Abstract: Assessment and Accreditation Framework: The Revised process

Abstract:

Recently the National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) have revised the Assessment and Accreditation Process launched in July 2017. The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will now be
assessed with the new process whose online submission has started from 9th
November 2017. The new process represents an explicit paradigm shift making it
ICT enabled, objective, transparent, scalable and robust.

 

Since the process is going to be implemented first
time, many institutes are facing many queries to comply with the mandatory
requirements of NAAC. The Research paper attempts to address the above issue
and provide a glance of the Revised Assessment and Accreditation
Process thereby by guiding the institutes to apply for NAAC at an ease.

 

Keywords: NAAC,
Assessment, Accreditation, Framework

 

1.      
Introduction:

 

In view with the changing trends in higher education
and aligning the reforms and rapidly transforming global education scenario,
NAAC has embarked in revising the Assessment and Accreditation (A&A)
methodology. Accordingly the Revised Assessment and Accreditation (A&A)
Framework was launched in July 2017. Let us take a glance of the revised process.

 

 

2.      
Revised
Assessment and Accreditation Framework:

The Revised process is an explicit paradigm shift from
earlier process making it ICT enabled, objective, transparent, scalable and
robust. The shift is:

·      
from qualitative
peer judgement to data based quantitative indicator evaluation with increased
objectivity and transparency

·       towards extensive use of ICT confirming scalability
and robustness

·      
in terms of simplification of the
process drastic reduction in number of questions, size of the report, visit days, and so on

·       In terms of boosting benchmarking as quality
improvement tool. This has been
attempted through comparison of NAAC indicators with other international QA
frameworks

·       Introducing pre-qualifier for peer team visit, as 30%
of system generated score.

·      
Introducing System Generated Scores (SGS) with
combination of online evaluation
(about 70%) and peer judgement (about 30%)

·       in introducing the element of third party validation of data

·       in providing appropriate differences in the metrics, weightages and benchmarks to universities, autonomous colleges and
affiliated/constituent colleges

·       in revising several metrics to bring in enhanced
participation of students and alumni in the assessment process

 

3.      
Criteria for Assessment

NAAC has identified the following seven criteria to serve as
the basis of its assessment procedures:

Curricular
Aspects Teaching-Learning
and EvaluationResearch,
Innovations and ExtensionInfrastructure
and Learning ResourcesStudent
Support and ProgressionGovernance,
Leadership and ManagementInstitutional
Values and Best Practices

 

3.1 Key Indicators

Under each Criterion a few Key Indicators are identified.
These Key Indicators (KIs) are further delineated as Metrics which actually
elicit responses from the HEIs. Distribution of Weightages across 7 Criteria and
34 Key Indicators (KIs) is as follows:

 
Criteria

 
Key Indicators (KIs)

Universities

Autonomous Colleges

Affiliated Colleges

1.Curricular Aspects

1.1
*(U) Curriculum Design and   Development

50

50

NA

*(A) Curricular
Planning
and
Implementation

NA

NA

20

1.2
Academic Flexibility

50

40

30

1.3
Curriculum Enrichment

30

40

30

1.4
Feedback System

20

20

20

Total

150

150

100

2. Teaching- Learning and Evaluation

2.1
Student Enrolment and Profile

10

20

30

2.2
Catering to Student Diversity

20

30

50

2.3Teaching-Learning
Process

20

50

50

2.4 Teacher Profile and Quality

50

60

80

2.5
Evaluation Process and Reforms

40

40

50

2.6
Student Performance and Learning Outcomes

30

50

40

2.7
Student satisfaction Survey

30

50

50

Total

200

300

350

3. Research, Innovations and Extension

3.1
Promotion of Research and Facilities

 
20

 
20

 
NA

3.2
Resource Mobilization for Research

20

10

10

3.3
Innovation Ecosystem

30

20

10

3.4
Research Publications and Awards

100

20

20

3.5
Consultancy

20

10

NA

3.6
Extension Activities

40

50

60

3.7
Collaboration

20

20

20

Total

250

150

120

*(U) – applicable only for Universities and
Autonomous Colleges

 (A) – applicable only for the Affiliated /
Constituent Colleges

 NA – Not Applicable

 

Table 1: Distribution of
Weightages across 7 Criteria and 34 Key Indicators (KIs)

 

4.       Revised Assessment and Accreditation Process of NAAC

Fig 1. NAAC
A&A Process*

Fig 2.
Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA) Application Process

Fig 3. SSR
Application and Assessment

5.       The
Grading Pattern – Introduction of Grade Qualifiers

 

The revised framework will be more ICT intensive and
‘outcome based ‘. The current grading pattern of NAAC (A++, A+, A, B++, B+, B,
C, D) would be continued for accreditation.

 

CGPA

Letter
Grade

Status

3.51 –
4.00

A++

Accredited

3.26 –
3.50

A+

Accredited

3.01 –
3.25

A

Accredited

2.76 –
3.00

B++

Accredited

2.51 –
2.75

B+

Accredited

2.01 –
2.50

B

Accredited

1.51 –
2.00

C

Accredited

? 1.50

D

Not Accredited

Table 2: Grading
System

A system of applying minimum qualifiers for achieving
a grade has been designed and will be implemented.
For eg. Universities should score a minimum of 3.01 in Criteria 1, 2 and 3 for achieving a “A” “A+” “A++”grade

Fig 4. Grading
and Accreditation

6.       Benefits of
Accreditation

Accreditation
facilitates

Institution
to know its strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities through an informed
review process.Identification
of internal areas of planning and resource allocationCollegiality
on the campus.Funding
agencies look for objective data for performance funding.Institutions
to initiate innovative and modern methods of pedagogy.New
sense of direction and identity for institutions.The
society look for reliable information on quality education offered.Employers
look for reliable information on the quality of education offered to the
prospective recruits.Intra
and inter-institutional interactions.

7.       Conclusion

The Revised NAAC
process is a paradigm shift from earlier process making it ICT enabled,
objective, transparent, scalable and robust. However if the points mentioned in
the research paper are gone thoroughly will definitely ease on the process for
the HEIs.

8.       References:

·        
Aithal, P. S. and
Shailashree, V. T. and Kumar, P. M. Suresh, Analysis of NAAC Accreditation
System Using ABCD Framework (January 10, 2016). International Journal of
Management, IT and Engineering, Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2016, pp. 30-44.

·        
www.naac.gov.in/

·        
http://mhrd.gov.in/

·        
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/naac-to-release-to-new-accreditation-pro-forma/articleshow/59847439.cms

·        
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/national-seminar-on-naac-framework-held-at-svims/articleshow/61183904.cms

·        
https://www.ndtv.com/education/naac-launches-revised-accreditation-framework-1734142

·        
http://www.newindianexpress.com/states/karnataka/2017/dec/28/naac-to-check-corruption-in-assessment-and-accreditation-1738527.html

·        
https://stories.linways.in/naacs-revised-accreditation-guidelines-e23ca6f4c4d

·        
http://skilloutlook.com/education/students-alumni-will-role-naacs-revised-accreditation-framework

http://indiadidac.org/2017/08/naac-launches-revised-accreditation-framework/