14

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Higher Education in India Higher education refers to a level of education that is provided by

universities, vocational universities, community colleges, liberal arts colleges,

institutes of technology and other collegiate level institutions, such as

vocational schools, trade schools and career colleges, that award academic

degrees or professional certifications 3.

Tertiary education level is higher than that attainable on completion of a

full secondary education. The generally accepted definition of Higher

Education is that which requires a minimum condition for admission, the

successful completion of secondary education or the evidence of an

attainment of an equal level of knowledge (Terry, G. and T.B.Thomas, 1979).

Higher education is said to impart deepest understanding in the minds

of students, rather than a relatively superficial grasp that must be acceptable

elsewhere in the system. In higher education, nothing can be taken on trust

and the students have to think for themselves so as to be able to stand

intellectually on their own feet (Barnett, R.1997).

Higher education in India suffers from several systemic deficiencies. As

a result, it continues to provide graduates that are unemployable despite

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_Education

15

emerging shortages of skilled manpower in an increasing number of sectors.

The standards of academic research are low and declining. Some of the

problems of the Indian higher education, such as the unwieldy affiliating

system, inflexible academic structure, uneven capacity across various

subjects, eroding autonomy of academic institutions and the low level of public

funding are well known. Many other concerns relating to the dysfunctional

regulatory environment, the accreditation system that has low coverage and

no consequences, absence of incentives for performing well and the unjust

public funding policies are not well recognized (Pawan Agarwal, 2006).

At the same time, the gains to be derived from overcoming these

problems and from seizing the opportunities of economic and technological

development are shown by a recent World Bank study to be tremendous. The

time is very opportune for India to make its transition to the knowledge

economy – an economy that creates, disseminates, and uses knowledge to

enhance its growth and development (Carl Dahlman & Anuja Utz, 2005).

Tertiary education is critical for the construction of knowledge

economies. India currently produces a solid core of knowledge workers in

tertiary and scientific and technical education, although the country needs to

do more to create a larger cadre of educated and agile workers who can

adapt and use knowledge. Measures are also needed to enhance the quality

and relevance of higher education so that the education system is more

demand driven, quality conscious and forward looking, especially to retain

16

highly qualified people and meet the new and emerging needs of the

economy.

What is at stake for India is aptly captured by the President of the

Indian National Science Academy (INSA) and Director General of the Council

of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), Dr. Ragunath A. Mashelkar

(2005): “As I see it from my perch in India's science and technology

leadership, if India plays its cards right, it can become by 2020 the world's

number-one knowledge production centre, creating not only valuable private

goods but also much needed public goods that will help the growing global

population suffer less and live better”.

2.2 Concept of Quality

The traditional concept of quality is associated with the idea of

providing a product or service that is distinctive and special, and which

confers status on the owner or user. Extremely high standards of production,

delivery and presentation are set, which can only be achieved at great

expense or with the scarce resources, thus putting them out of reach of the

majority of the population. The notion of exclusivity is implied (Pfeiffer, N. and

Coote, A., 1991).

The example often used is that of the Rolls Royce. In higher education,

it might equate with most people’s perception of Oxford and Cambridge

Universities, both in terms of distinctive and special student experience that

17

they provide. However, this concept of quality is not of much value when it

comes to assessing quality in higher education as a whole.

2.2.1 Quality as Conformance to Specification or Standards

There is the notion of quality as conformance to a specification or

standard. It is perhaps worthwhile being totally clear about what the term

‘standard’ means in this context. It is a basis for measurement, or a ‘yardstick’

– a neutral term to describe a required characteristic of a product or service.

The specialisation for a product or service is measured in terms of its

conformance to the specification. This type of approach to quality has an

advantage over the earlier definition in its application to higher education. It

gives all institutions an opportunity to aspire to quality.

The disadvantage with this model is that it tells nothing about the

criteria used to set the standards. It is also an essentially static model

(Walsh, K., 1991), as it implies that once a specification has been defined, it

does not need to be reconsidered. It also implies that the quality of service

can be defined in terms of standards that are easily measurable and

quantifiable, and this may not be the case in higher education.

In some circumstances, academic standards in terms of student

achievement appear to be equated with quality in higher education as in the

following statement by Kenneth Clark when he was Secretary of State for

Education and Science (DES, 1987).

18

“The Statistics speaks for themselves, with the proportion of graduates

in PCFC (Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council) Sector Institutions

gaining first and upper seconds having risen alongside the surge in student

numbers. There are plenty of examples from HMI (Her Majesty’s Inspectorate)

to show how increasing numbers need not adversely affect Quality – quite the

reverse”. In analysing quality in relation to higher education, it is therefore

important to be clear how the term ‘standard” is being defined and applied.

2.2.2 Quality as Fitness for Purpose

The definition of ‘quality’ adopted by most analysts and policy makers

in higher education is that of fitness for purpose (Crawford, F.W., 1991).

Exponents of this approach argue that quality has no meaning except in

relation to the purpose of the product or service. Quality is judged in

terms of the extent to which a product of service meets its stated

purpose.

This definition therefore provides a model for determining what the

specification for a quality product or service should be. It is also

developmental as it recognises that purposes may change over time, thus

requiring constant re-evaluation of the appropriateness of the

specification. It may be used to analyse quality in higher education at a

number of levels.

19

The problem with this definition of quality in higher education is that it is

very difficult to be clear what the purposes of higher education should be. In

recent years, few attempts amongst policy makers to define the purposes of

higher education have gone beyond that provided by the Robbins Committee

(Robbins, L., 1963) which stated that the objectives of higher education

were ‘instructions in skills’, ‘promotion of the general powers of the mind’,

’advancement of learning’ and ‘transmission of a common culture and

common standards of citizenship’.

The 1987 white paper (DES, 1987) took this definition and added to

it an emphasis concerning meeting the needs of the economy. However,

different stakeholders in higher education may have different views about

this issue. Who should define the purposes of higher education? Should it

be the Government, the students, the Industries, the managers of the

institutions or the academic professionals? It is theoretically possible that

all these groups would agree on the purposes of higher education, but

more likely that there would be at least some differences of opinion.

2.2.3 Quality as Effectiveness in Achieving Institution

Goals

One version of the ‘Fitness for purpose’ model concentrates on

evaluating quality in higher education at the institutional level. A high

quality institution is one that clearly states its mission (or purpose) and is

efficient and effective in meeting the goals that it has set itself. The

20

committee of Vice – Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), Academic Audit

Unit made it clear that it started from the premise that there is no ‘gold

standard’ in higher education (CVCP, 1990).

The individual universities determine their own definitions of

quality and standards and the Academic Audit Unit, through its audit

process sought to evaluate whether the quality assurance system that

the university has established was successfully achieving its aims and

objectives. This model has significant implications for higher

education, as it broadens the spectrum of issues deemed relevant to

the debate about quality to include performance in areas such as

efficiency in use of resources or effective management.

2.2.4 Quality as Meeting Customers’ Slated or Implied Needs During the last 20 years, the definition of ‘quality’ most often used in

industry has evolved and is no longer given solely in terms of conformance to

a specification but in terms of meeting customers’ needs. High priority is

placed on identifying customers’ needs as a crucial factor in the design of a

product or service. In Deming’s terms ‘the difficulty in defining quality is to

translate the future needs of the user into measurable characteristics, so that

a product can be designed and turned out to give satisfaction at a price that

the user will pay (Deming, W.E.,1982).

21

Using this definition of quality, it is clear that fitness for purpose should

be related to customers’ needs. Who is the customer in higher education? Is it

the service user (the students) or is it those who pay for the service (the

government, the industries)? Is the student the consumer, the product or

both? Taking the view that it is the service user, or student, who is the

customer, raises a number of difficulties, particularly in the evaluation of the

service. While it may be relatively easy to identify the physical needs of

students in higher education in terms of access to adequate library provision

and adequate student accommodation, the heart of the education service is

the relationship between the lecturer and student in the teaching and learning

process.

Some critics of this approach to define quality in relation to higher

education ask whether students are in a position to know what their needs

are. Defining quality as meeting customers’ needs does not necessarily imply

that the customer is always best placed to determine what quality is or

whether it is present (Marchese, T., 1991). This definition, therefore, also

leaves open the question about who should define quality in higher education

and how it should be assessed.

2.2.5 Quality as Zero Errors

This approach defines quality as consistent flawless outcome or

perfection. In some ways, this definition ‘democratizes’ the concept of quality

and if consistency is achievable then anyone can achieve quality. When the

22

prior definitions focus on getting a better position, the current definition

worships perfection. The above definition is easily applicable in industry as

there are detailed standards set for the product or outcome, but when it

comes to the university graduates, then it would be impossible to define what

a flawless graduate should be; besides that it is not the aim of the university to

produce identical graduates. Although the current approach is too idealistic for

higher education, it still fosters the development of the learning environment to

enhance quality (Janne Parri, 2006).

2.2.6 Quality as Transformation, Reshaping

According to this point of view, the main customer of higher education

quality is a student whose understandings, attitudes and objectives change

and evolve in the course of the study process. The better the graduate can

manage in the future working life with the help of the knowledge, experience

and skills acquired at the university, the more fully has the particular university

met its goals.

The process of transformation is described figuratively by Harvey

(1995), who says that transformation in higher education could be compared

with how water transforms into ice. There is a lot of subjectivity in such quality

assessment. If it is not possible to measure, then it is not possible to improve.

It is problematic and difficult to measure intellectual capital that is the main

outcome and output of higher education. The students are the focus of

attention – the better the university, the better it can meet the goals that

23

include equipping the students with special skills, knowledge and attitudes

that enable them to work and live in the society of knowledge. It has been

stressed that the views and aims of students change during the studies

(Westerheijden, D., Kristoffersen, D., Sursoc, A., 1998).

Under educational circumstances it means becoming better,

empowerment and development of new knowledge. It means a qualitative

change here and transformation does not apply to physical transformation but

cognitive reshaping. Besides cognitive reshaping, higher education does

influence the intellectual aptitude of students, but can also shape the I-picture,

provide the individual with skills, equip with knowledge, change attitudes and

fight prejudice (Tam, 2001). Similar terminologies describe transformation in

the development of a student in higher education using terms like ‘growth’ and

‘influence’. All these terms literally stress the importance of university that

brings along positive change in students, both in the cognitive and non-

cognitive dimension. The situation, where the institution offering higher

education has such an influence on the student that he/she can sense

positive difference in comparison with the prior period, could also be viewed

as transformation. The most outstanding institutions are those that have the

biggest impact on the knowledge and personal development of students

(Tam, M., 2001).

24

2.2.7 Quality as Threshold

Specific standards and norms are defined. A threshold is set that the

institution should cross in order to certify that the instruction meets the quality

standards. Standards that help to rationalise the definition of quality, make it

more objective. The weakness of the above-described approach is that

standards are difficult to apply under rapidly changing circumstances.

Standards outdate as the reality changes more quickly than the standards are

changed.

Nevertheless, most European countries apply minimum standards that

ensure the level of quality below which no institution offering higher education

should go. Minimum standards also allow comparability in higher education

system. Minimum standards are often briefly defined: only the general

definition of the expected knowledge, skills and attitudes of graduates is

provided. These ensure the particular minimum quality of higher education

and curricula comparability. At the same time it is assumed that all university

units or curricula exceed minimum standards, adding the goals and increasing

quality through meeting these goals (Westerheijden, 1998).

2.2.8 Quality as Value for Money

It is a populist approach that equalizes quality and value, especially

value for money (Harvey, Green, 1993). Phrases like “quality for reasonable

price” and “quality at affordable price” mean that one is promised a high

25

quality product at a reduced price. This is the opposite of the blind faith of the

perfect competition market that states, “You get what you pay for”. The

essence of this approach lies in the responsibility aspect of quality assurance.

State-funded universities are expected to hold responsibility towards

financiers and clients. It is thought that the key of increase in cost-

effectiveness is in increased competition among universities both for financing

and students. Despite considerable drawbacks of this theory, several

governments have strengthened the bond between the quality of education

and its monetary value mainly through demands for efficiency.

2.2.9 The Pragmatic Definition of Quality in Higher

Education

Quality is a relative concept because different interest groups or

‘stakeholders’ in higher education have different priorities and their focus of

attention may be different. For example, the focus of attention for students

and lecturers might be on the process of education, while the focus of

industries might be on the outputs of higher education. It is not possible,

therefore, to talk about quality as a unitary concept and quality must be

defined in terms of qualities, with recognition that an institution may be of high

quality in relation to one factor but low quality in relation to another.

Harvey and Green (1993) suggest that stakeholders’ views on quality

could be categorized according to five definitions: quality as exceptional (e.g.

high standards), quality as perfection or consistency (e.g. zero defects),

26

quality as fitness for purpose (fitting customer specifications), quality as value

for money, and quality as transformation (a continuing process of

empowerment and enhancement of students). While the authors suggest that

quality as transformation includes the other definitions to some extent, it can

also be argued that different definitions of quality are likely to be prioritised by

different stakeholders in accordance with their motivations and interest.

Hence, the best can be achieved by identifying the criteria for quality set by

stakeholders such as students, faculties, alumni and industries.

2.3 Quality of Teaching

As the number of those participating in the higher education increases,

and as that increase is inevitably unmatched by an equal increase in unit

funding, the quality and versatility of teaching will become even more

important. Stories have reverberated for decades about poor teaching by

academics who were distinguished in research, but failures when it came to

communication of their knowledge to students. Such stories were treated with

gentle tolerance when the students were part of gifted elite and could

compensate by their own efforts for the very mediocre teaching they

sometimes received (Naisbitt, j. & Aburdene, P., 1989).

As the gates widen, the nature of the student body varied, although

more in relation to the educational backgrounds they have experienced than

to the inborn talent they posses. Consequently, teaching will have to be highly

skilled and appropriate to the diverse needs of the student population. Nor the

27

Industries of the future continue to tolerate the graduate who has a well

rounded and trained mind but whose knowledge and skills are unrelated to

the needs of the economy. Many Industries are beginning to ask why the

higher education system has not used its own resources more effectively to

develop appropriate knowledge and skill in its graduates.

The nature of teaching will need to become not only more varied and

versatile, but will also have to be of a very high quality. The ultimate

guarantee of quality in the interaction process must be in the attitudes,

knowledge and skills of the individual teachers themselves. Teachers, who

feel enthusiasm for their job and who are well qualified and experts in what

they teach, are the only essential ingredients in teaching quality. It is for those

who lead the academic teachers to provide the ethos and a real sense of

autonomy for each individual, in order to release their creative talents in

teaching. Nevertheless, it is also the responsibility of management to know

what the quality of student experience is in the department, faculty or

institution for which they are responsible. Reaching a judgement about the

skill of each individual teacher must therefore be part of management

responsibility, and senior academic leaders must develop ways of collecting

evidence about teaching quality.

It is possible to formulate a judgement of an individual’s teaching

competence with sufficient accuracy to include it in the teacher appraisal

process that is now being instituted in universities. Evidence from far too

many sources indicates that the higher education system still contains, and

28

tolerates, too large a minority of teachers who are not delivering an

acceptable service to their students. At the present time, there are enormous

anxieties amongst lecturers about the measures of teaching competence, and

the possibility that disciplinary action might be taken against teachers who fall

below a minimum standard of competence. The performance of the individual

teacher is only one ingredient in the teaching quality measure of any

department or institution.

It can not be said too often that the real quality of higher education

must be measured in terms of what the students know, understand and can

do at the end of their higher education experience. These are unquestionably

the criteria used by industries and by society at large (Baroness Pauline

Perry, 1991).

2.4 Quality in Higher Education: An International

Perspective

During the last decade, many countries have experienced a growing

concern for quality in higher education. The manifestations of this concern and

the reasons for it vary from country to country (Malcolm Frazer, 1994). The

concern for quality in higher education comes from several quarters.

1. Government, which in most countries is the paymaster

2. Citizens, who pay taxes to Government

3. Industries and graduates

29

4. Students and their parents

5. Teachers, Professors and Managers in Higher Education

‘More does not mean worse’, but those who pay and those who study,

want evidence to support this assertion, and those who teach and manage in

Higher Education have a responsibility to provide the evidence. The first

reason for the concern is ‘Value for money’.

The second reason is about effectiveness. In many countries the

expansion of higher education has not brought the prosperity some promised

it would. There are some developing countries that undertook massive

expansion of higher education only to discover that there were many

unemployed, underemployed, or misemployed graduates who were

disillusioned and often a focus for discontent. In other countries, industries

complain about the inability of graduates to contribute to their enterprises.

This leads to the third reason -- the concern for quality in higher

education has been seen by many as ‘secret garden’. Better communications,

nationally and internationally, and more openness in many other fields of

activity have meant that universities can no longer hide behind the defence of

academic freedom. Higher education institutions need to expose and to

explain to society at large what they are about and how well they are doing it.

The fourth and final reason is due to the lowering of national barriers by

political change, by massive increase in travel and by the electronic

30

communications revolution. Each of these has had an effect on higher

education. Government wants students to learn in, from and about other

countries. Students themselves want to be more mobile. This has produced a

need to understand the equivalences of qualifications, the standards reached

and the values to be attached to credit for something learnt in one country to

be transferred to another.

It is strange that, although there is clearly an international consensus

that quality in higher education is important, there is no agreement either

between, or within. Much confusion would be avoided, if there could be

agreement internationally on the meaning of terms such as ‘level’, ‘standards’,

‘effectiveness’ and ‘efficiency’ (De weert, E., 1990).

1. Level: A doctorate programme is at a higher level than one leading to a

baccalaureate. This does not mean that doctoral programs are of

higher quality than baccalaureate programs.

2. Standards: These are statements defining the threshold that must be

reached before programs can be offered or qualifications can be

awarded.

3. Effectiveness: This is a measure of the match between stated goals

and their achievement. It is always possible to achieve ‘easy’ low –

standard goals. In other words, quality in higher education cannot only

be a question of achievements / ‘outputs’ but must also involve

judgements about the goals (part of ‘inputs’).

31

4. Efficiency: This is a measure of resources used (costs) to achieve

stated goals. It is unfortunate that governments frequently confuse

quality in higher education with efficiency.

2.5 Quality System

Using the terminology in ISO 8402, a ‘quality system’ is defined as an

“organisational structure, procedures, processes and resources needed to

implement quality management”. It should be noted that according to this

description, the term does not focus on the outputs from an organisation. It

does not provide requirements on the output, requirements which must be met

if this output is to be considered as having high quality. Instead the term

refers to the system for managing activities related to quality within an

organisation.

2.6 Quality Audit

Another concept of importance is ‘quality audit’ which is described

(British Standards Institution (BSI), 1989) as “systematic and independent

examination to determine whether quality activities and related results comply

with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are

implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives”.

32

Quality audit of higher education investigates whether the process of

activity is efficient (whether the goals are achievable). In other words, quality

audit means checking whether relevant systems and structures within an

organisation support the goal of instruction. Quality audit can be internal as

well as external. Quality audit checks whether university systems function and

whether documents prove that (Hernon, 2002).

2.7 Academic Audit

Institutions of higher education can measure, assess, and improve their

academic quality by means other than accreditation (Gates, S, et al. 2002).

Academic audit is a new alternative to assure institutional quality. This

strategy evaluates the internal quality processes of the institution using

external peer review. The goal is to ensure that universities have effective

mechanisms and structures in place to monitor, maintain, and improve the

quality of teaching in relation to institutional mission, policies, resources, staff,

program design, and learning outcomes which, in turn, encourages on-going

self improvement.

Alteste’s work distinguishes Academic Audit from Accreditation by

highlighting Academic Audit’s emphasis on formative evaluation and

outcomes assessment (Alteste, J., 2004). As he states: “Academic Audit is

done not to measure quality but to focus on the processes that are understood

to produce quality and the methods by which academics are assured that

quality has been achieved.”

33

2.8 Quality Inspection

Another concept of importance is ‘quality inspection’ which is described

in ISO 8402 as “activity such as measuring, examining, testing or gauging

one or more characteristics of an entity and comparing the results with

specified requirements in order to establish whether conformity is achieved for

each characteristic”. Inspection could thus be interpreted as comparing an

entity with some standard, where this term then should be understood in the

sense of some “required, expected or accepted level of quality”

2.9 The Essence of Quality Assurance in Higher Education

According to Wahlen (1998), quality assurance in higher education is

the activity that aims at maintaining and raising quality, e.g. research,

analysis, assessing acceptability, recruitment, appointment procedures and

different mechanisms and systems. The aim of quality assurance in higher

education is to guarantee the improvement of standards and quality in higher

education in order to make higher education meet the needs of students,

industries and financiers (Lomas, 2002).

Quality assurance could be divided into internal and external quality

assurances according to the customers of education and their opportunities.

34

2.9.1 External Quality Assurance

External quality assurance monitoring is a broad concept that includes

several quality related assessments provided by different bodies or individuals

outside the higher education institutions. The aim is to achieve accountability.

The government institutions usually decide upon the systems of external

quality assurance of higher education institutions. External quality assurance

is necessary in order to prove to the public that the goals set by the institution

will be achieved. Higher education institutions bear responsibility to assure

their supporters, state and society in general that they are committed to the

fulfilment of their mission, use the resources honestly and responsibly and

that they meet the legal expectations (El-Khawas, 1998).

2.9.2 Internal or Institutional Quality Assurance

Internal or institutional quality assurance aims at institutional

development and assessment of internal accountability. Institutional quality

assurance incorporates every institutional activity that focuses on quality

insurance and development in all the fields of activity of the institution

(European dimension of institutional quality management, 2000). Internal

quality assurance concentrates mainly on academic issues and lies in

collecting evidence and information about mission fulfilment, efficiency of

activity and ways of insuring quality within the institution

35

2.10 Quality Assurance in India

India’s standards of higher education compare unfavourably with the

average standards in educationally advanced countries. In 1980s, serious

concerns were raised about continued deterioration in quality of higher

education. It was found that the built-in controls were not able to ensure

quality. Various options were examined. In line with global practices, external

quality assurance was conceived in India as a solution (Antony, S.., 2002).

Presently, there are three agencies that evaluate quality of institutions

and / or programmes through an external quality assurance in the country.

These are: the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) set up

by the UGC in 1994 to accredit institutions of higher educations; the National

Board of Accreditation (NBA) established by the All India Council of Technical

Education (AICTE) in 1994 to accredit programmes in engineering and related

areas and the Accreditation Board (AB) established by the Indian Council of

Agriculture Research (ICAR) in 1996 to accredit agriculture institutions.

2.10.1 National Assessment and Accreditation Council

(NAAC)

Though the National Policy for Education (NPE) in 1986 recommended

to put in place a quality assurance mechanism, the National Assessment and

Accreditation Council (NAAC) could only be established in 1994. Even after

36

that, it took almost a few years for NAAC to accredit the first institution in

January 1998. Initially, there was a debate on whether the accreditation in

India could be made compulsory and linked to funding (Antony, S., 2002).

Finally, keeping in mind that built-in controls in the form of regulatory bodies

and a strong affiliating system already existed, it was decided that

assessment and accreditation would be used as an enabling mechanism

towards self-improvement

The NAAC adopted core elements common to most external quality

assurance systems, namely, assessment based on a pre-determined criteria

that combines self-study and peer review that is valid for a specific period of

time. Based on this, NAAC evolved its unique assessment model that

combined three basic approaches to quality assurance, namely Accreditation,

Assessment and Academic Audit. Accreditation is an evaluation of whether an

institution or program qualifies for a certain status. Accreditation provides the

outcome in a binary scale – yes/no or accredited/not-accredited. Assessment

gives an idea of the quality of the outputs. Typical outcome of assessment

results in a multi-point grade -- numeric or literal or descriptive. Academic

audits are focused on those processes by which an institution monitors its

own academic standards and acts to assure and enhance the quality of its

offerings. The objectives of the institution or programme are taken as the

starting point for the audit. The audit is usually done by a small group of

generalists and it results in an audit report together.

37

NAAC4 accredits institutions and certifies for educational quality of the

institution based on seven criteria. It goes beyond certification and provides

an assessment that classifies an institution on a nine point scale indicating

where the institution stands in the quality-scale. External peer review report

other than its confidential part is made public. So far, NAAC has taken up

accreditation of universities and colleges only, though it could take up

accreditation of departments or programmes as well. The universities

recognised by the UGC or colleges affiliated to them are eligible to volunteer

for accreditation.

Accreditation by NAAC is voluntary and is valid for five years. By June

2005, NAAC had accredited 105 universities and 2311 colleges. Overall,

around 13 per cent institutions of higher education have been accredited by

NAAC in India. Though accreditation in India is voluntary, many state

governments have decided to make accreditation compulsory for the

institutions within their states. The government of Tamilnadu has decided to

submit the government colleges for assessment in a phased manner.

Karnataka has made accreditation mandatory for all its professional colleges.

Similar moves are on in states like Bihar, Kerala, Goa, Andhra Pradesh and

Maharashtra. The UGC is meeting all cost of accreditation of universities and

colleges recognised by it.

4 http://naacindia.org/ criteria.asp

38

2.10.2 National Board of Accreditation (NBA)

The National Board of Accreditation (NBA)5 under the AICTE accredits

programmes that come under engineering and related areas. NBA follows the

same process of external peer review as that of NAAC. Programmes with

more than 650 marks out of a maximum of 1000 points are “Accredited” and

those that score less than 650 are “Not Accredited”. Programmes getting a

score more than 750 are accredited for a period five-years, where between

650 and 750 are accredited for a period of three years. The outcome of NBA

process is not linked to funding. Though AICTE has made accreditation by

NBA mandatory for all technical institutions, the progress so far is poor. By

May 2003, NBA had accredited merely 895 programs from 202 institutions as

against a total of 14000 programmes in 3589 approved UG and PG and 1608

diploma level institutions. A large number of institutions are yet to complete

two years after graduating of their first batch and, therefore, are not yet

eligible for accreditation.

2.10.2.1 Criteria for Accreditation

The NBA evaluation processes are so designed as to facilitate

identification of the strengths and weaknesses of the programmes under

accreditation. The evaluation process is based on a set of eight broad-based

criteria developed through a lengthy participatory process involving more than

1000 participants concerned with Technical Education all over India.

5 http://aicte.ernet.in/

39

These criteria are listed here.

Criterion I Organization and Governance

Criterion II Financial Resources, Allocation and Utilization

Criterion III Physical Resources (Central Facilities)

Criterion IV Human Resources: Faculty and Staff

Criterion V Human Resources: Students

Criterion VI Teaching-Learning Processes

Criterion VII Supplementary Processes

Criterion VIII Research and Development and Interaction Effort

Three of the criteria described above have been broken down into

parameters, and weightages have been assigned to these parameters by the

NBA. The parameters and the weightages assigned to them, which are

different for diploma, undergraduate (UG) degree and postgraduate (PG)

degree programmes are given below:

PARAMETERS I. HUMAN RESOURCES

a. Faculty Diploma: 160 Marks, UG: 160 Marks, PG: 160 Marks A Number of Student faculty: Ratio, Cadre ratio, Average experience,

faculty retention, turnover

B Qualifications

C Participation of faculty in Institutional development/ Departmental

development/ Academic matters/ Student development/ Self growth

40

D Implementation and Impact of Faculty Development initiatives

E Analysis and Follow-up of Performance appraisal

F Service rules, pay package, incentives

b. Support Staff (Technical /Administration) Diploma: 40 Marks, UG: 40 Marks, PG: 40 Marks A Number

B Qualification/ skills (Laboratory., Office, Computer centre etc.)

C Skill upgradation

II. HUMAN RESOURCES-STUDENTS Diploma: 100 Marks, UG: 100 Marks, PG: 100 Marks A Student admissions

B Academic results

C Performance in competitive examinations

D Placement

III. TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES Diploma: 450 Marks, UG: 350 Marks, PG: 250 Marks A Delivery of syllabus contents

B Contents beyond the syllabus

C Academic calendar

D Continuous evaluation procedure

E Utilization of Laboratories/ Equipment

F Information access facilities

G Student - centric learning initiatives

H Student feedback

41

2.10.3 Accreditation Board (AB)

Accreditation Board (AB) under the ICAR enforces and monitors

compliance with norms and standards for agricultural education in India. AB

follows the same process as that of NAAC and NBA. The result of AB

accreditation process is “accreditation status”, “provisional accreditation

status” or “no accreditation status”. In each case, the outcome is substantiated

with reasons. The accreditation status is valid for a period of five to ten years.

Accreditation outcome is linked to funding. The AB charges no accreditation

fees.

2.10.4 Professional Bodies

Some of the other professional bodies are attempting to establish their

own accreditation mechanism. The Distance Education Council (DEC) and the

National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) are working with NAAC to

develop their own accreditation procedures. Overall, the response of the

higher education institutions’ quality assurance movement is lukewarm,

though there are significant regional variations with universities and colleges

in the southern and western parts of the country generally more enthusiastic

towards accreditation. There have also been initiatives to rope in private

professional rating agencies for accreditation in certain segments of higher

education.

42

2.10.5 Private Professional Rating Agencies

In January 2004, the Directorate General of Shipping (DGS), the

regulator of Maritime Education in India decided to encourage maritime

education institutions – both public and private -- to get themselves rated by

professional rating agencies such as CRISIL, ICRA or CARE. The Directorate

laid down standards based on global practices for accreditation and allowed

the private agencies to do the rest. It did not interfere in determining the fee

structure for rating. Initially, twenty-four out of sixty pre-sea institutes

voluntarily came forward for grading. There has been an excellent response

from the public and aspiring candidates to the institutes that were graded.

Based on inputs from the accreditation bodies, the rated institutes have

improved their standards.

DGS is now planning to make it mandatory for all maritime education

institutions to get themselves rated by the identified private professional rating

agencies. As noted above, the experience of using private rating agencies for

accreditation for maritime education in India has been good. Rating by private

agencies has helped to improve the quality of maritime education in India. It

has also helped in preparing trained manpower that meets global standards

for the shipping industry. This experience is for a small and niche segment of

higher education. It needs to be seen if this is scalable.

43

2.10.6 Assessment of Impact

Despite the existence of NAAC for over ten years now, its impact on

quality of higher education is yet not quite visible. There is a need for deeper

scrutiny of this. Perhaps the reasons for deteriorating standards of higher

education in India are deep rooted. To address the problems of lack of

resources, the issues relating to financing higher education need to be fixed.

To address the issues relating to violation of minimum standards, the

regulatory system needs to be made more effective. A voluntary accreditation

process cannot address these problems. If one evaluates the performance of

NAAC against its intended purpose, we see that NAAC has been doing a

commendable job. The problem lies elsewhere. NAAC accreditation was to

facilitate institutions towards self-improvement with the institution as its prime

beneficiary. This is beginning to happen. Funding agencies were expected to

use the outcome of the accreditation process to target their funding to quality

institutions. This is also beginning to happen, yet it has little impact. The

funding agencies have little or no discretionary funding available with them to

link it with quality.

In the absence of clear incentives for accreditation, the higher

education institutions have not begun to take accreditation in India seriously.

The coverage of NAAC and NBA accreditation is still small. Many of the

reputed universities and colleges have so far not volunteered themselves for

accreditation. As a result, accreditation status fails to give any clear signal

44

about the quality of all institutions or their programmes. In contrast to this

ambiguous situation in India, accreditation in the US serves a clear and

specific purpose. Accreditation processes in India and the US have the same

core elements: institution-based voluntary exercise, self-study, peer review,

and public disclosure of outcome. Despite this similarity, there are significant

differences in the way the accreditation in the two countries is organised.

These differences explain different outcomes.

2.11 Quality Assessment

The term ‘quality assessment’, which is frequently used within higher

education, is in ISO 8402 held as synonymous to ‘quality evaluation’, which is

defined as “systematic examination of the extent to which an entity is capable

of fulfilling specified requirements”. It is further stated that the results of an

evaluation or assessment may be used for qualification, approval, registration,

certification or accreditation purposes.

Quality assessment in higher education is of global interest. Public and

government demand for accountability from Higher Education Institutions has

terrifically amplified over the past decade (Brennan, J., Fedrowitz, J., Huber,

M., & Shah, T. (Eds.)., 1999). The necessitate for ensuring the validity and

utility of the assessment process has also increased. To be advantageous,

the assessment must meet the needs of the people whom it is anticipated to

benefit and help the evaluated Institution to make development. Quality

assessment is often undertaken in reaction to external authorities who

45

anticipate clear and approved criteria to be used in the accountability process.

However, change must be effected within the institution if the assessment is to

be useful. This means that all inside stakeholders such as administrators,

faculty members and students also need an understanding of the criteria that

can guide and facilitate improvements in the way they function.

The quality assessment units would be expected to provide information

about the actual and relative quality of institutions and the courses they offer

(DES, 1991). Quality Assessment is seen as separate from Academic Audit

from the perspectives of purpose, methodology and institutional responsibility.

While the audit focuses on the robustness of Quality Assurance and Quality

Management Systems, the responsibility of providing quality education rests

with the institution. Quality assessment is possible only when the criteria for

quality and the quality itself are defined.

Indicators of student quality have been used frequently as measures in

the assessment of postsecondary institutions. However, because different

types of stakeholders in higher education -- the public, administration, faculty,

or students -- have their own perspectives and goals, they assign different

values to the criteria of quality. The public wishes students to graduate with

general abilities and emphasize criteria like communication skills (Cave &

Hanney, 1992). University administrators are expected to show that

resources are being used efficiently and effectively; for them, student

completion of program requirements is an important criterion (Nadeau,

Donald, & Konrad, 1992). Faculty view the primary compulsion of the

46

university students to be the improvement of intellectual independence (Baird,

1988; Barzun, 1993) and hence, focus on criteria such as the ability to think

critically (Barnett, 1988; Trice & Dey, 1997). In the meantime, students are

increasingly anxious with career concerns; they value criteria such as the

ability to get a job (Dey, Astin, & Korn, 1991). To come to an understanding of

higher education goals and criteria for judging success in meeting them

requires an analysis of the value attached to them by different stakeholders.

The most familiar approaches to quality assessment are based on

reputation and resources (Astin, 1985). Reputation is a global assessment of

the professed status or excellence of an institution or program, typically

measured by asking well-informed experts to rate the institution or program. In

the first approach, namely reputation approach, leaders of reputed research

universities might rate other research universities for excellence (Cave &

Hanney, 1992). In accordance with their averaged ratings, the institutions or

programs are then ranked.

The Second approach, namely resource approach to quality

assessment uses input measures of faculty and student quality and physical

and financial resources (endowments, per student expenditure). One of the

most often used measures of quality within the resource approach, is the

intellectual ability of students at entry to college or university.

A third approach uses performance indicators or global outputs to

define quality indices such as program or degree completion rates, the

47

proportion of undergraduates admitted to graduate education, or alumni

satisfaction ratings.

The defect in these approaches is that they do not suggest how

improvements in quality could be made. The perceptions of the external

stakeholders and the Industries are also ignored. Reasoning that these

approaches to quality are counterproductive, Astin (1985) recommended that

quality be considered in terms of talent development. The criteria for quality in

Astin's approach are grounded on an institution's ability to affect its students

and faculty positively; for example, by enhancing the knowledge and personal

development of students and the scholarly and pedagogical ability and

efficiency of faculty members. An essential component of this approach is

simultaneously considering inputs, environments, and outcomes (Astin, 1993).

The effective institution is one that adapts programs and policies to improve

students' educational experience.

Programs consistent with this approach frequently focus on the

assessment of student progress. Another widely recognized assessment

program uses a series of tests of student competencies (Banta, 1989). In

these programs, student performance at entry to, during and exit from college

is compared to establish the extent to which student competencies increase.

In the measurement of academic progress, indicators of the nature and

extent of interactions between the student and the educational environment

are important intervening variables. One measure of interaction, involvement,

48

the extent to which students invest physical and psychological energy in their

educational experience, has emerged as a major construct in ensuring

positive outcomes (Terenzini, P. T.,1989).

Students are a central focus in assessments of educational quality. It is

seldom acknowledged that they are also major stakeholders in higher

education. To date, quality criteria have reflected administrators' or faculty

priorities. As both the subjects of assessment and stakeholders, it is argued

that students and their perceptions of quality criteria need to be incorporated

into the assessment process. For example, students have a different

perception of grades, a central component of assessment, than do professors

(Goulden & Griffin, 1995). Whereas faculty focus on the role of grades as

feedback, students see grading as including a gate-keeping function. They

are thus likely to assign a different value to grades than faculty do. In spite of

differences between students' and other stakeholders' views, students'

perceptions are rarely examined and so cannot be taken into account in the

assessment process.

Higher education institutions with the most educational impact are

those with consistent and obvious educational objectives that are shared by

faculty and students (Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L., 1993). The

significance that students accord to particular objectives shapes the activities

in which they engage and the degree of effort they expend in those activities

(Cantor, N., & Langston, C. A. (1989). However, there is evidence of

increasing discrepancy in the educational objectives of faculty and students.

49

For example, faculty teaching objectives have remained relatively stable over

the past two decades, with highest priority given to facilitating students'

intellectual development (Trice, A. G., & Dey, E. L., 1997). In contrast,

students are increasingly interested in obtaining practical training for

employment (Dey et al., 1991).The existence of opposing objectives between

faculty and students is likely to lead to bigger levels of frustration and

dissatisfaction. Faculty express dissatisfaction, when they perceive that

students are not committed to intellectual pursuits. Students manifest

disappointment with the academic advising they receive, because it does not

respond to their needs (Alexitch, L. R., 1997).

2.12 Research Gap

There are gaps to be addressed. Perceptions of industries, one of the

vital stakeholders of higher education, on criteria for quality of students were

not studied so far and the perceptions of all stakeholders, namely industries,

faculty, student and alumni on the criteria for quality of faculty were also

completely ignored. The perception of alumni on the quality of higher

education is yet to be found and compared with the perceptions of students.

But the stakeholders’ perceptions on quality of faculty are very crucial to

improve the quality of higher education. The perception gap between all

stakeholders were not studied and analysed. Assessment bodies have dealt

with the parameters for quality of whole institutions, but not adequately

focussed on the quality criteria of students and faculty.

50

Hence the purpose of this investigation is to examine the perceptions of

quality criteria for students and faculty by a broad range of stakeholders. The

stakeholders are faculty, students, alumni and industries. Quality of higher

education cannot be achieved without knowing the perceptions of

stakeholders and their perceptual divide. .As the higher education system is

undergoing a colossal change, with privatisation and globalisation of

education, this study will aid the development of the system by bringing in a

socially relevant tool and suggestions to the policy makers which will enhance

the quality of higher education institutions in India.