grading higher educational institutions – some technical issues
DESCRIPTION
APQN CONFERENCE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EXPECTATIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS. GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues. PRESENTED BY: Dr.M.S.Lalitha Head & Dean School Of Education Pondicherry University. Observations by IIEP- Explaining factors - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues
APQN CONFERENCE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION: EXPECTATIONS AND ACHIEVEMENTS
PRESENTED BY:Dr.M.S.LalithaHead & DeanSchool Of EducationPondicherry University
![Page 2: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
QUALITY ASSURANCE- A GLOBAL TREND
Observations by IIEP- Explaining factors Great demand for HE & rapid expansion in terms of diverse providersGlobalization – increasing level of academic fraud Economic constraints & shift in priority to basic education
No compromise on quality because of quantitative expansion
![Page 3: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
QA INVOLVES EQA & IQA
Aim of EQA is accountability for external stake holders
Aim of IQA- institutional development and assessment of internal accountability through its programme, policies & mechanisms
Both contribute mutually to each other Quality assurance(QA) is both a national &
institutional responsibility
![Page 4: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
QA OF HEIs IN INDIA
Quality assessment organization-UGC, NAAC, AICTE, NBA, DEC, ICAR- Need for coordinated effort
NAAC- Main objective -A&A of HEIs
![Page 5: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
NAAC'S MISSION Grading institutions and programmes stimulate academic environment and quality
of teaching and research Help institutions realize their academic
objectives Promote necessary changes, innovations
and reforms in all aspects of the institutions working for the above purpose
Encourage innovations, self-evaluation and accountability in higher education.
![Page 6: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT & ACCREDITATION
STEPS:
i. Self assessment process by institution on a set of criteria defined by accrediting body
ii. Site visit by peer team or panel – reviews the evidence & interviews stake holders
iii. Peer team prepares an assessment report
iv. Accrediting body communicates its decision
![Page 7: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING ACCREDITATION AND ASSESSMENT
PROCESS
Quality is definable Characteristics of a model higher
education institutions of each type can be listed
Differential weightages can be assigned to different criteria and different types of HEIs
quantitative measurement and assessment of quality is possible;
![Page 8: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Contd.. Grades can be aggregated and the CGPA
represents the quality of HEI Knowledge of one’s grade leads to
working of the institutions towards improving the same
The stakeholders within the institution have the professional skills themselves & have capability to reflect
Peer team members have the professional skills to assess the institution objectively.
![Page 9: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
DEFINING QUALITY OF HEIs Multi- dimensional, multi-level and dynamic
concept relating to the contextual settings of an educational model
Quality as : ExceptionalityZero errorsFitness for purpose Transformation, reshapingThresholdEnhancementQuality as value for money
![Page 10: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Contd… Student outcomes – an important
criterion & difficult to estimate
Value addition – difference an HEI makes in students’ education
Can be used to justify variations in output produced by different institiutions in different context
![Page 11: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
CRITERIA FOR QUALITY OF HEIs
Can be defined similar to defining criteria for teacher effectiveness
Input process & output variables as defining criteria
![Page 12: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
FOUR TYPES OF FACTORS Type I factors (quality predictors):
Teacher related – personality (attitudes, interest and abilities)
Teacher Professional Competencies – content mastery, pedagogic skills, professional commitment and ethics
Curriculum related – relevance to life and world of work, to total personality development of students, etc. and such others.
![Page 13: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Type II factors (contingency factors):
Environmental factors in the institution – physical, socio-cultural and economic;
Nature of students – attitudes, interest, abilities, etc;
Students perception on institutional environment and such others.
![Page 14: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Type III factors (curriculum transaction / teaching-learning process): Curricular and Co-curricular activities;
Activities to promote students’ mental health;
Nature / extent of participation of teacher and students in the classrooms, within the institution
In relating institution to community outside, and such others.
![Page 15: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Type IV factors (ultimate criteria for quality):
Institution’s effects on – Students’ achievement and success in life
Students’ achievement in further education
Students’ achievement of course objectives
Students’ satisfaction with the teachers and the institution as a whole, and such others.
![Page 16: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
ASSESSMENT OF MACRO AND MICRO INDICATORS
Macro-indicators refer to the broad criteria
Micro-indicators refer to the specific articulations of the macro-indicators.
Assessment of these micro-indicators require evidences - quantitative or qualitative in nature.
Explicit definitions improves objectivity Word of caution-over looking significant
but difficult to assess.
![Page 17: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
CONTEXTUALITY AND UNIFORMITY IN CRITERIA FOR ASSESSMENT
Contextual variations due toNature of courseType of management Geographical location
Justification for uniform criteria
Justification for differential weightages
![Page 18: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
STATISTICAL VALIDITY OF GRADING INSTITUTIONS
Subjectivity in assessment – inter-peer team variations (operational definitions, professional training to assessors )
Slight variation in weightages given to criteria can influence overall grade point
Error due to reducing multi-dimensional quality aspect into a linear scale as CGPA (profile of institution)
![Page 19: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FORMATIVE vs. SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Two approaches in QA
FORMATIVE SUMMATIVE
Helps IQA – helps in reflecting on weaknesses
Helps in accreditation
Not useful if no will or capability to improve oneself
Not useful in making HEI to reflect on weaknesses
Helps in identifying one’s own deficiencies & helps to improve
Formative superior to summative
![Page 20: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
DOMINANCE OF EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
Rapid expansion of HEIs of different types
EQA difficult with one agency Move from EQA to IQA Agency should facilitate IQA with
minimum control QA’s focus on process than criteria HEIs & agency joint responsibility
![Page 21: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Conclusion Grading integral part of QA
Effectiveness of accreditation process depends on how well criteria of quality defined for different contexts
Profile instead of CGPA
Prepare & validate tools & techniques for assessing criteria
![Page 22: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
CONCLUSION CONTD..
NAAC should play facilitator role to support HEIs
Accreditation process continuous & for longer duration
Establish local level management systems to monitor quality with responsibility
![Page 23: GRADING HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – Some Technical Issues](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062321/56812d0a550346895d91de9f/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
THANK YOU!