Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Quality Evaluation of the Higher Education Programmes

277 views

Published on

Quality Evaluation of the Higher Education Programmes

David Bañeres, Laura Porta, Teresa Romeu, Montse Serra

1st International Workshop on Technology-Enhanced Assessment, Analytics and Feedback (TEAAF2014)

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Quality Evaluation of the Higher Education Programmes

  1. 1. Quality Evaluation of the Higher Education Programmes David Bañeres, Laura Porta, Teresa Romeu, Montse Serra IT, Multimedia and Telecomunications Department Universitat Oberta de Catalunya The universities in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) must fulfil several directives in order to be able to provide a high education degree. A degree is evaluated in all its life cycle: from its design, when it is approved, during its monitoring, until its verification. Thus, each country has a quality agency that articulates all these processes of evaluation following the policies recommended by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) in order to guarantee the quality required for a specific degree [1]. Related to the monitoring process of a degree, an annual report evaluating several indicators has to be delivered to the agency. More precisely, the report describes information like statistics about the enrolment, the student performance, the satisfaction results, or the type of learning resources. Moreover, there is also a summary of the year composed of: detected issues, a set of enhancement proposals and planned corrective measures. Subsequently, this report is analyzed by the agency and a report's feedback is returned to the university together with the issues that should be corrected and improved during the next year. Based on this annual report, the monitoring process consists of the steps described below:  The degree's coordinator analyzes the remarks performed by the agency in the previous report in order to make the suitable adjustments within the degree.  The issues related to a subject that should be corrected are delivered to the teacher in charge of the subject. The issues are shared within teaching staff of the same knowledge area in order to find solutions and implement the corresponding corrections and improvements.  The teachers collect evidences throughout the course in order to point out the weakness and the strength of it for the next annual report.  At the end of the course, the evidences and the analysis of the course are delivered to the coordinator's degree and teaching staff of the same knowledge area.  The degree's coordinator collects all the evidences and, simultaneously, he analyzes and synthesizes the results of the evaluation in her annual report in a continuous process of improvement. As we can observe in the previous description, the monitoring process involves the degree's coordinator and all the teaching staff of the degree. This fact tends to be time- consuming since all the teachers should collaboratively work to meet the quality standards. Currently, in our university this collaborative work is manually performed, that is, the information is transferred by arranging a meeting between the coordinator and the teachers. Additionally, the information concluded from this meeting is delivered
  2. 2. to the coordinator with unformatted documents increasing the analyzing time. This methodology is not efficient and is even more impractical within a degree with a large teaching staff. The present proposal focuses on the evaluation of the quality of a concrete degree by using techniques commonly used on e-assessment [2], since some of these techniques of assessment used to evaluate the students can be extrapolated to other areas. Specifically, we propose to use rubric-based assessment to evaluate the quality of a degree. The rubric helps to self-evaluate a specific subject by measuring some indicators. Indicators with regard to the learning resources, tools, evaluation, satisfaction, quality of the teaching plan, and even the performance of the teaching staff are evaluated. Notice that, this rubric approach guarantees the same criteria for each subject. The gradation of the quality ranges from deficient, acceptable to excellent. Moreover, each indicator also accepts information in natural language describing issues and enhancements tasks scheduled for the next semester. In order to improve the efficiency of the evaluation process, the technique has been implemented within a tool called AVALA. The tool collects all the evidences related to the operative of a concrete degree in the course of a semester. Furthermore, it has been designed as a collaborative framework where all the teaching staff and the coordinator can share all the information related to quality assurance. The tool has a twofold objective. In one hand, as we described, it helps a teacher to collect and analyze all the evidences related to the performance of the teaching process during a semester. At the same time, the teacher can analyze the progress of these evidences from the current semester in comparison with the previous ones. On the other hand, the coordinator degree can consult all the collected evidences on a single environment, it means, the coordinator has a view of the underlying information of the current semester and at a glance she knows what issues need to be addressed. Additionally, the tool has other features to help in some steps of the monitoring process:  The comments of the quality agency are stored by subjects. This feature helps the instructors to automatically know the issues that should be corrected during the current semester.  The system synthesizes the subjects’ evaluations for delivering automatically reports about the critical issues of the degree. This information will help the coordinator to perform the annual reports. The AVALA tool has been used in the IT, Telecommunication and Multimedia department of the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya during the courses 2012-13 and 2013-14 (divided in two semesters both courses). Three degrees and six masters have been managed using the tool and around sixty professors have been involved in the process of evaluation. The experimental results have been satisfactory. The coordinators agree that the tool is useful to review and centralize the information previously cited. Besides, the critical problems can be easily detected. The system misses a control panel with alerts such as subjects with low performance or satisfaction. Indeed, professors agree on the improvement of the efficiency related to the transfer of the information and the
  3. 3. structured way to store the data. However, they complain about the time invested in the evaluation of all the subjects. The tool has some deficiencies that should be corrected in the immediate future. Some users' demands will be taken into account in order to improve the framework. Nevertheless, the main goals of the tool have been achieved reducing the time invested in the guidance's quality of the degree. As a final conclusion, AVALA tool provides an added value, not only with regard to the efficiency of the teacher’s work, but also when establishing a better way to manage all the monitoring processes that belong to a degree contributing the quality’s guarantee. REFERENCES [1] Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ESG_3edition-2.pdf. Last accessed: 21/10/2014 [2] Crisp, G. T. (2012). Integrative assessment: reframing assessment practice for current and future learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 33- 43.

×