Performance Indicators In Higher Education Research Articles

A Meta-model for Key Performance Indicators in Higher Education

We propose a software solution for representing diverse sets of key performance indicators in higher education. Our solution addresses both the heterogeneity and the common structure of key performance indicators. To tackle the issue of heterogeneity, we employ metamodeling and propose a meta-model that is expressive and generic enough to represent any set of key performance indicators in higher education. The proposed meta-model is more abstract than any specific key performance indicators set, and the sets are considered as models, which are instances of the proposed metamodel. We address the heterogeneity in calculating the key performance indicators' values by representing them with mathematical formulas and utilizing an expression language that allows for their dynamic evaluation. We verified the solution by representing typical key performance indicator sets and developing a software application prototype that enables the creation, monitoring, and further development of key performance indicator sets. The verification confirms the wide applicability of our proposed solution.

CURRICULUM PREPARATION TRAINING INDEPENDENT CAMPUS, FREEDOM TO LEARN (MBKM) IN STUDY PROGRAMS AS AN EFFORT TO MEET THE MAIN PERFORMANCE INDICATORS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

The MBKM policy provides opportunities for students to gain more comprehensive learning experiences and new competencies through several learning activities. Service activities are carried out by holding two types of activities, namely the socialization of MBKM policies and workshops on preparing the MBKM curriculum. The target of this activity is the leadership of the study program, lecturers, and education staff; with this activity, the participants become more familiar with preparing the curriculum, starting from making learning outcomes to assessment techniques. Furthermore, the impact of this training realizes the fulfillment of higher education performance indicators.

Beyond Performance Indicators: Reforming Higher Education Evaluation Systems to Promote Improvement

As higher education attainment has become increasingly essential for both individual socioeconomic outcomes and the economic competitiveness of nation-states, and as the cost of financing the higher education enterprise continues to rise, university quality has become an urgent concern for students, families, and policy makers around the globe. The widespread interest in assessing university quality manifests itself in the rise of global rankings (Hazelkorn, 2015) and the increasing use of so-called performance indicators by government agencies. This paper focuses on the latter phenomenon. The first part of the paper examines the benefits and limitations of higher education performance indicators as conventionally implemented, and the second part advances a set of suggestions to address these shortcomings by adapting performance systems to represent and incentivize evidence-informed improvement efforts.

Performance indicators in higher education with learning analytics

The regular use of virtual learning environments by educational institutions and the availability of large quantities of data regarding the teaching and learning process both challenge teachers, institutions and researchers to explore such data within the perspective of learning analytics in order to obtain indicators which might contribute to the improvement of the teaching and learning process. Consequently, such improvement may lead to students’ better learning outcomes as well as a better relationship with the institution they attend. Taking into account that student retention and dropout from degree courses before their completion have highly negative consequences for a high number of students, the aim of this research is to look into indicators associated with such problems through a mixed methodology, both qualitative and quantitative, and through procedures of analysis and research of data from databases containing academic information provided by a sample of 1,588 undergraduates. The focus of the study lies upon the relation and analysis of the following variables: students’ frequency of access per course unit to the virtual environment of the institution they attend; quantity of course units passed; and mean of the marks obtained in the course units passed. Among the results obtained, we highlight the existence of a positive degree of association with moderate correlation between the variables frequency of access per course unit to the virtual environment and the mean of the number of course units passed. Following the division of the sample into four different groups, each group corresponding to one quartile, resulting from the data regarding the frequency of accesses per course unit to the institution’s virtual environment, significant differences were found concerning the mean of the course units passed between the groups showing a higher frequency of access to the virtual learning environment and those with a lower access frequency, to the advantage of the groups showing a higher frequency of access to the virtual environment. Therefore, considering the way the groups were constituted, there is proof that the higher the frequency of access to the virtual environment is, the higher the probability of students succeeding in the course units they attend will be.

Corporate performance indicators: The case of universities

This paper re-examines the long-standing and unresolved debate regarding the use of performance indicators in higher education. This paper aims to identify the primary variables that comprise university performance from the perspectives of academics within universities of technology in South Africa. A structured questionnaire was administered to a conveniently selected sample of 507 academics recruited from five universities of technology in South Africa. Using the exploratory factor analysis technique, five indicators were used as sub-dimensions to measure university performance were identified. These were 1) recognition, 2) image, 3) collaboration, 4) spin-off, 5) employability and 6) research. Overall, the research results suggests that these five performance indicators can assist South Africa’s universities of technology to achieve a higher level of institutional performance. The boards responsible for running universities of technology should consider which strategic management approaches they are currently utilising and streamline them to cement their competitive advantage and superior performance.

R&D Expenditures by Higher Education Sector and Analysis of Performance Indicators of Baltic States

The purpose of this paper is to analyse relation of Research and Development (R&D) Performance indicators with R&D Expenditures made by the Higher Education (HE) sector and to identify other types of determinants of performance indicators in Latvia and Baltic States. Research helps to determine whether increase of financing promotes improvement of R&D performance indicators. HE performance indicators and their relation to R&D expenditures in Baltic States were compared.Authors concluded that several performance indicators relate to the expenditure level in the HE sectors, however certain indicators do not relate to expenditures. Furthermore, the authors concluded that policy of funding should be more performance based.

Monitoring of Educational Performance Indicators in Higher Education: A Comparison of Perceptions

AbstractThe purpose of this study is to explore whether there is a statistically significant difference between the ideas of university administrators and faculty members regarding how strictly Educational Performance Indicators for Educators (EPIE) should be monitored in the educational process. The responses of university directors were compared with those of faculty members, and the responses of public universities were compared to those of private universities. Improving the quality of education depends on the performance of teachers. Determining the objective indicators that measure the performance levels of teachers is necessary for maintaining quality assurance. In order for a university to maintain high standards, administrators and faculty members must cooperate with each other. The twelve point EPIE Index used in this study contains three components and nine indicators. No statistically significant relationship was found between the average component scores of university administrators and faculty members, and no statistically significant relationship was found between the average component scores of public and private universities. However, a statistically significant relationship was found between two factors from EPIE's self-appraisal scores. The model and data do not match the conceptual structure of the three components in the EPIE. Thus, further studies and analyses should be conducted. It was found that most faculty members think like academicians from private universities, and most university directors think like academicians from public universities.Keywords: Faculty educational performance indicators * Performance indicators in higher education * Teaching appraisals * Educational performance indicators for educatorsMonitoring of educational performance indicators for educators (EPIE) has gained importance for those interested in designing education processes appropriately, improving education, and forming these processes creatively and innovatively. It is not possible for department chairs and deans to form and monitor EPIE alone. Instead, they need to cooperate and work with the other faculty members. Without this, data related to EPIE could not be collected or analyzed, and preparing and submitting meaningful knowledge to university directors would be impossible. This situation is encountered when EPIE is determined solely by university directors. University directors have a problem determining how to collect and appraise EPIE from their faculty members. What level should be monitored in collecting data from EPIE; how should it be analyzed and reported? These are all topics of recent discussion. Faculty members want to observe the benefits of collecting data for EPIE. Increasing the preparation, learning, and satisfaction levels of students; the quality and sensitivity in the education process; the transformation of faculties from the role of knowledge transmitter to the role of initiator of thought; research; and appraisal; these are all convincing factors for faculty members. This study compares the perceptions and ideas of university professors with the directors in order to determine at what level EPIE should be monitored. It was assumed that university directors would be more sensitive and have higher expectations about EPIE. One finds that organizations cause similar findings for the expectations of university directors and faculty members. At what level does the sensitivity of the EPIE for these groups bring them together? If it is at low levels, it will not only render EPIE useless, but will also put the focus on protecting internal balance instead of developing innovative and creative processes. Forming and monitoring EPIE with collaboration in higher education are important for protecting and improving the quality of education.Literature ReviewDevelopmental Process of EPIE: Observation of EPIE started at the end of the 1980's and beginning of the 1990's. During this time, performance reporting was considered as a main tool for policy developers and for providing information to the public (Cabrera, Colbeck, & Terenzini, 2001), (Shin, 2010). …

Standards and Performance Indicators in Higher Education in Romania

The issue of quality in higher education has been given attention in the academic and legislative environment starting with the Bologna Process. Up to that moment, everyone considered it their duty as a professor to keep up a certain academic standard, which was in fact synonymous with a high quality of the message sent to the students in a manner assumed to be impeccable. It was normal then, as it is now, to present the latest developments in a given domain at the lecture, what you considered to be the most interesting aspects, and to assess whether you have reached your goal by the audience's reactions. It was normal to openly hold a lecture, to ask and be asked questions. However, society has evolved and certainties are needed nowadays instead of assumptions, as far as quality is concerned. The Bologna process has changed higher education not only in terms of structure, but also in terms of the place that quality assurance holds in the activity of a university. Together with the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Strategy has led to the development and consolidation of universities, with a view to instating a quality culture, to providing confidence in educational services, as well as transparency and a continuous enhancement of quality.

Standards and Performance Indicators in Higher Education in Romania

The issue of quality in higher education has been given attention in the academic and legislative environment starting with the Bologna Process. Up to that moment, everyone considered it their duty as a professor to keep up a certain academic standard, which was in fact synonymous with a high quality of the message sent to the students in a manner assumed to be impeccable. It was normal then, as it is now, to present the latest developments in a given domain at the lecture, what you considered to be the most interesting aspects, and to assess whether you have reached your goal by the audience's reactions. It was normal to openly hold a lecture, to ask and be asked questions. However, society has evolved and certainties are needed nowadays instead of assumptions, as far as quality is concerned. The Bologna process has changed higher education not only in terms of structure, but also in terms of the place that quality assurance holds in the activity of a university. Together with the Bologna Process, the Lisbon Strategy has led to the development and consolidation of universities, with a view to instating a quality culture, to providing confidence in educational services, as well as transparency and a continuous enhancement of quality.

Quality and equality in British PhD assessment

This paper asks whether doctoral assessment has escaped the regulation of quality assurance procedures. Raising questions about the affective and micropolitical dimensions of an oral examination conducted in private, it explores how current concerns about quality assurance, standards, benchmarks and performance indicators in higher education apply to the assessment of doctoral/research degrees in Britain, and in particular to the viva voce examination. Successful PhD completion is a key performance indicator for universities and an important basis for the accreditation of their staff. Despite the rise of new managerialism, a general preoccupation with calculable standards and outcomes and an emphasis on student entitlements, transparency of decision making and information for ‘consumers’, there still seems to be considerable variation, and some mystification, in how doctoral assessment is conducted and experienced. The massification of doctoral studies and the doubling in number of institutions awarding their own doctorates, post-1992, are both likely to increase product variety still further. In the last decade of the twentieth century, there was a major expansion of doctoral studies and a widening of the types of doctorate that may be undertaken in the UK. Although attention has been given to improving supervision and research skills training here since the late 1980s, the assessment process seems to have escaped the scrutiny, checks and balances currently being applied to other academic programmes. In this paper we wish to explore if and how quality assurance, standards, benchmarks and performance indicators should apply in particular to the viva voce examination. We shall also consider the emotional, affective and micropolitical dimensions of an oral examination conducted in private.

A system for relevance analysis of performance indicators in higher education using Bayesian networks

In this paper, we propose a methodology for relevance analysis of performance indicators in higher education based on the use of Bayesian networks. These graphical models provide, at first glance, a snapshot of the relevant relationships among the variables under consideration. We analyse the behaviour of the proposed methodology in a practical case, showing that it is a useful tool to help decision making when elaborating policies based on performance indicators. The methodology has been implemented in a software that interacts with the Elvira package for graphical models, and that is available to the administration board at the University of Almeria (Spain) through a web interface. The software also implements a new method for constructing composite indicators by using a Bayesian network regression model.

Counting Out the Scholars: The Case against Performance Indicators in Higher Education (review)

Counting Out the Scholars: The Case against Performance Indicators in Higher Education (review)

Higher Education Performance Indicators: Invited Comments on the Papers by Draper and Gittoes and Brattiet al.

Higher Education Performance Indicators: Invited Comments on the Papers by Draper and Gittoes and Bratti<i>et al.</i>

Goodhart's Law and Performance Indicators in Higher Education

After describing the historical development of performance indicators in higher education and the illustrations that they provide for Goodhart's law, the paper discusses the difference between outcome and process indicators. It is suggested that, as long as the latter refer to underlying processes, and not to those immediately accessible, they can be used with less risk of abuse. This suggestion is exemplified in terms of standards of academic professionalism, and a set of appropriate processes is suggested for formal audit. The ‘underlying processes’ are anchored in the concepts of ‘organised anarchy’ or ‘complex adaptive systems’. It is hypothesised that they can be influenced by common professional principles of those engaged in them, so as to favour a creatively organised anarchy which develops excellence through true professionalism ‘bottom up’, in contrast to less successful managerial attempts to create excellence ‘top down’. Finally, attention is drawn to the fact that traditional examinations also constitute an abuse of performance indicators.

Quality and equality in British PhD assessment

This paper asks whether doctoral assessment has escaped the regulation of quality assurance procedures. Raising questions about the affective and micropolitical dimensions of an oral examination conducted in private, it explores how current concerns about quality assurance, standards, benchmarks and performance indicators in higher education apply to the assessment of doctoral/research degrees in Britain, and in particular to the viva voce examination. Successful PhD completion is a key performance indicator for universities and an important basis for the accreditation of their staff. Despite the rise of new managerialism, a general preoccupation with calculable standards and outcomes and an emphasis on student entitlements, transparency of decision making and information for “consumers”, there still seems to be considerable variation, and some mystification, in how doctoral assessment is conducted and experienced. The massification of doctoral studies and the doubling in number of institutions awarding their own doctorates, post‐1992, are both likely to increase product variety still further.

Variations in Vivas: Quality and equality in British PhD assessments

This article asks whether doctoral assessment has escaped the regulation of quality assurance procedures. It also raises questions about the affective and micropolitical dimensions of an oral examination conducted in private. It explores how current concerns about quality assurance, standards, benchmarks and performance indicators in higher education apply to the assessment of doctoral/research degrees in Britain, and in particular to the viva voce examination. Successful PhD completion is a key performance indicator for universities and an important basis for the accreditation of their staff. Yet, its form of assessment has not yet been fully examined, despite the rise of new managerialism and a general preoccupation with calculable standards and outcomes. Equally, while the 'customer care' revolution may be entering the academy, with an emphasis on student entitlements, transparency of decision-making and information for 'consumers', there still seems to be considerable variation, and some mystification, in how doctoral assessment is conducted and experienced. The massification of doctoral studies, and the doubling in the number of institutions awarding their own doctorates post-1992, are both likely to increase product variety still further.

One fifth of UK undergraduates drop out

Almost one in five students who embark on a first degree course in the United Kingdom are expected to abandon higher education before they gain a degree, says a report published by the Higher Education Funding Council for England.1 It also indicates that 8% of school leavers and 16% of mature students drop out before the end of their first year. The council's third annual report of higher education performance indicators, drawn from data provided by 169 publicly …

Improving Performance Indicators in Higher Education: The academics' perspective

Performance Indicators (PIs) are playing an increasingly important role in many western governments' approach to the management of higher education (HE) institutions, and this includes Australia. However, the introduction of PIs by these governments in the HE sector has been far from smooth. The literature on the limitations of PIs, particularly in research and teaching, are plentiful. This paper argues that an effective way to improve the application of PIs is to obtain input from university academics. It starts with a survey of the attitudes of Australian academics from four representative universities towards the application of PIs in their institutions. Although this was found to be generally negative, the academics did point out some strengths in the current PI system. Reasons for their dissatisfaction with the indicators were also covered, such as the inability of the current indicators to capture the dimensions of academic work, and privileging research over teaching. Furthermore, the academics provided numerous suggestions for improving the application of PIs in HE.

Performance indicators as conceptual technologies

This paper posits that performance indicators (PIs)are conceptual technologies that shape what issuesacademics think about and how academics think aboutthose issues by embedding normative assumptions intothe selection and structure of those indicators.Exploring the assumptions embedded in Alberta's(Canada) PIs yields an initial typology of assumptionsthat academics can apply to performance indicators inhigher education to understand, refine or criticallychallenge their introduction.

Confronting the biases in connoisseur review and performance indicators in higher education: A structural modelling approach

Scholarly productivity and the research reputation of academic staff frequently dominate as criteria in the review of higher education courses, disciplines and institutions, a bias which represents a profound hazard for plausible evaluation. Three distinct outcome constructs were identified from analyses of performance indicator data gathered on the accounting discipline in Australia. They were the scholarly productivity of the academic staff involved, the quality of teaching and learning as perceived by students and graduates, and the academic efficiency, in terms of subject completion rates, with which the courses were conducted. Each outcome was shown to be related in a different manner to various characteristics of the courses investigated. The results challenge the orthodox view that scholarly productivity will lead naturally to other desired outcomes of higher education, question the usual “surface level” interpretation of performance indicators, and suggest that evaluation in higher education might combine connoisseur and performance indicator approaches within the framework of a realist epistemology, placing emphasis on the structures and mechanisms which generate the diverse and distinct outcomes of different courses.