Quality Framework of Higher Education in Vietnam, Malaysia and Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate how Vietnam, Malaysia and Nigeria quality assurance agencies operate towards ensuring quality in higher education institutions. Quality assurance systems was investigated with respect to social demands and it was compared based on the key concepts: autonomy, accountability and improvement. The study relied on qualitative document analysis methods and was conducted on relevant higher education and policy, quality assurance systems of Viet Nam Ministry Education and Training, quality assurance of National Universities Commission, National Board for Technical Education of Nigeria and Malaysian Qualification Agency respectively and their challenges were assessed and compared. There are deals of convergence between Quality Assurance systems of Viet Nam, Malaysia and Nigeria. Viet Nam and Malaysia has a single Quality Assurance system while Nigeria has multi Quality Assurance systems. In all three countries’ Quality Assurance systems made achievements in terms of autonomy, accountability and improvement. In Vietnam, Vietnamese Qualification Agency: internal Quality Assurance is embedded within an accreditation system, but still requires a recognition external quality assurance agency. In Malaysia, Malaysian Qualification Agency: internal Quality Assurance is embedded within accreditation system and reduced the involvement of external Quality Assurance agency. In Nigeria, the National Universities Commission, National Board for Technical Education and National Commission for Colleges of Education of Nigeria provides guidelines for higher education institutions to assist build their internal Quality Assurance. Vietnam and Malaysia Quality Assurance experienced accountability being demonstrated for continuous improvement while Nigeria Quality Assurance accountability is seen with invisible improvement due to challenges associated with the quality frameworks. The study gives appreciated vision into Quality Assurance systems and frameworks of higher education institutions and how Quality Assurance responds to the social demands of stakeholders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".