A Feedback System Based Self-Evaluation Framework for Quality Assurance of Multi-Modal Digital Distance Education

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suchismita Biswas ◽  
Pramatha Nath Basu ◽  
Tapan Chowdhury
Keyword(s):  
Distance Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Feedback System ◽  
Evaluation Framework ◽  
Self Evaluation

scholarly journals Quality assurance agencies: Creating a conducive environment for academic integrity

2019 ◽  
Vol 115 (11/12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Garwe
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Academic Integrity ◽  
Ecosystem Approach ◽  
Leadership Role ◽  
Academic Quality ◽  
Quality Assurance Agency ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Study Methodology ◽  
Conducive Environment

Academic integrity is a key measure of the quality, efficiency and competitiveness of higher education systems. This article explores how a quality assurance agency can foster a conducive environment for academic quality and integrity. A self-study methodology was used, with a focus on the insights and experiences of the Zimbabwe Council for Higher Education over a 10-year period. The findings show that by assuming an innovative and transformational leadership role in instilling a culture of self-evaluation, as well as maintaining its own integrity, an external quality assurance agency can improve academic integrity. The article adds value to the existing knowledge by advancing the higher education ecosystem approach as an integrity-based panacea and conducive way to induce integrity to flow from all players as opposed to the use of heavy-handed regulatory approaches.

Delivering subject choice and quality assurance in specialised disciplines

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 19.1-19.11
Author(s):  
Kerry Dunne
Keyword(s):  
Distance Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
New England ◽  
Host Institution ◽  
New Model ◽  
Partner Institution ◽  
Subject Choice ◽  
The University

Using a new model of subject delivery, the University of New England (UNE–Armidale, Australia) offers specialist subjects at partner or host institutions. The model is a modified version of distance education. It is designed to meet the needs of on-campus students who wish to study a subject that their university is unable to offer as a full internal program. Students are enrolled as students of the partner institution, but the content of the courses, the teaching and assessment are the responsibility of UNE staff. The model is attractive to students and to tertiary administrators of both the host and provider universities. For students the model offers greater subject choice and flexibility; for tertiary administrators at the host institution there is built-in quality assurance and continuity of subject offerings, and for UNE an opportunity to develop a new market for distance education and to ensure the survival of low enrolment specialist language subjects

Self-Assessment Reports

2022 ◽  
pp. 269-285
Author(s):  
Nithya Ramachandran ◽  
Madhusmita Indian Nayak
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Education Institution ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Regulatory Body ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Expert Team ◽  
The Government ◽  
Body Self

Quality assurance has gained momentum in the education sector also after its recognition in the industry. Quality has become a part of service providers like healthcare and education. The field of education has undergone tremendous change since the word quality penetrated into it. Choosing a higher education institution puts in many criteria of which quality assurance and accreditation also has a vital role. The process of accreditation differs from one country to another. The process depends on the outcomes expected by the accrediting agency along with the guidelines of the government regulatory body. Self-assessment report is a self-evaluation made by an institution which is prepared in a report form and submitted to accrediting agency. An expert team evaluates the application for awarding accreditation to a HEI. The role of self-assessment report is to understand the strength and weakness of the HEI.

Proposing a Feedback System to Enhance Learning Based on Key Performance Indicators

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Anders Berglund ◽  
Johannes Blackne ◽  
Niklas Jansson
Keyword(s):  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Feedback System ◽  
Key Performance Indicators ◽  
Project Team ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Work Activity ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Activity Distribution ◽  
Productivity Data ◽  
Descriptive Survey

This paper proposes a feedback system that is based on the self-evaluation of perceived productivity as a mechanism for detecting deviations in an engineering design student project. By monitoring key performance indicators, project members used feedback loops to recognize alarming patterns and act accordingly. The study is based on descriptive survey data that addressed three factors of influence: perceived productivity, perception of stage completion, and work-activity distribution. The productivity data was analysed by detecting patterns in the form of peaks and lows and by combining the patterns with qualitative data from observations and documented work activities. Measurements were taken every time the project team got together; 33 occasions during the course of the project, resulting in a total of 280 student responses for productivity (P) and completion (C) and 115 student replies for work activity distribution. The findings provide an extraction of peak values and low values that enables tracking of critical incidents. Through an in-depth activity log, each value was enriched with lessons learned about what took place and the consequences for the project, thus enhancing learning from past activities through systematic feedback sessions. The accumulated set of data provided distinguishable patterns for the project team to interpret. Over time this made student actions more proactive, activity execution more distinct and purposeful, and resource allocation in combination with feedback reflections more refined.

CDIO Standards and Quality Assurance

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Gray
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Engineering Education ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
The Other ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
The World ◽  
External Stakeholders ◽  
Certification And Accreditation

With Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) approach collaborating institutions and programs in many countries and regions of the world, it is essential that the International CDIO Leadership Council promulgate processes to assure internal and external stakeholders that member institutions and programs are adhering to the 12 CDIO Standards. The Standards are what make CDIO a unique initiative in that they provide a vehicle for realizing the CDIO vision to transform the culture of engineering education. Therefore, the CDIO Council has developed five quality assurance processes that begin with the application to become a CDIO Collaborator and include self-evaluation, certification, and accreditation based on the CDIO Standards. This article discusses the CDIO quality assurance processes and the other articles in this special issue provide case studies and other examples related to the use of the processes by CDIO collaborators.

Qualification Frameworks and Field-specific Approaches to Quality Assurance

2011 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-57
Author(s):  
Giuliano Augusti ◽  
Sebastião Feyo de Azevedo
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Bologna Process ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Specific Knowledge ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Subject Specific ◽  
Degree Structure

“General” and “field-specific” Quality Assurance procedures, although sharing many “technical” instruments (self evaluation reports, peer reviews, benchmarks vs. reference points, etc.), have different directions. The motivations behind “field-specific” initiatives are critically presented in this paper. They are strictly correlated with Qualification Frameworks that, while preserving the autonomy of higher education institutions in defining their teaching offers, define common and transparent employability objectives for the benefit of students, graduates and all other stakeholders. However, “while learning outcomes have been generically defined for the degree structure”, it is now necessary “to further develop descriptors for subject specific knowledge, skills and competences. ... leaving still plenty of freedom for programme diversity.” (Bologna Process, 2009a). Qualification Frameworks and field-specific Quality Assurance lead naturally to “pre-professional accreditation” that can be given an international value by “European Quality Labels”.

scholarly journals A Comparison of the CDIO and EUR-ACE Quality Assurance Systems

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 9-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Malmqvist
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assurance ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Evaluation Model ◽  
European Accreditation ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Assurance System ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Programme Outcomes ◽  
Improvement Rating

The CDIO approach intends to raise the quality of engineering education programs, worldwide by including a number of quality assurance (QA) tools such as the CDIO Standards, Syllabus, and self-evaluation model. CDIO programmes are also evaluated by external standards. Therefore, a CDIO programme needs a quality assurance system that fulfills external requirements and is able to produce the necessary evidence and documentation with minimal additional effort above and beyond the CDIO QA components. Efficient execution of this task requires understanding the similarities and differences between the CDIO and external quality assurance systems, in this case, the European Accreditation of Engineering Programmes (EUR-ACE) system. This article compares and contrasts these two QA approaches, in particular the CDIO Syllabus and the EUR-ACE programme outcomes and the CDIO Standards and EUR-ACE accreditation criteria. Also considered are the pros and cons of a continuous improvement rating scale-based system and a threshold-based accreditation model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document