Quality has been a perennial concern at all levels of education across the globe. Despite it being such a vital concern there has not been any universal definition of quality. Most believe that it is a highly subjective concept and thus based on opinions and perspectives of various stakeholders. The most pertinent aspect of quality in education, however, remains that it is an ever evolving and not a static concept. The sad truth about quality is that it is necessary, mesmerising but maddeningly elusive.
There was a time when quality was viewed from the level of acquisition of knowledge and its application by the pass-outs of a particular institution. Now it is perceived from multiple perspectives that include curricular adaptations, subject-specific benchmarking of learning outcomes, students’ performance indicators, job-placement, accreditation standing from a reputable accrediting agency, higher growth trajectory, etc. But despite all this, there is diverse opinion and a lack of consensus among educationists about any universal definition of quality in higher education. Nevertheless, there are a set of quality indicators that are commonly used by various agencies for assessment and accreditation of individual institutions to provide evidence to support claims of quality.
The National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) has identified as many as 196 quality indicators that are being used for institutional accreditation for a while. They are divided broadly under seven criteria relating to curricular aspects, teaching-learning and evaluation, research, consultancy and extension, infrastructure and learning resources, student support and progression, governance, leadership and management and innovations and best practices. Individual institutions have to develop their Self Study Reports (SSRs) around these quality indicators and submit them to the NAAC for the purpose of accreditation. The SSRs are subjected to data validation and verification prior to NAAC’s assessment and accreditation with the help of the peer groups.
The NAAC has promoted the establishment of Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) as a post-accreditation quality sustenance measure. The basic idea behind this initiative is that the IQAC will continue to keep a tab on the overall progress of the institution and mobilise its resources towards achieving academic excellence. Thus the IQACs are expected to play a critical role not only at the time of preparation of SSRs for accreditation but also throughout the post-accreditation period for furtherance and sustenance of quality. Their primary responsibility is to provide evidence based feedback on all quality parameters and timely advice to ensure a definite acceleration in the upward movement of all divisions of the institution. The University Grants Commission (UGC) recognised the significance of this initiative and took a policy decision to advise all universities to establish IQACs.
Universities need to bring in greater clarity in the functioning of the IQACs. They will have to be more systematic than ever before. Their first and foremost priority should be to assess the existing status of the academic programmes of the university. Second, they should identify modalities and key thematic areas upon which to develop understanding of the ground realities in order to make appropriate recommendations for quality improvement initiatives. Third, they should conduct interactive sessions with a cross-section of academic staff to seek their responses to a variety of questions of relevance. Fourth, they should conduct separate interactive sessions with students with a view to understanding their concerns and suggestions to improve the overall quality of teaching and learning on the campus. Fifth, they should identify evidence-based interventions and mobilise resources to provide additional inputs for the improvement of quality and excellence.
Quality assurance is the key to designing the tasks which lead to the output of a higher order. Every aspect of university accountability has to ensure that maintenance and enhancement of standards of teaching, research and student learning have to be effectively achieved through institutional quality assurance. It is important to have an IQAC for the university as a whole. It is equally important to ensure that the tenets of quality percolate in all the academic functions of the university. It is always beneficial for IQACs to invite observations, opinions, suggestions and perceptions about the existing issues and concerns prevailing in the university. They should identify some critical quality parameters and elicit responses on them from across the faculty to understand the strengths and the weaknesses of the existing operational framework and make necessary recommendations.
The IQACs need to learn from industry experience that will bring in real-world experience into the classroom teaching and learning. Industry carries out internal audits twice before they go in for an external audit. It would help them know their inadequacies and apply mid-course corrections beforehand, to be on a sound footing for external audit. This is what IQACs should do rather than waiting for the flaws to be pointed out by accrediting agencies. They should develop a strategic plan for the development of curriculum and its transaction, recruitment of faculty and staff, students’ assessment, research and innovation, extension activities and engagement, integration of ICT, etc.
Curriculum is a sum total of all experiences that one acquires in any academic programme. Technically, the curriculum incorporates the subject knowledge content, its pedagogy, and assessment. Its continued relevance has to commensurate with its periodical updating to keep it nationally and internationally compatible and competitive. Each university has a well-defined mechanism of preparing and authenticating the curriculum in each subject through its Board of Studies and Academic Council. The IQACs should ascertain the extent of participation of each faculty in designing curriculum since it provides an ownership to the task.
Curriculum transaction is as good as it is taught. Its impact has a substantial relationship with the way it is transacted in the classroom. Even the best of curriculum content can go haywire if its transaction is flawed. Right approach to curriculum transactions can become the basis for good learning. Classroom should provide a healthy environment of interactivity amongst the learners and the teachers. The largely observed practice of a monologue dominating the classroom scenario deprives the classroom of the benefit of participative learning. In the context of present day developments, the IQACs should ensure meaningful transaction of curriculum using different modes of delivery.
There is a need to have well-defined strategies for recruitment, appointment, induction, retention, work load and professional development of the faculty. Norms of accountability must be laid down and constantly reminded to all stakeholders. Teacher’s appraisals are necessary. These must be open, participative and data based. It needs to be adopted as an instrument of professionalism exercised by the faculty in the performance of their tasks. The IQACs should develop a well-defined code of professional ethics for teachers and ensure that it is observed by one and all.
One of the indicators of the quality of an educational institution is the quality of learning demonstrated by its students. The concerns of access, transition and admission procedures, therefore, become significant. In many programmes offered by the university, admission is through a national level entrance test. Whether this modality assures the desired quality or whether there is scope for suggesting improvements in this regard is a pertinent question? Student support services contribute greatly to an environment of enhanced learning. Students’ feedback about the teachers is also a source of ascertaining impact of teaching. Therefore, the IQACs should develop feedback mechanisms as an integral part of teaching and learning.
Assessment is an integral part of the curriculum as it tells whether teaching has led to the desired expectations of learning. Designing testing instruments is a demanding task and all teachers have to learn it seriously. All levels of abilities have to be tested through the testing instruments for the purposes of making distinction amongst high achievers and low achievers. Right teaching should produce right learning. Teaching and learning is invariably hyphenated as both these terms are mutually inclusive. One gets better outcomes if learning objectives, for each topic in a subject, are clearly defined. While designing assessment tools, the learning objectives have to be effectively matched with the items included in the testing instrument. The IQACs should popularise the use of taxonomy of educational objectives so that teachers can develop capacity to frame questions that require cognitive operation at higher levels.
Research activities and research policies must be aligned with each other and with societal contexts. It is to be ensured by the IQACs that the research themes investigated fulfil the role of critic and conscience of the society. Universities cannot function effectively without engaging with social concerns. They have a responsibility to become problem solvers for the community. Such an approach elevates the status of the university as a vibrant instrument of the society. Understanding societal concerns can be a significant input for the research agenda of the university. Research has to be central to the programmes of the university as it is the medium for generating new knowledge which is the prime function of a university.
Today’s classrooms are enriched by the use of multimedia to make communications more effective in clarifying ideas and concepts which require deeper insights. The university campus should be WiFi-enabled and the use of the Internet for performing various activities should be encouraged as much as possible. Teachers should transform their lectures into e.courseware in the form of modules using the ICT tools. The IQACs should ensure that all classrooms are equipped with smart boards and related facilities, and the teachers mandated to use them for effective classroom transactions.
Notwithstanding the establishment of the IQAC on the campus of each university, there has not been much progress insofar as number of accredited universities and their accreditation standard are concerned. It is evidently clear from the NAAC data that as of now, 77% of the universities are non-accredited. It is the irony of the situation that such a large number of universities are functioning without valid accreditation, despite it being mandatory. Another trend that is equally worse is that almost half of the accredited universities have not been able to make the cut to any of the top three grades (A++, A+ and A). It signifies that in most cases, the IQACs have neither been able to ensure timely accreditation of universities, nor have they been able to improve the academic standing of universities in terms of grades. It is patently clear that the working of IQACs leaves a lot to be desired. If universities do not make a major course correction with regard to the functioning of IQACs, a major course correction will be forced on them sooner rather than later.
The writer is former Chairman, UGC. The views expressed are personal.
