Excellence in Internal Quality Assurance: An Empirical Study in United States

Nhung Thi Tuyet Pham

doi:10.52296/vje.2021.131

Abstract

Assessment or internal quality assurance (IQA) processes have often been driven by external stakeholders such as accreditation and governmental agencies of higher education, which are focused on accountability rather than quality improvement. This research examined how private and non-profit Doctoral and Research institutions with less public financial dependence and accountability requirements adopted the Excellence in Assessment (EIA) rubric to improve their IQA models that supports improvement. A survey based on National Institute of Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA) EIA rubric was sent to the ASSESS Listserv to learn if there was a difference in EIA scores related to source of funding and Carnegie characteristics. A two-way MANOVA analysis of the survey responses showed that there was no difference in IQA practice followed EIA rubric between source of funding (public and non-profit private institutions) and Carnegie classification (Research and Comprehensive). Recommendations are made regarding the reliability of the EIA rubric. The EIA designation can serve as a framework for U.S. and non-U.S. higher education institutions to benchmark and improve the current IQA processes.

Highlights

U.S higher education institutions face increasingly numerous questions about their value and return on investment, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional practices (Emil & Cress, 2013)
Since the reliability of “groups and individuals engaged in assessment activities” (r=.50) was lower than the generally-accepted .70 thresholds, the researcher decided to exclude it from the dependent variables in the MANOVA analysis and kept three dependent variables. 4.2
A two-way multivariate analysis of variance was run to determine if evidence of student learning, use of evidence of student learning and reflection and growth/improvement plans differ by source of funding and Carnegie classification (Doctoral and Master)

Summary

Introduction

U.S higher education institutions face increasingly numerous questions about their value and return on investment, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional practices (Emil & Cress, 2013). This public discourse has included diverse communities of interest from stakeholders such as students and their families and public sectors including donors, employers, and governmental agencies. To address internal and external stakeholders’ increasing concerns, U.S higher education institutions have increased emphasis on reliable and effective quality assurance processes to advance student learning (Harmanani, 2016; Emil & Cress, 2013; Jankowski & Provezis, 2011; Ewell, 2009).

Results

Discussion

Conclusion