2000;
Scott, 2008; Tam, 2010; Vlăsceanu et al., 2007). Many of the publications and quality assurance

L. Schindler, H. Welzant, S. Puls-Elvidge, and L. Crawford

5
www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access

models from the past decade reflect this strategy. For example, the Quality Matters Rubric does
not include a broad definition of quality, but does include specific standards that articulate
indicators of quality (e.g., “A variety of instructional materials is used in the course”; Quality
Matters, 2014). There are over 50 specific quality indicators in the literature we reviewed. After
reviewing all of the indicators, we identified four distinct categories: administrative, student
support, instructional, and student performance indicators (Table 2). The first three categories
primarily address the desired inputs, such as educational resources available to students. The
last category, student performance, focuses more on outputs, such as gains in learning, which
reflects the trends in assessing student outcomes to assure quality (Tam, 2014).

Table 2. Categories of Quality Indicators

Categories Definitions
Administrative A set of quality indicators that pertain to the administrative functions of an
Indicators institution, including developing a relevant mission and vision, establishing
institutional legitimacy, achieving internal/external standards and goals, and
procuring resources for optimal institutional functioning (Cheng & Tam, 1997;
Commonwealth of Learning, 2009; Hill, Lomas, & MacGregor, 2003; Iacovidou,
Gibbs, & Zopiatis, 2009; Mishra, 2007; Online Learning Consortium, 2014; Owlia &
Aspinwall, 1996; Zineldin, Akdag, & Vasicheva, 2011)

Student Support A set of quality indicators that pertain to the availability and responsiveness of
Indicators student support services (e.g., the degree to which student complaints are
adequately addressed; Garvin, 1987; Hill et al., 2003; Iacovidou et al., 2009;
International Organization for Standardization, n.d.; Lagrosen et al., 2004; Mishra,
2007; National Institute of Standards and Technology, 2015; Oldfield & Baron,
2000; Online Learning Consortium, 2014; Owlia & Aspinwall, 1996; Quality Matters,
2014; Wong, 2012; Zineldin et al., 2011)

Instructional A set of quality indicators that pertain to the relevancy of educational content and
Indicators the competence of instructors (e.g., programs and courses that prepare students
for employment; Biggs, 2001; Commonwealth of Learning, 2009; Harvey & Green,
1993; Hill et al., 2003; Iacovidou et al., 2009; Online Learning Consortium, 2014;
Quality Matters, 2014; Tam, 2014; Wong, 2012)

Student A set of quality indicators that pertain to student engagement with curriculum,
Performance faculty, and staff, and increases in knowledge, skills, and abilities that lead to
Indicators gainful employment (e.g., increased critical thinking skills; Bogue, 1998; Cheng &
Tam, 1997; Harvey & Green, 1993; Harvey & Knight, 1996; Haworth & Conrad,
1997; Iacovidou et al., 2009; Scott, 2008)

Conceptual Model of Quality

Adequately defining quality requires both a broad strategy to target central goals and
outcomes and a specific strategy to identify quality indicators that can be used to assess whether
the identified goals and outcomes have been achieved. It also requires careful consideration of
various stakeholder perspectives. Based on the review of the literature, the authors developed a
conceptual model of quality that illustrates the interrelationships between these strategies. As
shown in Figure 1, the core of the model reflects the importance of eliciting stakeholder
perspectives, which should drive the definition of quality and the indicators used to measure
quality (Bobby, 2014; Cullen et al., 2003). The next portion of the model contains four broad
conceptualizations of quality discussed earlier in this paper (quality as purposeful, transformative,

6 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education…

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

exceptional, and accountable). The outer portion of the model contains examples of quality
indicators that could be used to assess each of the broad conceptualizations. In summary, the
model depicts the importance of a multifaceted approach to defining quality, which requires
eliciting stakeholder perspectives to develop a broad conceptualization of quality and to
accurately select specific indicators to measure that conceptualization of quality.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of quality depicting broad and specific strategies for defining quality.

Implications for Quality Assurance

Defining quality is an important prerequisite for defining quality assurance. After all, one
must know what quality is before determining how to assure it. While defining quality assurance
poses some significant challenges due to the wide range of existing definitions, there are some
common structural elements across definitions (Figure 2). First, many existing definitions
emphasize that quality assurance is a set of processes, policies, or actions performed externally
by quality assurance agencies and accrediting bodies or internally within the institution (Borahan
& Ziarati, 2002; Commonwealth of Learning, 2009; Opre & Opre, 2006; Peterson, 1999; Quality
Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2012; Vlăsceanu et al., 2007). Second, many existing
definitions of quality assurance include aspects of quality that pertain to accountability and/or
continuous improvement. Traditional definitions of quality assurance have focused on
accountability; however, there are increasing demands for a greater emphasis on continuous
improvement as well (Campbell & Rozsnyai, 2002; Nicholson, 2011; Singh, 2010; Srikanthan &
Dalrymple, 2004). Finally, some definitions of quality assurance are broadly constructed (e.g.,
“policies and processes directed to ensuring the maintenance and enhancing of quality”; Opre &
Opre, 2006, p. 422) while others identify specific aspects of quality that will be assured (e.g.,

L. Schindler, H. Welzant, S. Puls-Elvidge, and L. Crawford

7
www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access

“policies and mechanisms implemented in an institution or programme 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”; Martin & Stella, 2007, p. 34). Developing more specific and
multidimensional definitions of quality assurance may be beneficial for achieving greater
transparency and alignment to definitions of quality developed collaboratively with stakeholders.

Figure 2. Common structural elements of existing quality assurance definitions.

Another consideration related to defining quality assurance is regional context. In some

regions, the terms quality assurance and accreditation are used synonymously while in other
regions the terms are distinct (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005).
For example, Vlăsceanu et al. (2007) defined quality assurance as “an ongoing, continuous
process of evaluating (assessing, monitoring, guaranteeing, maintaining, and improving) the
quality of a higher education system” (p. 48) and accreditation as “the process by which a (non-)
governmental or private body evaluates the quality of a higher education institution … in order to
formally recognize it as having met certain predetermined minimal criteria or standards” (p. 37).
There are striking similarities between these definitions. Conversely, the American Council on
Education (2015) saw accreditation as a basis for quality in higher education institutions, but
suggests that meeting accreditation standards may be insufficient for demonstrating overall
institutional and programmatic quality. Therefore, a definition of quality assurance must be
developed with regional context in mind.

Conclusion

Defining quality and quality assurance in the context of higher education continues to pose
significant challenges. A review of the literature confirms that there is still no consensus on a
definition of quality; however, there are themes in how quality is conceptualized and assessed in
higher education, as shown in Figure 1. Specifically, the literature suggests that there are four
broad conceptualizations of quality (quality as purposeful, transformative, exceptional, and
accountable) and a set of quality indicators used to assess each of the broad conceptualizations.
The literature also suggests that there are structural themes in existing definitions of quality

8 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education…

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

assurance, wherein the first element of definitions focus on processes, policies, or actions and
the second element of definitions specify aspects of quality that pertain to accountability and/or
continuous improvement.

This article has several implications for institutions and quality assurance practitioners. As
discussed in the beginning of this article, some have argued that quality is indefinable; however,
given the increasing public and governmental interest in quality in higher education, this argument
may no longer be acceptable. Institutions must be able to provide evidence to support claims of
quality, which often includes systematic assessment of quality. One must be able to define quality
in order to assess it. As shown in Table 3, the authors have recommendations for defining quality
and quality assurance depending on the existing state of quality initiatives at an institution. The
aim of the recommendations for definition quality and quality assurance is to meet institutions and
quality assurance practitioners where they are in an effort to help them bring greater clarity and
alignment to existing quality assurance practices. In addition, the recommendations must be
considered in the context of institutional mission and existing cultural, regulatory, and political
environments.
Table 3. Recommendations for Defining Quality

Existing State of Quality Assurance Recommendation

Initiatives
Institution does not have a definition of Use one or more of the broad conceptualizations of
quality or a set of indicators to assess quality in the conceptual model (Figure 1) to define quality
quality at your institution. Then identify a set of observable quality
indicators that accurately assess quality as described in
the definition.
Institution has a definition of quality, but Review the existing definition of quality against the
no indicators to assess quality conceptual model (Figure 1). Determine if there are any
gaps in the existing definition and, if necessary, revise the
definition. Then, using a deductive approach, identify a set
of observable quality indicators that accurately assess
quality as described in the existing definition.
Institution has indicators to assess Use an inductive approach to develop a definition of
quality, but no definition of quality quality that aligns with existing indicators of quality.
Review the existing definition of quality and the identified
quality indicators against the conceptual model (Figure 1)
to determine if there are any gaps and, if necessary, make
revisions to the definition and/or indicators.

The article also has several implications for future research on quality in higher education.
First, more research is needed to determine the feasibility of developing a universal definition of
quality that would apply to different types of institutions in diverse geographic locations. Also worth
considering are the disadvantages of creating one definition of quality, given the potential reliance
on broad language that may be too vague to convey any significant meaning. Second, more
research is needed to better understand the influence of culture on the use and meaning of quality
terminology. Specifically, research is needed to determine whether the terms, quality and quality
assurance, are applicable across cultures and, if so, whether there are distinct regional and
national meanings of these terms. Finally, the relationship between quality assurance and
accreditation is unclear. In some instances, the terms quality assurance and accreditation are
used interchangeably, while in others these terms are considered distinct and separate (Danø &
Bjørn, 2007; Lamarra, 2009; Mishra, 2007; Wells, 2014). Therefore, additional research is needed
to determine how these terms are related and whether they are universally distinct.

L. Schindler, H. Welzant, S. Puls-Elvidge, and L. Crawford

9
www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access

References

Amaral, A., & Rosa, M. (2010). Recent trends in quality assurance. Quality in Higher Education, 16, 59-61.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679515

American Council on Education. (2015). International higher education partnerships: A global review of
standards and practices. Washington, DC: Author.

American Society for Quality. (n.d.). Quality glossary. Retrieved from http://asq.org/glossary/q.html

Ball, C. (1985). What the hell is quality? In C. Ball & D. Urwin (Eds.), Fitness for purpose: Essays in higher
education (pp. 96-102). Guildford: Society for Research into Higher Education & NFER-Nelson.

Barker, K. C. (2002, January). Canadian recommended e-learning guidelines. Vancouver, BC: FuturEd for
Canadian Association for Community Education and Office of Learning Technologies, HRDC.

Biggs, J. (2001). The reflective institution: Assuring and enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.
Higher Education, 41, 221–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1004181331049

Bobby, C.L. (2014). The abcs of building quality cultures for education in a global world. Paper presented
at the International Conference on Quality Assurance, Bangkok, Thailand.

Bogue, G. (1998). Quality assurance in higher education: The evolution of systems and design ideals. New
Directions for Institutional Research, 99, 7–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ir.9901

Borahan, N.G. & Ziarati, R. (2002). Developing quality criteria for application in higher education sector in
Turkey. Total Quality Management, 13(7), 913–926.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0954412022000017021

Campbell, C. & Rozsnyai, C. (2002). Quality assurance and the development of course programmes.
Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.

Cheng, Y., & Tam, W. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, 5(1),
22–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156558

Commonwealth of Learning (2009). Quality assurance toolkit: Distance higher education institutions and
programmes. Retrieved from http://www.col.org/

Cullen, J., Joyce, J., Hassall, T., & Broadbent, M. (2003). Quality in higher education: From monitoring to
management. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 5–14.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462038

Danø, T., and Bjørn, S. (2007). Still balancing improvement and accountability? Developments in external
quality assurance in Nordic countries 1996–2006. Quality in Higher Education, 13(1), 81–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320701272839

Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality
Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880710723025

10 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education…

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

Ewell, P. (2010). Twenty years of quality assurance in higher education: What’s happened and what’s
different? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 173–175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485728

Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, 65(6), 101–
109.

Green, D. (Ed.). (1994). What is Quality in Higher Education? London, UK: Society for Research into Higher
Education & Open University Press.

Harvey, L. (2005). A history and critique of quality evaluation in the UK. Quality Assurance in Education,
13(4), 263–276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880510700608

Harvey, L. (2014). Analytic quality glossary. Retrieved from

http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/

Harvey, L. & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–
34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102

Harvey, L. & Knight, P.T. (1996). Transforming higher education. London, UK: Society for Research into
Higher Education & Open University Press.

Harvey, L., & Williams, J. (2010). Fifteen years of quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education,
16(1), 3–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679457

Haworth, J. G., & Conrad, C. F. (1997). Emblems of quality in higher education: Developing and sustaining
high-quality programs. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.

Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462047

Iacovidou, M., Gibbs, P., & Zopiatis, A. (2009). An explanatory use of the stakeholder approach to defining
and measuring quality: The case of a cypriot higher education institution. Quality in Higher
Education, 15(2), 147–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320902995774

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). (n.d.). Quality management principles. Retrieved from
http://www.iso.org/

Kemenade, E., Pupius, M., & Hardjono, T. (2008). More value to defining quality. Quality in Higher
Education, 14(2), 175–185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320802278461

Lagrosen, S., Seyyed-Hashemi, R., & Leitner, M. (2004). Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 12(2), 61–69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880410536431

Lamarra, N. F. (2009). Higher education quality assurance processes in Latin America: A comparative
perspective. Policy Futures in Education, 7(5), 486–497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2009.7.5.486

L. Schindler, H. Welzant, S. Puls-Elvidge, and L. Crawford

11
www.hlrcjournal.com Open Access

Martin, M. & Stella, A. (2007). External quality assurance in higher education: Making choices. Paris,
France: United Nations.

Mishra, S. (2007). Quality assurance in higher education: An introduction. Bangalore, India: National
Assessment and Accreditation Council.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (2015). 2015–2016 baldrige excellence framework: A
systems approach to improving your organization's performance (education). Gaithersburg, MD:
Author.

Newton, J. (2010). A tale of two ‘qualitys’: Reflections on the quality revolution of higher education. Quality
in Higher Education, 16(1), 51–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538321003679499

Nicholson, K. (2011). Quality assurance in higher education: A review of the literature. Retrieved from
http://cll.mcmaster.ca/

Oldfield, B.M. & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and
management faculty. Quality Assurance Education, 8(2), 85–95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880010325600

Online Learning Consortium (2014). Quality scorecard. Newburyport, MA: Author.

Opre, A. & Opre, D. (2006). Quality assurance in higher education: Professional development. Cognition,
Brain, and Behavior, X(3), 421–438.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005). Guidelines for quality provision in cross-
border higher education. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/

Owlia, M.S. & Aspinwall, E.M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality
Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889610116012

Peterson (1999). Internationalizing quality assurance in higher education. Washington, DC: Council for
Higher Education Accreditation. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889910269579

Pond, W. (2002). Distributed education in the 21st century: Implications for quality assurance. Online
Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 5(2).

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2012). The UK quality code for higher education: A brief
guide. Retrieved from http://he.macclesfield.ac.uk/

Quality Matters (2014). Quality matters higher education rubric. Annapolis, MD: Author.

Scott, G. (2008). University student engagement and satisfaction with learning and teaching. Sydney:
University of Western Sydney.

Singh, M. (2010). Quality assurance in higher education: Which pasts to build on, what futures to
contemplate? Quality in Higher Education, 16(2), 189–194.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538322.2010.485735

12 Definitions of Quality in Higher Education…

View publication stats

High. Learn. Res. Commun. Volume 5, Num. 3 | September 2015

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2002). Developing a holistic model for quality in higher education. Quality
in Higher Education, 8(3), 215–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832022000031656

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2003). Developing alternative perspectives for quality in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 126–136.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540310467804

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2004). A synthesis of a quality management model for education in
universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 266–279.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540410538859

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2005). Implementation of a holistic model for quality in higher education.
Quality in Higher Education, 11(1), 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320500077686

Srikanthan, G., & Dalrymple, J. (2007). A conceptual overview of a holistic model for quality in higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(3), 173–193.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09513540710738647

Tam, M. (2010). Measuring quality and performance in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1),
47–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320120045076

Tam, M. (2014). Outcomes-based approach to quality assessment and curriculum improvement in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 22(2), 158–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-
2011-0059

Vlăsceanu, L., Grünberg, L., & Pârlea, D. (2007). Quality assurance and accreditation: A glossary of basic
terms and definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO.

Wells, P. J. (2014). The DNA of a converging diversity: Regional approaches to quality assurance in higher
education. Retrieved from http://www.chea.org/

Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B. & Rosa, M. (2007). Introduction. In D. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker, &
M. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education (pp. 1–11). Dordrecht: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6012-0

Wong, V. Y. (2012). An alternative view of quality assurance and enhancement. Management in Education,
26(1), 38–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0892020611424608

Zineldin, M., Akdag, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for
evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231–243.

L. Schindler, H. Welzant, S. Puls-Elvidge, and L. Crawford

13