See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337857137 NIRF, NBA and NAAC ASSESSMENT & ACCREDITATION A formal Presentation Presentation · December 2019 DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24352.74243 CITATIONS READS 0 22 2 authors , including: Hitesh Mohapatra Veer Surendra Sai University of Technology 81 PUBLICATIONS 401 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Wireless Sensor Network View project Smart City View project All content following this page was uploaded by Hitesh Mohapatra on 10 December 2019. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
P R O F . A M I Y A K U M A R R A T H Rankings and its Guide lines ADVISER , ICT, NAAC, BANGALORE, INDIA PROFESSOR , CSE, VSS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, BURLA , ODISHA
National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) This document is a part of the National Institutional Ranking Framework with emphasis on methodology for ranking universities and colleges across India. The methodology draws from the broad understanding arrived at by the Core Committee (CC) set up by Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) that defines broad parameters to be used for ranking various universities and institutions. The ranking parameters agreed by the Core Committee (CC) are generic in nature that have been suitably adapted for evolving a detailed methodology for ranking universities and colleges
The main features of the methodology suggested are as follows: It is recommended to set-up a Committee, which will oversee the implementation of ranking work for the first year, after which a suitable Ranking Agency duly authorized to receive and verify the data, and declare the rankings, may be set up. ii) This document identifies a set of suitable forms in which these parameters can be easily measured and verified across a variety of universities and colleges. iii) A strategy is suggested for calculating scores to measure the performance of the universities and colleges across each such parameter. This will help to obtain an overall score for obtaining the institution rank. iv) Separate ranking formulae for universities and colleges is suggested to ensure that institutions are compared within an appropriate peer group of institutions, and provided a level-playing field. v) A system for data collection from public bodies and random sample checks is suggested for each parameter.
Salient Features Methodology involves defining a set of metrics for ranking of universities and colleges based on the parameters agreed upon by the Core Committee (CC). 2.2. These parameters are organized into five broad categories that have been further grouped into a number of sub-categories. Each broad category has an overall weight assigned to it. Within each category, the sub-categories also have an appropriate weight distribution. Executive Summary 2.3. An attempt is made here to first identify the relevant data needed to suitably measure the performance score under-each sub-category. Emphasis has been laid on identifying data that is easy to generate and easy to verify, if needed, in the overall interest of transparency. 2.4. A suitable metric is then worked out, based on this data, which computes a score under each sub- category. The sub-category scores are then added to obtain scores for each individual category. The overall score is computed based on the weights allotted to each category. The overall score can take a maximum value of 100.
Ranking based on Institutional Category In view of the distinct primary mandate and objectives of universities and colleges, separate ranking is designed for these two distinct categories of institutions. 3.2. The universities would include institutions of national importance setup by the Acts of Parliament, Central universities, State universities, Deemed-to-be universities, Private universities and other autonomous degree- awarding institutions. The colleges would include Autonomous Colleges that are affiliated to universities and do not enjoy full academic autonomy. 3.3. While score computations for some of the parameters are similar for both of these categories on most counts, the benchmarks are somewhat different on a few parameters, to take into account the ground realities, which may be very different for the two categories. This also creates a level playing field for both categories. 3.4. The weights assigned to different components have been adjusted to reflect different mandates and expectations from universities and colleges. 3.5. Even where the assessment metrics are similar, their computation (where percentile calculations or normalizations are involved) is based on their respective categories. 3.6. If implemented in this manner and spirit, the ranking methodology will produce two separate rankings, one for universities and one for colleges.
Summary of Ranking Parameters for Ranking Universities
National Board of Accreditation (NBA) To be an accrediting agency of international standard by ensuring the highest degree of credibility in assurance of quality and relevance to professional education and come up to the expectations of its stakeholders viz. students and their parents, academicians, educational institutions, corporates, industry, government and regulators. To stimulate the quality of teaching, self – evaluation and accountability in the higher education system, which help institutions realize their academic objectives and adopt teaching practices that enable them to produce high-quality professionals and to assess and accredit the programs offered by the institutions imparting technical and professional education.
Objectives of NBA ❑ To assess and accredit the technical education programs; ❑ To evolve standards and parameters for assessment and accreditation in line with the parameters laid down by the appropriate statutory regulatory authority for co-ordination, determination and regulation of standards in the concerned field of technical education; ❑ To promote excellence through a benchmarking process, which is helpful in determining whether or not an institution is able to achieve its mission and broad based goals, and in interpreting the results of the outcomes assessment process; ❑ To promote quality conscious system of technical education where excellence, relevance to market needs and participation by all stakeholders are prime and major determinants. ❑ To build a technical education system as facilitator of human resources, that will match the national goals of growth by competence, contribution to economy through competitiveness and compatibility with societal development; ❑ To set the quality benchmarks targeted at global and national stockpile of human capital in all fields of technical education; To conduct evaluation of self-assessment of technical institutions and/or programs offered by them on the basis of guidelines, norms and standards specified by it; and ❑ To contribute to the domain of knowledge in quality parameters, assessment and evaluation.
Benefits of Accreditation Helps the Institution to know its strengths, weaknesses and opportunities; Initiates Institutions into innovative and modern methods of pedagogy; Gives Institutions a new sense of direction and identity; Provides society with reliable information on quality of education offered; Students studying in NBA accredited programs can be assured that they will receive education which is of high academic quality and professional relevance and that the needs of the corporate world are well integrated into programs, activities and processes; Accreditation assures prospective employers that students come from a program where the content and quality have been evaluated, satisfying established standards. It also signifies that the students passing out have acquired competence based on well-established technical inputs; and Accreditation helps in gaining confidence of stakeholders and in giving a strong message that as a country, our technical manpower is of international standards and can be very useful in enhancing the global mobility of our technical manpower.
The Impact of Accreditation Encourages quality improvement initiatives by Institutions; Improves student enrolment both in terms of quality and quantity; Helps the Institution in securing necessary funds; Enhances employability of graduates; Facilitates transnational recognition of degrees and mobility of graduates and professionals; Motivates faculty to participate actively in academic and related institutional / departmental activities; Helps create sound and challenging academic environment in the Institution; and Contributes to social and economic development of the country by producing high quality technical manpower.
Imperatives of Accreditation Funding decisions; State recognition of qualification/ certification of professionals; Accountability of Institutions to stakeholders; Encouraging self-improvement initiatives by Institutions; and Quality assurance of educational programs.
ACCREDITATION PROCESS FLOW CHART
Pre-assessment 30 days
Assessment 60 days
Post-assessment 60 days
Recommend
More recommend
