Page 119 - Proceedings-edit-2021_09_20-final

© Proceedings of the Ruhuna Quality Assurance Sessions 2021 (RUQAS 2021)
st
21 September 2021

student and resource barriers in delivering a high quality education. It can be further stated that
identifying strengths and weaknesses in quality assurance practice is the major responsibility of the

internal QA system. The study also suggests improving the internal QA system by adding the criteria

of teaching, learning and assessment procedure, assessment method of student progress and
achievement, research and extension, curriculum content, design and review based on graduate profile.

References

Anderson, G. (2006) Assuring Quality/Resisting Quality Assurance: Academics’ responses to ‘quality’

in some Australian universities, Quality in Higher Education, 12(2), p161-173.

Coomaraswamy, U., Jayatilleke, G. and Abeygunawardena, H. (2014) Manual for Quality Assurance

of External Degree Programmes and Extension Courses Offered by Universities, 1st ed.; University
Grants Commission: Colombo, Sri Lanka, Chapter 4, p57–70.

Edgar J., Anderson-K.N., Turner D. and Black, J. (2015) FINAL REPORT: Student Engagement in

Quality Assurance in the context of State Universities in Sri Lanka, University of the West of Scotland.

Shah, M., Nair, S. and Wilson, M. (2011) Quality assurance in Australian higher education: Historical

and future development, Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. , 12, p475–483.

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

Westerheijden, D.F., Hulpiau, V. and Waeytens, K. (2007) “From Design and Implementation to

Impact of Quality Assurance: An Overview of Some Studies into What Impacts Improvement”,

Tertiary Education and Management, 13(4), p295–312.

102