‘Assessment for quality assurance’ is widely known across the world since late 20th century. The movement may be called as the promotion of the ‘Assessment Culture’. In India, it has taken a concrete shape only in the last decade of the last century, with the establishment of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) (in 1994) and a few other quality assessment organizations in the public domain, for the assessment of higher education institutions and programmes.
The NAAC, with a vision ‘to make quality the defining element of higher education in India through a combination of self and external quality evaluation, promotion and sustenance initiatives’, has assessed and accredited 3,644 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) (as on 22/12/2007) and has also undertaken a number of quality promotion activities. There is a mixed response from the HEIs and the academia, to the external quality assessment. Many institutions have voluntarily opted for NAAC assessment and proudly exhibit their accreditation status. Few others have apprehensions about the NAAC assessment process. For a deeper understanding of the complex process of external quality assessment, it may be useful to critically examine the motivational factors for readily seeking NAAC assessment on one hand and the inhibiting factors for hesitations to go for assessment on the other.
Positive Responses
Some of the reasons for institutions opting for NAAC assessment are:
· Recognition of their excellence/achievements.
· Self-improvement, by understanding their strengths and limitations.
· Building the institutional image and attract students from far and wide.
· International recognition of the institution and assurance of admission of their students in foreign universities.
· Incentives from the Government and other funding agencies.
· Insistence of some of the State Governments.
· Pre-condition for getting the autonomous/deemed university status and such other recognitions by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or permanent affiliation by concerned universities.
Some Apprehensions
Some of the apprehensions and fears of institutions about the NAAC assessment are:
Ø Fear of the unknown.
Ø Fear of getting a lower grade and/or not getting the desired accreditation status.
Ø Lack of enthusiasm on the part of management and staff to take up the preparation work (institutional data presentation in the Self-Study Report).
Ø Assumption that it is a costly activity.
Ø Belief that it does not lead to any consequential benefits.
Ø Reservations about the external assessment of Quality.
Ø Reservations about the reliability and credibility of NAAC methodology and processes.
Ø Belief that one can ignore the process as it is not a mandatory activity at present.
NAAC relation with the HEIs
Most of the apprehensions listed above are quite unfounded. Similar are the experiences of most of the external quality assurance agencies across the world. The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) guidelines of good practices for External Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAA) include the basic premise of a congenial relationship between EQAA and HEIs. NAAC relations with the HEIs are based on the following guidelines:
· Recognition that institutional and/or programme quality assurance is primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves;
· Respect for the academic autonomy, identity and integrity of the institutions and/or their programmes;
· Application of standards or criteria that have been subject to reasonable consultation with stakeholders; and
· Aiming to contribute to both, quality improvement of and accountability by the institution.
Miles to go ……….
During the last thirteen years, NAAC has covered a long way, from initial resistance through subsequent acceptance to appreciation. We at NAAC are aware that we still have a long way, to fully realize our mission. Towards this, we may have to address three major concerns:
Firstly, we are yet to assess a large number of institutions. Appropriate mechanisms have to be developed to complete the first cycle assessment of all HEIs by the end of the XI Five Year Plan. We may have to evolve multiple strategies for this purpose. Establishment of regional/state level assessment agencies, encouragement of NAAC-validated private professional agencies/sectoral assessment agencies for programme assessment are some of the measures that deserve careful consideration.
Secondly, the instrument of assessment requires continuous fine-tuning. Some limitations of the instrument we use to assess the performance of a complex system arises from an inability to combine quantitatively-measurable and qualitatively-perceptible factors into a single model. Appropriate measurement is necessary for improvement. It is rightly said: “if you can’t measure it, you can’t understand it; if you can’t understand it you can’t control it; if you can’t control it you can’t improve it”. In quality measurement, we must constantly ask two questions: Are we measuring the right things and are we accurately measuring them? NAAC is continuously engaged in improving its instrument. We hope that the fine-tuning of the criteria, key aspects and assessment indicators and adoption of the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) with effect from 1st April 2007, would result in a more rigorous and reliable measurement of the institutional performance.
Thirdly, the Peer Team, consisting of assessors, plays a critical role in the assessment exercise. The Peer Team is the public face of NAAC. The judgement by the Peer Team members is the basis for assessment and accreditation. Selection of right Peers as assessors and equipping them with necessary professional skills to undertake the job are challenging tasks. NAAC is aware of the human limitations and is continuously trying to provide professional inputs to the assessors, to complete the task without any bias and arrive at reasonable and acceptable judgement.
The Approach
There are many other concerns and new concerns may arise in the context of newer situations. More than these concerns our approach is very significant to our activities. NAAC believes that quality has to be nurtured and not controlled. The agricultural model of seeding, nurturing and climate building is more suitable to the quality assurance model. Probably, in future, instead of completely focusing on time-bound assessment activity, NAAC may have to focus on nurturing and continuously-assessing the internal quality assurance systems of the HEIs. It is equally important to recognize that the EQA is an indicative exercise not a prescriptive or deterministic one.
The NAAC, with a vision ‘to make quality the defining element of higher education in India through a combination of self and external quality evaluation, promotion and sustenance initiatives’, has assessed and accredited 3,644 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) (as on 22/12/2007) and has also undertaken a number of quality promotion activities. There is a mixed response from the HEIs and the academia, to the external quality assessment. Many institutions have voluntarily opted for NAAC assessment and proudly exhibit their accreditation status. Few others have apprehensions about the NAAC assessment process. For a deeper understanding of the complex process of external quality assessment, it may be useful to critically examine the motivational factors for readily seeking NAAC assessment on one hand and the inhibiting factors for hesitations to go for assessment on the other.
Positive Responses
Some of the reasons for institutions opting for NAAC assessment are:
· Recognition of their excellence/achievements.
· Self-improvement, by understanding their strengths and limitations.
· Building the institutional image and attract students from far and wide.
· International recognition of the institution and assurance of admission of their students in foreign universities.
· Incentives from the Government and other funding agencies.
· Insistence of some of the State Governments.
· Pre-condition for getting the autonomous/deemed university status and such other recognitions by the University Grants Commission (UGC) or permanent affiliation by concerned universities.
Some Apprehensions
Some of the apprehensions and fears of institutions about the NAAC assessment are:
Ø Fear of the unknown.
Ø Fear of getting a lower grade and/or not getting the desired accreditation status.
Ø Lack of enthusiasm on the part of management and staff to take up the preparation work (institutional data presentation in the Self-Study Report).
Ø Assumption that it is a costly activity.
Ø Belief that it does not lead to any consequential benefits.
Ø Reservations about the external assessment of Quality.
Ø Reservations about the reliability and credibility of NAAC methodology and processes.
Ø Belief that one can ignore the process as it is not a mandatory activity at present.
NAAC relation with the HEIs
Most of the apprehensions listed above are quite unfounded. Similar are the experiences of most of the external quality assurance agencies across the world. The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) guidelines of good practices for External Quality Assurance Agencies (EQAA) include the basic premise of a congenial relationship between EQAA and HEIs. NAAC relations with the HEIs are based on the following guidelines:
· Recognition that institutional and/or programme quality assurance is primarily the responsibility of the higher education institutions themselves;
· Respect for the academic autonomy, identity and integrity of the institutions and/or their programmes;
· Application of standards or criteria that have been subject to reasonable consultation with stakeholders; and
· Aiming to contribute to both, quality improvement of and accountability by the institution.
Miles to go ……….
During the last thirteen years, NAAC has covered a long way, from initial resistance through subsequent acceptance to appreciation. We at NAAC are aware that we still have a long way, to fully realize our mission. Towards this, we may have to address three major concerns:
Firstly, we are yet to assess a large number of institutions. Appropriate mechanisms have to be developed to complete the first cycle assessment of all HEIs by the end of the XI Five Year Plan. We may have to evolve multiple strategies for this purpose. Establishment of regional/state level assessment agencies, encouragement of NAAC-validated private professional agencies/sectoral assessment agencies for programme assessment are some of the measures that deserve careful consideration.
Secondly, the instrument of assessment requires continuous fine-tuning. Some limitations of the instrument we use to assess the performance of a complex system arises from an inability to combine quantitatively-measurable and qualitatively-perceptible factors into a single model. Appropriate measurement is necessary for improvement. It is rightly said: “if you can’t measure it, you can’t understand it; if you can’t understand it you can’t control it; if you can’t control it you can’t improve it”. In quality measurement, we must constantly ask two questions: Are we measuring the right things and are we accurately measuring them? NAAC is continuously engaged in improving its instrument. We hope that the fine-tuning of the criteria, key aspects and assessment indicators and adoption of the Cumulative Grade Point Average (CGPA) with effect from 1st April 2007, would result in a more rigorous and reliable measurement of the institutional performance.
Thirdly, the Peer Team, consisting of assessors, plays a critical role in the assessment exercise. The Peer Team is the public face of NAAC. The judgement by the Peer Team members is the basis for assessment and accreditation. Selection of right Peers as assessors and equipping them with necessary professional skills to undertake the job are challenging tasks. NAAC is aware of the human limitations and is continuously trying to provide professional inputs to the assessors, to complete the task without any bias and arrive at reasonable and acceptable judgement.
The Approach
There are many other concerns and new concerns may arise in the context of newer situations. More than these concerns our approach is very significant to our activities. NAAC believes that quality has to be nurtured and not controlled. The agricultural model of seeding, nurturing and climate building is more suitable to the quality assurance model. Probably, in future, instead of completely focusing on time-bound assessment activity, NAAC may have to focus on nurturing and continuously-assessing the internal quality assurance systems of the HEIs. It is equally important to recognize that the EQA is an indicative exercise not a prescriptive or deterministic one.
No comments:
Post a Comment