Essay: Quality assessment

Quality assessment was always a major concern in our country. Since independence various assessing authorities and boards were formed to monitor and evaluate the quality of education at primary, secondary and higher education levels. Number of universities in India was started with many colleges affiliated to them. One of the major challenges was to evaluate and monitor the quality of education imparted by these universities and colleges.
The technical skilled educational institutions which were started since 1943 (before independence) were name as \”Occupational Institutes\” which are later renamed as \”Polytechnics\”. Since before independence to till 1959, all these Polytechnics were working under \”Public Instruction Department\”. In 1959, the new department called \”Technical Education Department\” was formed, as number of Technical degree and Polytechnics colleges are increased.
Till 1959, the Department of Public Instruction was controlling the Directorate of Technical Education. In the later half of the fifties due to the increase in number of technical institutions it was felt necessary to form an independent Department of Technical Education. The objective of the department was to bring the perfect coordination of technical education institution under one monitoring and governing body. Especially in the areas of maintaining standards in examination, syllabi etc. this was felt necessary. For the overall development of the Technical Education in the State a separate department was also necessary. Thus in 1959 as a separate department, the Directorate of Technical Education came into existence.
Directorate of Technical Education (DTE)
The Directorate of Technical Education (DTE) is the government agency for Human Resource Development (HRD) of the country specifically on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET). The central office of DTE is situated in F-4/B, Agargaon Administrative Area, Shere-Banglanagar, Dhaka-1207. The DTE was established in 1960 with five Technical Education institutions. At present this number has reached in about 118. Rather than this DTE provided support for introduction of TVET to 500 private SSC Vocational schools, 200 HSC Business Management Colleges, about 200 basic trade link schools and about 400 self-supported private skill development training centers of the country. DTE distributes stipends to the students of TVET system of the country on behalf of the Government. At present about five thousand officers, teachers and support staffs are working in this organization.
DTE works under the control of Ministry of Education, Government of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh.
The role of the Directorate is to maintain, enhance the standard, quality of technical education by laying the policies, establishing developing Govt. Institutions, guiding supervising the aided, private institutions, interacting with industry and national level institutions, coordinating with other departments of State Government, Government of India Statutory Organisations and to contribute to the development of industry society at large.
Vision
Development of human resource for the country, achievement of the economic progress and advancement of living standard by the Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET).
To become a world class, globally competitive, flexible and learning higher education institutions responsive to the individual, institutional and social developmental needs of the people of Maharashtra and India.
Mission
To integrate in a self-sustainable manner IT education and IT enabled education with the basic teaching, learning process and its management. The goal is to prepare the graduates for the knowledge-based economy, champion the cause of lifelong learning and stimulate the creation of world class resources through information technology.
1. Upgrade of technical education in 20% within 2015.
2. Introduction new Technologies on the demand of the National and International job market.
3. Keeping Role by alleviating poverty by achieving MDG through the Technical Education.
4. Building up the unemployed young people to be suitable self-employed through proper Technology.
5. Executing Research on Technical Education.
6. Extension of Technical Education by Establishing of new Technical Educational Institutions.
7. Inventing new techniques to ensure service.
8. Arrangements of Trainings for the officials and the stuffs to develop skill.
9. Taking initiatives to change and revise the existing curriculum occasionally to be adopted with the change of the time.
10. Maintaining Communication and taking part in programs of International Technical Organizations.
11. Offering assistance and consultation for the GOB to adapt strategies for the case of Technical Education sector.
A planned development of technical education in the state consistent with the policies of the State and the Nation was ensured by the Directorate of Technical Education. The directorate committed to provide professional human resources, quality technical, and need based to the business, community and industry. Directorate of Technical Education will achieve mission by:
• Developing and maintaining high quality institutions which will be responsive to the felt needs of the community.
• Encouraging development and delivery of flexible and state of the art programs in informal and non-formal modes, for the needs of youth and adults.
• Building a system that is efficient and responsive to the changing needs of industry and community.
• Adopting professional and participatory type of management.
• Implementing Management Information System for effective decision making.
• Assigning high priority to serve the educational needs of women, physically challenged persons, rural population and socially and economically backward persons.
• Strengthening student placement and career guidance services.
• Encouraging and supporting the implementation of environment development activities.
• Collaborating with national and international organisations interested in technical education. Our aim is to move towards total quality in all our endeavors.
• Promote Planned, and sustainable development of Technical Education in the State consistent with National and State policies.
• For effective delivery of the curriculum ensures adequate infrastructural and human resource facilities and for diploma institutions design need based programs.
• Ensure certification and objective evaluation systems for institutions, students and programs.
• Collaborate with Directorates of other states and MHRD, AICTE, NITTTR, industries, Universities and other employer agencies.
• Ensure optimum utilization and proper distribution of funds and for Technical Education sector of the State plan annual budget and long term allocations.
• With proper focus on social justice and quality prescribe norms for
• Students admission to Technical Education and
• Posting, Recruitment, Development and Training of Staff
• Provide grievance redressal, counseling and placement services and also provide opportunities for all-round development of staff and students.
• By being responsive to the needs of its stake holders help all wings of the Directorate to maintain good relations with all institutions and public.
Directorates Primary Functions
• For the development of Technical Educational Institutions in the state plan, supervise, control and administer programs both at Diploma and Degree levels.
• To recommend for starting of New Institutions, recognition of new courses to examine and formulate Engineering courses and studies in the State both at the Diploma level and Degree levels.
• To maintain the standard of Education, conduct periodical reviews and inspections of existing Technical Educational Institutions
• To award the Diploma certificates to successful candidates and to conduct the diploma public examinations.
• For Govt. and Aided Institutions sanction academic approval.
• For admission of students to Polytechnics provide suitable norms and procedures for selection of students.
• To aided institutions release grants and other facilities
• To depute and select teaching faculty for higher education.
Major functions of DTE
A. Human Resource Management of TVET institutions under DTE
1. Recruitment of Teachers & Staffs for the existing institutions and new institutions.
2. Promotion, posting, transfer of teachers and staffs.
3. Organization of training for teachers and staff.
4. Budget preparation, budget allocation and auditing of institutions.
B. Development of TVET institutions and programs
1. Assist Govt. for policy formulation for TVET.
2. Formulation of new projects on TVET.
3. Modernization and upgrading of existing TVET institutions.
4. Implementation of new projects.
5. Distribution budget for scholarship to TVET students.
C. Academic development and Quality control
1. Regular monitoring of institutions for quality improvement.
2. Regular internal auditing of institutions for financial discipline.
3. Introduction of new technology/trade and programs in the existing institutions.
4. Establishment linkage between industry and institute.
5. Curriculum updating and up gradation.
Govt. of India in 1986 came out with National Policy on Education and had established two separate bodies one through All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) by the name National Board of Accreditation (NBA) and other through University Grants Commission (UGC) which was named National Assessment & Accreditation Council (NAAC) in the year 1994. To those institutions which achieve certain level of Quality and practicing prescribed Quality Assurance System both these bodies provide accreditation. While NAAC concentrates on Institutional Accreditation, NBA focuses largely on the parameters that communicate the weakness & strength of a program. Other organizations that accredit programs in India include Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). To improve Quality of Technical Education suiting to current Global & National requirements Govt. of India also conceived Technical Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP).
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)
Technical education in India contributes a major share to the overall education system and plays a vital role in the social and economic development of our nation. In India, technical education is imparted at various levels such as: craftsmanship, diploma, and degree, post-graduate and research in specialized fields, catering to various aspects of technological development and economic progress.
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) was set-up in November 1945 as a national level Apex Advisory Body to conduct survey on the facilities on technical education and to promote development in the country in a coordinated and integrated manner. And to ensure the same, as stipulated in, the National Policy of Education (1986), AICTE be vested with statutory authority for planning, formulation and maintenance of norms and standards, quality assurance through accreditation, funding in priority areas, monitoring and evaluation, maintaining parity of certification and awards and ensuring coordinated and integrated development and management of technical education in the country.
The purview of AICTE (the Council) covers programs of technical education including training and research in Engineering, Technology, Architecture, Town Planning, Management, Pharmacy, Applied Arts and Crafts, Hotel Management and Catering Technology etc. at different levels.
Objectives:
• Promotion of Quality in Technical Education.
• Planning and Co-ordinated Development of Technical Education System.
• Regulations and maintenance of Norms and Standards.
Vision:
“To be a world class organization leading technological and socioeconomic development of the Country by enhancing the global competitiveness of technical manpower and by ensuring high quality technical education to all sections of the society.”
Mission:
• A true facilitator and an objective regulator
• Transparent governance and accountable approach towards the society.
• Planned and coordinated development of Technical Education in the Country by ensuring world-class standards of Institutions through accreditation.
• Facilitating world-class Technical Education through:
o Emphasis on developing high quality Institutions, academic excellence and innovative research and development programs;
o Networking of Institutions for optimum resource utilization;
o Dissemination of knowledge;
o Technology forecasting and global manpower planning;
o Promoting industry-Institution interaction for developing new products, services, and patents;
o Inculcating entrepreneurship;
o Encouraging indigenous technology;
o Focusing on non-formal education;
o Providing affordable education to all.
o Making Indian Technical Education globally acceptable.
o To be a forward-looking organization that has an efficient, flexible and empowered manpower, sensitive to stakeholders’ expectations.
National Board of Accreditation (NBA):
National Board of Accreditation (NBA), a body under AICTE, is the only authorized body in India entrusted with the task of undertaking accreditation of technical education programs. All programs on technical education including those offered by University Departments are accredited by NBA. The NBA evaluates the quality of programs offered by educational institutions from Diploma to the Postgraduate levels in Technical Education.
Set up in 1994 National Board of Accreditation (NBA) under Section 10(u) of the AICTE Act awards accreditation status to programs as Accredited for five years, accredited for three years and Not Accredited (NA). Accreditation was based on criteria which was input-based. NBA has, however, revised the criteria for accreditation of institutes to bring it at par with international parameters. Accreditation is now based on a 1000 point scale and is an outcome based accreditation system.
NBA came into existence in its present form, with effect from 7th January 2010 as an autonomous body with the objective of Assurance of Relevance and Quality of Education, especially of the programs in technical and professional disciplines, i.e. Architecture, Management, Hospitality, Pharmacy, Engineering and Technology through the accreditation mechanism of programs offered by technical institutions.
NBA has introduced a new process, parameters and criteria for accreditation. These are in line with the best international practices and oriented to assess the outcomes of the program.
Generally, the NBA accreditation process constitutes the following steps:
• Institutes Self-Assessment
• Application Submission and Enquiry
• Preliminary Eligibility and Interaction
• Self-Assessment Report Submission
• Visit of Evaluation Team (ET)
• Final Accreditation Report
• Action of Follow-up
• Re-accreditation Application
Assessment and Accreditation is basically based on the following criteria:
1. Mission, Vision and Educational Objectives of Program
2. Outcomes of Program
3. Curriculum of Program
4. Performance of Student in the Program
5. Contributions of Faculty
6. Technical Support and Facilities
7. Teaching-Learning Process and Academic Support Units
8. Financial Resources, Governance, and Institutional Support
9. Improvements
Accreditation Process of NBA
By visiting the institution seeking accreditation of its program(s) the Evaluation Team will validate and evaluate the assessment of the department/institute as per specified accreditation criteria through the SAR of the program concerned. If they feel necessary the Evaluation Team may obtain further clarification from the institution. Some of the common factors to be assessed during the on-site visit are the following:
a) Provided educations outcome;
b) Processes of quality assurance, with internal reviews;
c) Assessment;
d) Students work and activities;
e) For admission of students entry selection and standards;
f) Faculty enthusiasm and motivation;
g) Faculty members activities and qualifications;
h) Facilities of infrastructure;
i) Facilities of laboratory;
j) Facilities of library;
k) Participation of Industry;
l) Organisation.
The educational institution should arrange for the following, in order to assist the Evaluation Team in its assessment:
(i) Discussions with
a) the Dean/Heads of Department/Head of the institute/Program and course coordinators
b) a member of the management to discuss how the program fits into the overall strategic direction and focus of the institution, and management support for continued funding and development of the program
c) members of faculty
d) alumni
e) students
f) parents
(ii) Availability of the following exhibits
a) Faculty’s profile who are involved in the program.
b) Evidence that the results of assessment of program outcomes and course outcomes are being applied to ongoing improvement and the review of program effectiveness
c) List of consultancy, sponsored/funded research projects and publications by program faculty
d) For laboratory and theory courses sample materials
e) Semester examination/sample test question papers for all courses
f) Sample of assignments which include one good, one marginal and one excellent pass for each examination, examination answer scripts projects, evidence related to assessment tools, and question papers.
g) Three immediate batch records of graduate students
h) Sample design and project reports by students
i) Sample feedback form of student
j) Sample for interaction of institute-industry
k) Quality assurance reviews results
l) Employment and higher studies records of graduates
m) Records of learning activities and academic support
n) Any other documents requested by the Evaluation Team.
(iii) Visits to
a) Classrooms
b) Laboratories pertaining to the program
c) Department and central library
d) Computer Centre
e) Hostel and dispensary
At the end of the onsite visit the evaluation team should conduct an exit meeting with the Head of the institute, the Head of Department, the Management Representative and other key officials to present its findings (scope for improvement, strengths and weaknesses). To withdraw one or more programs from the process of accreditation the institution will be given a chance during the exit meeting for which the Head of the institution will have to submit the withdrawal in writing to the Chairperson of the evaluation team.
Four activities are done during entire process of an accreditation visit.
A. Activities before visit
B. During visit activities
C. Writing report
D. 3600 feedback seeking
A. Activities before visit
During the period before scheduled visit the standard operating practices to be followed by the accreditation team is given below:
a. On the NBA’s web portal e-NBA shall provide a domain to each chairperson and evaluators. Using their user ID and password each chairperson and evaluator may transit business with the NBA. The chairperson/evaluators can access to all personal information that may be amended by the evaluators time to time as required on his/her page. Chairperson and evaluators will be given access by e-NBA to all information pertaining to the visit they have participated/conducted.
b. To constitute the team for the visit, e-NBA may use the parameters such as availability of the chairperson/evaluators for the visit, date for the visit requested by the institutions, program details, the discipline and other necessary parameters as filter. Approximately 30-45 days before the scheduled date of accreditation visit to the institute/university, the NBA shall contact the evaluators and chairperson asking for consent. The chairperson/evaluators may reconfirm his/her availability, on receipt of the notification through e-NBA.
c. The e-NBA shall send all details including SAR to chairperson and evaluators informing them approximately 30-45 days before the scheduled visit, once team members are finalized by e-NBA. A declaration will be submitted by the chairperson and the evaluators that there is no conflict of interest with the institution along with an agreement of confidentiality. For travel arrangements to institutions for confirming of visit e-NBA shall inform the Travel Coordinator and communicate these details to the chairperson and the evaluators before the visit.
d. The evaluators while studying the SAR shall obtain additional information/ documents from the institution through the NBA required for evaluating SAR.
e. The evaluators should compare Graduate Attributes and Program Specific Criteria and correlate course contents/syllabus, etc. before the date of the visit. Evaluators are required to discuss the matter related to visit for accreditation with the chairperson as well as between them.
f. To discuss preliminary findings from the SAR and concerns or issues they would like to concentrate on during the visit, a pre-visit meeting with all the evaluators and chairperson shall be convened in the evening/afternoon of the day before the commencement of the visit.
g. In case any information provided in SAR is ambiguous or not available or the SAR is incomplete the chairperson can contact the NBA. During the pre-visit discussion this feedback should be given to the chairperson by the evaluators.
h. In consultation with the chairperson a plan for evaluation of the SAR and program shall be drawn-up by the evaluators.
B. During the visit Activities
During the visit the standard operating practices that accreditation team should follow are:
1. A day before the visit the evaluators and the chairperson will reach the destination and to discuss the plan and the schedule of activities during the visit they will hold a meeting among themselves.
2. In the morning of the next day the actual visit will commence
3. In the morning on day one, the committee will go to the institution. The team members will be introduced to the Head of the Departments and the management of the institution, and the Head of the institution will make a comprehensive presentation.
4. Then during the pre-lunch session the team will inspect all central facilities.
5. The evaluators will go to the respective departments, after a working lunch. A summary of various activities of the Department should be presented by Head of Department to the evaluators.
6. The evaluators will visit the laboratories, library, computing center and shall see that whether the facilities have been adhered to as per the norms laid down by the AICTE for which they shall visit faculty rooms, seminar/conference halls, class rooms, , internet/intranet, video conferencing, teaching aids, etc.
7. In order to verify the data supplied in the SAR by the program the evaluators will meet the technical/supporting staff and faculty members. Gathering evidence in support of their report and maximum information should be the objective of the evaluators.
8. In the classrooms the evaluators should go for silent observation of teaching practices.
9. In the absence of the faculty members the evaluators will interact with the students in the class to assess the level of comprehensiveness of a course. Questions that would reveal relevant information should be asked by the evaluators to the students. Evaluators may ask questions to the students regarding quality of lecturers, teaching practices, their usefulness, academic support, mentoring, tutoring, etc.
10. To gather information about various aspects which are related to the parameters of accreditation, the evaluators should identify students in small groups for interaction.
11. To clarify and discuss their observations the evaluators will meet privately at the end of Day-1.
12. In order to verify the items and documents of the SAR, the evaluators will visit the respective departments again on Day-2. All program-specific and institution-specific information given in the SAR besides other evidence will be verified and checked, satisfying criteria laid out in the SAR.
13. The evaluators, along with the chairperson, after lunch, shall meet the stakeholders – employers, entrepreneurs, parents and alumni as per the schedule and may ask them about the suitability of the program or the course to jobs; the relevance of the program and the course; professional profession/work in practice; cooperation, interaction and relation between institute and them; suggestions for improvement.
14. Along with the chairperson, the evaluators shall interact with Management representative / Head of the institution / Head of the Department with questions on laboratory equipment and their maintenance, academic and financial resources and academic administration. The evaluators should collect the evidence during interaction with students as well as their parents, teachers, alumni and employees.
15. The evaluators will sit privately and complete the evaluation process and prepare the report, at the end of Day-2. The collected evidence and findings must be refined and used by the evaluators in their report.
16. The exit meeting will be conducted on Day-3.
• The meeting will be chaired by the chairperson of the evaluation team.
• The exit meeting should be conducted by the evaluation team with the Head of Departments, Head of the Institution and other key officials of the institute. It is preferable that the exit meeting should be conducted separately by each evaluation team, if two or more programs are being evaluated concurrently at the institution. To arrive at a consensus of their findings the chairperson may chair a private meeting with all evaluation teams before the evaluation teams carry out their exit meetings.
• The findings of the evaluation team should be given to the Head of the Department/Head of the Institute and his key officials orally, at the exit meeting. The scope and nature of the exit meeting could include items such as:
a. The outcome of the visit should be stated. The evaluation team should only declare what they will be recommending to the NBA, as the final decision on the award of accreditation is made by the NBA.
b. Discussion of the outcome of the accreditation should not be included in the exit meeting.
• A chance will be given to the institute either to withdraw the application for any program or to continue with the accreditation process.
• If the institute wants to withdraw any program, the head of the institution should give a request in writing immediately to the chairperson of the committee which will be forwarded to the NBA.
17. The video recording of the visit shall be made. The evaluation team members should not pass any remark which will lead to debate. The views of each evaluator must be recorded with reasoning, if there is no consensus between two evaluators. 3600 feedback form must be filled and mailed in confidence.
18. Confidentiality as well as sanctity and dignity of the process should be maintained by all the members.
19. In any circumstance the team members should not involve in arguments, lengthy meetings, mentoring of faculty of the institute and make suggestions.
C. Writing Report
At the time of writing the report the standard operating practices to be followed by the accreditation team are given below:
1. For awarding of point the worksheet must be used for writing the report. There should not be contradiction of report with point guidelines/sheet with points awarding. All marks awarded with point guidelines/sheet must be signed by the evaluators.
2. The evaluators report must not contradict the points/marks awarded, in an area where the score is less than 70% there may be weaknesses; in an area where the score is more than 80% there may be strengths. With evidence the reasons of disagreement must be recorded with reasoning, in case of a disagreement between two evaluators.
3. In case of a disagreement, the chairperson’s report must include the comments on the disagreements or findings; gist of strategy drawn and discussion on the evening before the commencement of visit; gist of conversation with the evaluators on video conferencing and/or phone; common weaknesses and strengths reported by the evaluators of various program.
4. An online consolidated evaluation report will be submitted by evaluation team of each program, which will be given in the NBA website along with electronic signatures of the chairperson and the evaluators of that program. The consolidated evaluation reports online format should have the following structure:
a. General information: Details including description of program(s) evaluated, dates of visit and affiliation and names of the chairperson and the evaluators and name and address of the institution.
b. Evaluation Report: Along with the remarks this report contains points awarded to each items in all criteria by the evaluators.
c. Evaluation Summary Sheet: This sheet contains the report of evaluators about the deficiencies, weaknesses and strengths, if any; specific remarks for those criteria in which points awarded are less than the qualifying points, along with summary of evaluation.
d. Report of chairperson: This contains the report of chairperson on the deficiencies, weaknesses and strengths.
D. 3600 feedback seeking
NBA can improve its effectiveness and enhance its accreditation system by this 3600 feedback. It will helps in improving the quality of the accreditation process by bringing objectivity and transparency in the evaluation process. On the NBA website, the 3600 feedback shall be available online to the chairperson, the evaluators and to the institution. They can either download the form or fill the form online and within 3 days submit it by mail, they can have the flexibility.
University Grants Commission (UGC)
In India with its statutory powers the University Grants Commission (UGC) is expected to maintain quality in higher education institutions. UGC is responsible for “the maintenance and determination of standards of examinations, research and teaching in universities” as per Section 12 of the UGC Act of 1956. The UGC directly or indirectly has been continuously developing methods to check quality in universities and colleges, to fulfill this mandate. It has established national research facilities; provide refresher courses in subject areas and Academic Staff Colleges to re-orient teachers. For high standards of teaching the UGC also conducts the National Eligibility Test (NET). At Bangalore as a registered autonomous body the UGC established NAAC under the Societies Registration Act of 1860 on 16th September 1994.
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
National Assessment and Accreditation Council, an autonomous body, has been established by the University Grants Commission in 1994 in pursuance of the recommendations made by the National Policy of Education, 1986 and the Program of Action (POA), 1992 which lay special emphasis on evaluating the quality of higher education in India. The prime mandate of NAAC, as envisaged in its Memorandum of Association (MoA), is to assess and accredit institutions of higher learning, universities and colleges or one or more of their units, i.e., departments, schools, institutions, programs, etc. The NAAC functions through its General Council and Executive Committee where educational administrators, policy makers and senior academicians from a cross-section of system of higher education are represented
As envisaged in the Memorandum of Association (MoA) the main objectives of NAAC are to:
1. Grading higher education institutions and their programs;
2. Stimulate the quality of research and teaching and academic environment in these institutions;
3. To realize their academic objectives, help institutions;
4. For the institutions working for the above purpose, promote innovations and reforms, and necessary changes in all aspects; and
5. In higher education encourage accountability, innovations and self-evaluation.
Under the new methodology introduced by NAAC w.e.f. 1st April, 2007, the higher education institutions are assessed and accredited by a two-step approach. In the first step, the institution is required to seek ‘Institutional Eligibility for Quality Assessment (IEQA)’ and the second step is the assessment and accreditation of the institute under the grades ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ for accredited institutions; and ‘D’ for those which are not accredited. In India to serve as the basis for the assessment of higher education institutions the NAAC has identified seven criteria. A four phase process of assessment is followed by NAAC which covers.
• Assessment criteria that are nationally evolved
• Institutions self-study
• Visit of peer team to the institution
• NAACs Executive Committees final decision
Assessment Criteria: The following seven criteria have been identified by NAAC to serve as the basis for its assessment procedure through national consultations and consensus:
1. Curricular Aspects
2. Teaching-Learning and Evaluation
3. Research, Consultancy and Evaluation
4. Infrastructure and Learning Resources
5. Student Support and Progression
6. Organization and management
7. Healthy practices
Curricular aspects: This criterion requires information on how the curriculum design of the institution offers diversity and flexibility to learners. It also seeks information on the practices of the institution in initiating and redesigning courses that are relevant to regional and national needs.
Teaching/learning and evaluation: This criterion deals with the efforts of the institution in providing appropriate teaching/learning experience to learners. It also looks at the adequacy and competency of the faculty who handle the various programs of study, as well as the efficiency of the evaluation methodology of the institution.
Research, consultancy and evaluation: This criterion seeks information on activities of the institution with reference to research.
Infrastructure and learning resources: This criterion requires data on adequate and optimal use of facilities available in the institution to maintain the quality of the academic and other aspects of campus life. It also seeks information on how every constituent of the institution – students, teachers and staff – benefits from these facilities.
Student support and progression: The highlights of this criterion are the efforts of the institution to provide necessary assistance for good student experience on campus and to facilitate their progression. It also seeks information on student and alumni profiles.
Organization and management: This criterion requires data on policies and practices of the institution in its planning, human resources, requirement, recruitment, training, performance appraisal and finance management.
Healthy practices: This criterion focuses on innovative and unique practices of the institution that add to its academic ambience.
The functioning of the institution with reference to these criteria is expected to be highlight in the self-study report.
Self-Study: As per the guidelines formulated by NAAC the institution prepares a self-study report. The report is divided into two parts: based on the available data a critical self-analysis; and the data about the organization on various parameters. For critical reflection on institutional facilities and practices to identify its own weaknesses and strengths, the self-study is supposed to be a tool. The peer team and the NAAC understand the institution better through the self-study report.
Visit of Peer Team: In consultation with the institution NAAC forms a peer’s team based on the self-study report which visits the institution and looks for evidences to validate the claims in the self-study report through interaction with the students, teachers, staff, and heads of the departments and the senior management of the institution. At the end before finalizing the draft report, the peer team gives an opportunity to the institution for withdrawal. At the end of the visit the peer team shares their draft assessment report with the institution. Based on a suggested scoring pattern the peer team makes the assessment of the institution which as a confidential score is submitted to NAAC.
Decision of NAAC: After reviewing the report the Executive Committee of NAAC takes decision on the grade of the institution. For a period of 5 years the NAAC grading is valid and after completing this period the institution may apply for re-accreditation.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
ABET is a nonprofit, non-governmental organization that accredits university and college programs in the disciplines of computing, applied science, engineering technology and engineering. The ABET accredits over 3,100 programs at more than 660 colleges and universities in 23 countries, including India. ABET provides specialized, programmatic accreditation that evaluates an individual program of study, rather than evaluating an institution as a whole. ABET accreditation is voluntary and achieved through a peer review process.
ABET accreditation, which is voluntary and achieved through a peer review process, provides assurance that a college or university program meets the quality standards established by the profession for which the program prepares its students.
ABET is recognized accreditor in the United States (U.S.) by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) since 1997, which is a United States organization of degree-granting colleges and universities.
Vision
ABET is recognized as the worldwide leader in assuring quality and stimulating innovation in applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology education.
Mission
ABET serves the public globally through the promotion and advancement of education in applied science, computing, engineering, and engineering technology. ABET:
• Accredits educational programs.
• Promotes quality and innovation in education.
• Consults and assists in the development and advancement of education worldwide.
• Communicates and collaborates with its constituents and the public.
• Anticipates and prepares for the changing educational environment and the future needs of its constituents.
• Manages its operations and resources in an effective and fiscally responsible manner.
Accreditation: Step-by-Step
There are two distinct phases in the ABET accreditation process:
• Assessment processes, which must be in place before a program’s formal submission of a Request for Evaluation (RFE).
• The 18-month accreditation process itself, which begins with a Request for Evaluation (RFE) submission.
Before the Accreditation Process: Assessment Planning
Before an institution submits a formal Request for Evaluation for a program, the program must have in place processes for internal assessment. These processes may take several years to develop. During this preparation phase, a program must:
• Implement the assessment process for program educational objectives and student outcomes.
• Demonstrate a continuous improvement loop.
• Collect student work examples.
• Review the most up-to-date Accreditation Criteria, Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual, and Self-Study Questionnaire(s) which are updated every year.
During the Accreditation Process
Programs that have met the eligibility requirements and completed their assessment planning may begin the accreditation process with the submission of a Request for Evaluation.
After the Accreditation Process
ABET offers guidance on how to promote your program\’s accreditation, as well as information on appeals, the complaint process, and what kinds of program changes to report during the period of accreditation.
Technical Education Quality Improvement Program (TEQIP)
World Bank took keen interest in systemic transformation of India\’s technical education system to make it globally competitive plan and shown its willingness to assist the Government of India to launch a Technical Education Improvement Program (TEQIP) as a long term program of 10-12 years and in 2 or 3 phases.
Subsequently, TEQIP was conceived in pursuance of the National Policy on Education 1986 (Revised 1992) with a goal to upscale and improve quality of technical education and enhance existing capacities of the institutions to become dynamic, demand driven, quality conscious, efficient and forward looking, responsive to rapid economic and technological developments occurring both at national and international levels.
Technical Education Quality Improvement Program of Government of India (TEQIP) is being implemented as a World Bank assisted Project to improve the quality of technical education system in the country.
TEQIP aims to improve the quality of Technical Education by providing inputs like modernization of laboratories/workshops, library, faculty development, networking between institutions, curricula development, research and improve interaction with Industries etc.
TEQIP Phase-I had the following Objectives:
(a) Promotion of Academic Excellence;
(b) Networking of Institutions for quality enhancement and resource sharing;
(c) Enhancing quality and reach of services to Community and Economy;
(d) System Management Capacity Improvement.
The Phase – I of TEQIP was implemented in 13 States and covered 127 Institutions including 18 Centrally Funded Institutions. It became effective in March 2003 and completed on 31st March, 2009. As a next step, the preparation of TEQIP-II is in progress.
As per TEQIP design, each phase is required to be designed on the basis of lessons learnt from the implementation of an earlier phase. TEQIP-I started a reform process in 127 Institutions. The reform process needs to be sustained and scaled-up for embedding gains in the system and taking the transformation to a higher level. To continue the development activities initiated through TEQIP-I, a sequel Project is planned as TEQIP-II.
Program Goal
The Technical Education Quality Improvement Program of Government of India (TEQIP), has been conceived in pursuance of the NPE-1986 (as revised in 1992). The Program aims to upscale and support ongoing efforts of GOI to improve quality of technical education and enhance existing capacities of the institutions to become dynamic, demand-driven, quality conscious, efficient and forward looking, responsive to rapid economic and technological developments occurring both at national and international levels.
Program Objectives
The broad objectives of the Program as given below have been derived from the National Policy on Education (NPE-1986 as revised in 1992):
a) To create an environment in which engineering institutions selected under the Program can achieve their own set targets for excellence and sustain the same with autonomy and accountability.
b) To support development plans including synergistic networking and services to community and economy of competitively selected institutions for achieving higher standards.
c) To improve efficiency and effectiveness of the technical education management system in the States and institutions selected under the Program.
The Project has following objectives:
• Strengthening Institutions to produce high quality engineers for better employability,
• Scaling-up postgraduate education and demand-driven Research & Development and Innovation,
• Establishing Centers of Excellence for focused applicable research,
• Training of faculty for effective Teaching, and
• Enhancing Institutional and System Management effectiveness.