Abstract
The credit-modular system is now the standard structure of higher education in Uzbekistan, but its value depends on external quality assurance (EQA): the standards, accreditation, and recognition that turn a credit into a unit of trust. This article argues that EQA works as a transmission mechanism that should carry quality from the system level down to module-level practice, and that this mechanism characteristically fails at the outcome level, producing a policy–practice gap. Using a qualitative comparative document analysis, the study examines Malaysia as a middle-income case in which the mechanism transmits, and compares it with Uzbekistan, where the external machinery has only recently been built. The findings show that Malaysia’s strength lies not in its agency alone but in a single connective instrument, the Malaysian Qualifications Framework, which ties credits to learning outcomes and embeds them in accreditation. Uzbekistan has established an independent national quality agency and a state accreditation system, but it has not yet built this connective framework, and its indicators remain input-oriented. The article concludes that Uzbekistan should add the connective framework and an enhancement orientation; without them, reform risks isomorphic mimicry, in which EQA looks complete but does not improve learning.
Keywords
This article examines the relationship between credit-modular systems and external quality assurance, focusing on two very different countries: Malaysia and Uzbekistan.
A credit-modular system, which most universities now use, can divide a program into modules and gives each one a credit value. However, this structure alone cannot guarantee quality. Something from outside is needed — standards, accreditation, recognition — and this is what the author calls external quality assurance, or EQA. EQA is described like a "transmission mechanism". It should carry quality from the top, where policy is made, down to the bottom, where students actually study. The problem, as it is shown by the author, is that this mechanism often works well at the structural level (rules, procedures, paperwork) but fails at the outcome level, where real learning is supposed to be checked. This gap between policy and practice is the central concern of the whole article. To explore this issue, a qualitative comparative document analysis was conducted. Official documents, laws, and guidelines from both countries were studied and compared. Malaysia was chosen not because it is perfect but because it represents a middle-income country that has already built a working system, the Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF). This framework connects credit, learning outcomes, and accreditation into one single structure so that a credit can never be separated from the outcome it is supposed to represent. Uzbekistan, on the other hand, is presented as a country that has moved very fast — maybe too fast. In 2025, a new National Agency for the Assurance of Education Quality was created, and dozens of institutions entered accreditation almost immediately. It is argued quite convincingly that Uzbekistan has built the machinery of EQA, but it has not built the connective instrument, a national qualifications framework like Malaysia's, that would actually link credits with outcomes. Without it, there is a risk of what the article calls "isomorphic mimicry": a system that looks complete on paper, while learning quality is not really improved. The discussion section is probably the strongest part. It is explained there why even Malaysia, with its more developed framework, still struggles with compliance burdens and graduate skill mismatches. So the lesson for Uzbekistan is not just to "copy Malaysia", but rather to build the connective framework AND keep an enhancement orientation, not only a control-based one. Overall, the article is theoretically grounded (using Donabedian's Structure-Process-Outcome model and ideas of policy borrowing), but it stays practical and relevant for a country undergoing reform right now. It ends with a promise of further research, where the internal mechanisms — like assessment design and learning analytics — will be studied at the institutional level.
References
1. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Decree No. PF-5847: On approval of the Concept for the development of the higher education system of the Republic of Uzbekistan until 2030. Lex.uz, 2019. 2. Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan., Resolution No. 824: On measures to improve the system related to the organization of the educational process in higher education institutions. Lex.uz, 2020. 3. Government of Uzbekistan., Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan “On Education”. Lex.uz, 2020. 4. European Commission., ECTS users’ guide 2015. Publications Office of the European Union, 2015. 5. Kehm, B. M., Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B., The impact of the Bologna Process on European higher education. Springer, 2018. 6. OECD., Micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. OECD Publishing, 2021. 7. UNESCO., Guidelines on the development and recognition of micro-credentials. UNESCO, 2022. 8. President of the Republic of Uzbekistan., Decree No. PR-275: On the establishment of the National Agency for the Assurance of Education Quality. Lex.uz, 2025. 9. Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan., Resolution No. 498: On the introduction of a system of institutional (complex) state and program state accreditation of educational organizations. Lex.uz, 2025. 10. Kehm, B. M., Huisman, J., & Stensaker, B., The impact of the Bologna Process on European higher education. Springer, 2018. 11. Tran, C. A., Research in higher education quality assurance worldwide: A bibliometric analysis from the Scopus database. Cogent Education, 12(1), 2025. 12. ENQA, ESU, EUA, & EURASHE., Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). ENQA, 2015. 13. International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education., International standards and guidelines for quality assurance in tertiary education. INQAAHE, 2022. 14. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (2024a). Malaysian Qualifications Framework (MQF) (2nd ed.). MQA, 2024. 15. Donabedian, A. (1988). The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA, 260(12), 1988, pp. 1743–1748. 16. Steiner-Khamsi, G., The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. Teachers College Press, 2004. 17. Phillips, D., & Ochs, K., Processes of policy borrowing in education: Some explanatory and analytical devices. Comparative Education, 39(4), 2003, pp. 451–461. 18. Hou, A. Y. C., et al., How do quality assurance agencies in Asia measure higher education? Exploring approaches, emerging standards, and challenges. Higher Education Policy, 2024. 19. Malaysian Qualifications Agency., Code of practice for program accreditation (COPPA) (2nd ed.). MQA, 2021. 20. Malaysian Qualifications Agency., Code of practice for institutional audit (COPIA) (2nd ed.). MQA, 2009. 21. Malaysian Qualifications Agency., Institutional Quality Audit Framework (IQAF) 2025 edition. MQA, 2025. 22. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia., Malaysia higher education internationalization policy 2025–2030. Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2025. 23. QUARTZ Project., Quality assurance for reform and transformation of higher education institutions in Uzbekistan. QUARTZ, 2024. 24. World Bank., Modernized student financing system to expand access to education for 600,000 young people in Uzbekistan. World Bank, 2025. 25. Andrews, M., Pritchett, L., & Woolcock, M., Building state capability: Evidence, analysis, action. Oxford University Press, 2017. 26. Mahrishi, M., A systematic literature review of the global trends of outcome-based education. Discover Education, 4, Article 1496, 2025. 27. Gunawan, T. S., et al., On the operationalization of values, flexibility and sustainability in Malaysian higher education curricula. Journal of Engineering Research and Education, 18, 2026, pp. 185–195. 28. Malaysian Qualifications Agency. (b). Guidelines to good practices: Assessment of student learning. MQA, 2024.
Rights & License
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.