Abstract
This literature review investigates the accreditation processes in higher education across various countries, focusing on the time and bureaucratic burden associated with accrediting new courses. The aim is to identify strategies to accelerate the accreditation process for new courses in higher education institutions. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to achieve this objective, examining the accreditation processes in Portugal, Spain, the United States, France, China, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, India, and Germany.
However, the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses. Institutions must meet all established criteria and promptly provide all required documentation to expedite the accreditation process.
The implications of these findings suggest that higher education institutions should collaborate closely with relevant accrediting agencies to ensure a streamlined accreditation process. Institutions should also consider agency requirements and course specialization when developing new courses. Furthermore, governments play a crucial role in promoting transparency and competition among higher education institutions, which can lead to enhanced quality assurance and increased customer satisfaction in the education sector.
Keywords: academic courses, quality assurance ; higher education; management; quality accreditation system
Learning Outcomes
After undergoing this article you will be able to understand the following:
1.What's Accreditation?
2. Why Accreditation is important for Quality Outcomes in HEI's?
3. What are the common parameters for accreditation in HEI's?
4. How many prominent accreditation systems?
5. Which accreditation is considered best and why?
6. Comparative study of accreditation systems of different countries of repute?
7. What are the advantages of Accreditation?
8. What are the disadvantages of Accreditation?
9. Tips and Strategies for smoothly carrying out successful accreditation?
10. Conclusions
References
1. What's Accreditation?
Accreditation is a formal, independent verification that a program or institution meets established quality standards and is competent to carry out specific conformity assessment tasks. Conformity assessment tasks may include, but are not limited to, testing, inspection, or certification.The goal of accreditation is to ensure that education provided by institutions of higher education meets acceptable levels of quality.
Accreditation in higher education is a key process that attempts to ensure the quality of institutions and their respective programs. It serves as a critical mechanism to ensure that educational providers maintain standards that meet the expectations of the educational community and society at large. Despite its universal importance, the approach to accreditation varies significantly across different regions and even within the same country, reflecting the complexity and diversity of higher education systems worldwide. This study focuses on institutional and programmatic accreditation, providing a comprehensive overview of different accreditation processes in selected countries worldwide.
The decision to include both forms of accreditation arises from the recognition that quality assurance in higher education operates at multiple levels. While institutional accreditation assesses the overall quality of an institution, programmatic accreditation evaluates specific programs within institutions, offering a more detailed understanding of quality assurance mechanisms.
2. Why Accreditation is important for Quality Outcomes in HEI's?
At the most basic level, accreditation indicates that an institution provides quality education. As a student, it's important to understand the standards under which accreditation is granted; knowing this can help you decide which school to attend.
Accreditation helps in protecting the interests of all the stakeholders - students, faculty, parents, and educators by mapping & evaluating the overall institutional performance on the basis of the programs offered.
3. What are the common parameters for accreditation in HEI's?
The five Criteria address mission; ethical and responsible conduct; quality, resources and support for teaching and learning; evaluation and improvement of teaching and learning; and institutional effectiveness, resources and planning.
Unlike the Criteria for Accreditation, these assumed practices are:
(1) generally matters to be determined as facts, rather than matters requiring professional judgment and
(2) not expected to vary by institutional mission or context. Similar to the Criteria, the Assumed Practices set requirements related to ethical and responsible conduct; quality, resources and support for teaching and learning; evaluation and improvement of teaching and learning; and resources, planning and institutional effectiveness. Every institution must be in compliance with all Assumed Practices at all times.
4. How many prominent accreditation systems are there?
In India
National Board of Accreditation (NBA)
Quality Council of India (QCI)
Distance Education Council (DEC)
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)
Bar Council of India (BCI)
Scientific Institute and Research Organizations (SIROs)
National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE)
Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI)
Medical Council of India (MCI)
Pharmacy Council Of India (PCI)
Indian Nursing Council (INC)
Aiipphs State Government University Delhi (ADU)
National Council for Indian Education (NCIE)
Dental Council of India (DCI)
Central Council of Homoeopathy (CCH)
Central Council of Indian Medicine (CCIM)
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
Association of Indian Universities (AIU)
Indian Maritime University(IMU)
Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU)
In America
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Accreditation Council for Education in Nutrition and Dietetics
Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools
Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine
Accreditation Commission for Education in Nursing
Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges
Accrediting Council for Continuing Education and Training
American Bar Association
American Board of Funeral Service Education
American Osteopathic Association
American Podiatric Medical Association
Association for Biblical Higher Education
Association of Advanced Rabbinical and Talmudic Schools
Association of Institutions of Jewish Studies
Association of Theological Schools
Commission on English Language Program Accreditation
Commission on Massage Therapy Accreditation
Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs
Council on Chiropractic Education
Council on Occupational Education
Distance Education Accrediting Commission
Higher Learning Commission
Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology
Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Middle States Commission on Secondary Schools
Midwifery Education Accreditation Council
Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education
National Accrediting Commission of Career Arts and Sciences
National Association of Schools of Art and Design
National Association of Schools of Dance
National Association of Schools of Music
National Association of Schools of Theatre
New England Commission of Higher Education
New York State Board of Regents, and the Commissioner of Education
Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools
Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools
WASC Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges
WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC)
In Europe
AHPGS – Accreditation Agency for Study Programs in Special Education, Care, Health Sciences and Social Work
AKAST – Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation of Canonical Study Programs
ACQUIN – Accreditation, Certification and Quality Assurance Institute
AQAS – Agency for Quality Assurance by Accreditation of Study Programs
AQ Austria – Agency for Quality Assurance and Accreditation Austria
ASIIN – Accreditation Agency for Degree Programs in Engineering, Informatics/Computer Science, the Natural Sciences and Mathematics
evalag – Evaluation Agency Baden-Württemberg
FIBAA – Foundation for International Business Administration Accreditation
OAQ – Swiss Center of Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education
ZEvA – Central Evaluation- and Accreditation Agency
Similarly, for each country
Accreditation agencies are there.
5. Which accreditation is considered best and why?
The American accreditation is considered better than other accreditation agency.
The reasons are the following:
During an accreditation review, an independent nongovernmental agency recognized by the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) or the U.S. Department of Education (ED) conducts a detailed assessment of a school, department or program. Accrediting bodies consider questions like these:
Do the institution’s programs adequately prepare graduates to work in their fields?
Do faculty members hold appropriate credentials?
Do students have access to robust support resources?
Does the school follow transparent and fair recruitment and admission practices?
Is the organization fiscally stable?
Does it have the financial means and administrative capacity to fulfill its commitments to students?
6. Comparative study of accreditation systems of different countries of repute?
This study used a systematic review as a research method and process to identify and analyze key research findings. This section describes the systematic literature review approach to analyzing the accreditation processes in higher education across various countries. [1]., [2]. Academic databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched using keywords related to accreditation, quality assurance, higher education, and new courses to identify relevant articles. [3].
6.1. Questions to Investigate
This study aims to explore the patterns, similarities, and differences across countries.
Questionnaires included
The following questions were considered:
1. What are the common criteria for accreditation across countries?
2. How does the length of the accreditation period compare between countries?
3. Are there common challenges faced by institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses?
6.2. Quality Assurance Methods in Higher Education
This section emphasizes the significance of implementing precise and effective methods for quality assurance in higher education and the importance of communicating these results through various mediums. The techniques employed across Europe, the United States, and Asia were researched based on their diverse approaches to higher education quality assurance, significant influence on global education policies, and varied cultural and administrative contexts. The work of Massy [4] underscores the necessity for more sophisticated quality assurance methods in higher education.
Evaluation refers to the standards of European education, while peer-reviewed quality audits are a blend of performance indicators, self-study, and review processes. These different methods collectively contribute to enhancing quality in higher education institutions.
6.3. Process Review and Quality Auditing
Quality audit, in contrast to process review, focuses on analyzing the internal quality and adopting improvements in these processes. Several studies in various countries have concluded that inducing capacity building can significantly improve learning and teaching methods in higher education institutions [4].
Many Higher Education Institutions (HEI) have used the scorecard method applied to business excellence to achieve excellence status, allowing them to improve their processes through organizational excellence acquired through crucial elements, organizational learning, and significant improvements in the processes used [5]. The quality of the processes must be ensured internally by the institutions and must be continuous to improve the institution’s quality.
6.4. Evaluation and Quality
The studies presented in this section contextualize quality and evaluation in Europe, China, Japan, India, and the United States.
7. What are the advantages of Accreditation?
The accreditation process offers several powerful benefits for colleges, universities and students. We explore some of those benefits below.
Finding a Reputable School
Accreditation allows colleges to prove their legitimacy to prospective students. Learners can feel confident that accredited schools meet recognized standards and provide solid educational value.
Paying for College
Attending an accredited college allows you to access more educational funding sources.
Transferring Credits
Colleges and universities typically only accept transfer credits from accredited schools. Students applying to programs with specialized accreditation can often transfer credits only from other programs with approval from the same programmatic accreditor.
Landing a Job
Employers typically prefer job applicants who attended accredited schools. Just as accreditation tells you as a student that your school provides a strong, relevant education, it sends potential employers the same message.
Earning Professional Credentials
Many career-advancing certifications require candidates to hold a degree with institutional or programmatic accreditation. Additionally, certain professionals, such as public school teachers, accountants and nurses, need accredited degrees to earn state licensure
8. Strategies for smoothly carrying out successful accreditation?
Take Key steps in the accreditation process
- Step one: undertaking a self-assessment.
- Step two: making an initial application.
- Step three: desk-based document review by the accreditation body.
- Step four: on-site, pre-assessment meeting.
- Step five: initial, on-site full assessment.
- Step six: grant of accreditation (or otherwise)
9. Conclusions
The National Agency for Quality Assessment and Accreditation (ANECA) carries out the accreditation process in Spain. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the Spanish University Quality Assurance System (SUEQAS) and, if approved, receive accreditation from ANECA for six years. The accreditation process in Spain is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [46]. The accreditation process of a new course is essential for the course to meet all of the criteria established by SUEQAS and for the institution to provide all required documentation promptly.
The accreditation process for higher education courses can vary significantly between countries, with some countries having more streamlined processes and dedicated accrediting agencies. In contrast, others may have more complex systems with multiple accrediting agencies [47]. In this discussion, we will consider the differences and particularities of the accreditation process in Portugal, Spain, the United States, France, China, Japan, Sweden, the United Kingdom, India, and Germany, focusing on the time and bureaucratic burden of the process and how to speed up the accreditation process of a new course.
Regional and national accrediting agencies in the United States carry out the accreditation process. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by these agencies and, if approved, receive accreditation for 5–10 years. The accreditation process in the United States is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [46].
The National Council for Evaluation of Higher Education and Research (CNEAI) carries out the accreditation process in France. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the French Higher Education Quality System (SQAF) and, if approved, receive accreditation from CNEAI for six years. The accreditation process in France is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [48]. The accreditation process of a new course is important for the course to meet all of the criteria established by the SQAF and for the institution to provide all required documentation promptly.
The Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China (2003) carries out the accreditation process in China. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the Chinese University Quality Assurance System (CUQAS). If approved, the institution receives accreditation for six years. In the accreditation process of a new course, it is essential to meet all criteria established by CUQAS and for the institution to provide all required documentation promptly. The accreditation process in China is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [21].
In Japan, the accreditation process is carried out by the Japan Accreditation Board for Engineering Education (JABEE). Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the Japanese University Quality Assurance System (JUQAS). If approved, the courses receive accreditation from JABEE for six years [49]. The accreditation process in Japan is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [49]. To accelerate the accreditation process of a new course, it is important that the course meet all the criteria established by JUQAS and for the institution to provide all the required documentation on time.
The Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) carries out the accreditation process in Sweden. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the Swedish University Quality Assurance System (SUQAS). If approved, the courses receive accreditation from UKÄ for six years [48]. The accreditation process in Sweden is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [48]. To speed up the accreditation process of a new course, it is important for the course to meet all the criteria established by SUQAS and for the institution to provide all required documentation [50] promptly.
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) carries out the accreditation process in the United Kingdom. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the UK University Quality Assurance System (UKUQAS). It is important for the course to meet the criteria established by the UKUQAS and for the institution to provide all the required documentation [48]. If approved, it will receive accreditation from QAA for six years. According to one study [51], the accreditation process in the United Kingdom is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [51].
In India, the accreditation process is carried out by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) [50]. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the Indian University Quality Assurance System (IUQAS) and, if approved, receive accreditation from NAAC for five years. It is important for the course to meet the criteria established by IUQAS and for the institution to provide all required documentation [51]. The accreditation process in India is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. The authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [52].
In Germany, the accreditation process is carried out by the German Council of Science and Humanities (Wissenschaftsrat) [53]. Higher education courses are evaluated according to the criteria established by the German University Quality Assurance System (GUQAS) and, if approved, receive accreditation from the Wissenschaftsrat for six years [53]. The accreditation process in Germany is generally efficient, with most courses receiving accreditation within a reasonable timeframe. However, the authors also note that the process can be more complex and time-consuming for institutions seeking accreditation for the first time or offering new or innovative courses [54]. It is important for the course to meet all of the criteria established by GUQAS and for the institution to provide all required documentation [53].
It is worth noting that the time and bureaucratic burden of the accreditation process may also depend on the specific accrediting agency and the course offered. For example, some accrediting agencies may have more stringent criteria or require more documentation than others, which could result in a longer or more complex accreditation process [55]. Similarly, some courses, particularly those that are more specialized or innovative, may require more extensive review and evaluation by the accrediting agency [56]. Institutions seeking to speed up the accreditation process of a new course may want to consider these factors and work closely with the relevant accrediting agency to ensure all necessary criteria are met and documentation is provided promptly.
The analysis of the accreditation processes in various countries highlights common trends in pursuing quality assurance in higher education. While there are differences in the criteria, evaluation methods, and timeframes for accreditation, many countries have adopted a systematic approach to quality assurance to promote transparency, competition, and customer satisfaction.
References
1. Snyder, H. Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 104, 333–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.A.; et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Needleman, I.G. A guide to systematic reviews. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 29, 6–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Massy, W.F. Education Quality Audit as Applied in Hong Kong. In Public Policy for Academic Quality; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010; pp. 203–225. [Google Scholar]
Wongrassamee, S.; Simmons, J.E.L.; Gardiner, P.D. Performance measurement tools: The Balanced Scorecard and the EFQM Excellence Model. Meas. Bus. Excell. 2003, 7, 14–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kelley, C.; Tong, P.; Choi, B.J. A Review of Assessment of Student Learning Programs at AACSB Schools: A Dean’s Perspective. J. Educ. Bus. 2010, 85, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plummer, R.; Witkowski, S.; Smits, A.; Dale, G. Higher Education Institution–Community Partnerships: Measuring the Performance of Sustainability Science Initiatives. Innov. High. Educ. 2021, 47, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Geisinger, K.F. Cross-Cultural Normative Assessment: Translation and Adaptation Issues Influencing the Normative Interpretation of Assessment Instruments. Psychol. Assess. 1994, 6, 304–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Harris-Huemmert, S. Evaluators of higher education in Germany: Are they “fit for purpose”? Qual. High. Educ. 2008, 14, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Orr, D.; Hovdhaugen, E. “Second chance” routes into higher education: Sweden, Norway and Germany compared. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2014, 33, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Wit, H.; Hunter, F. The Future of Internationalization of Higher Education in Europe. Int. High. Educ. 2015, 83, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Mountford-Zimdars, A.; Sabri, D.; Moore, J.; Sanders, J.; Hiagham, L. Causes of Differences in Student Outcomes; Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE): Bristol, UK, 2015; Available online: http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/HEFCE,2014/Content/Pubs/Independentresearch/2015/Causes,of,differences,in,student,outcomes/HEFCE2015_diffout.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2023).
John, B.; Tarla, S. Quality assessment and institutional change: Experiences from 14 countries. High. Educ. 2000, 40, 331–349. [Google Scholar]
Athanassopoulos, A.D.; Shale, E. Assessing the Comparative Efficiency of Higher Education Institutions in the UK by the Means of Data Envelopment Analysis. Educ. Econ. 1997, 5, 117–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sanders, M.G.; Harvey, A. Beyond the school walls: A case study of principal leadership for school-community collaboration. Teach. Coll. Rec. 2002, 104, 1345–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pussegoda, K.; Turner, L.; Garritty, C.; Mayhew, A.; Skidmore, B.; Stevens, A.; Boutron, I.; Sarkis-Onofre, R.; Bjerre, L.M.; Hróbjartsson, A.; et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Kanji, G.K. Measurement of business excellence. Total Qual. Manag. 1998, 9, 633–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kanji, G.K.; Tambi, A.M.B.A. Total quality management in UK higher education institutions. Total Qual. Manag. 1999, 10, 129–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
McClaran, A. The renewal of quality assurance in UK higher education. Perspect. Policy Pract. High. Educ. 2010, 14, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hoecht, A. Quality assurance in UK higher education: Issues of trust, control, professional autonomy and accountability. High. Educ. 2006, 51, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liu, S.; Liu, J. Quality Assurance in Chinese Higher Education; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Yamaguchi, A.M.; Tsukahara, S. Quality assurance and evaluation system in japanese higher education. Avaliação Rev. Avaliação Educ. Super. 2016, 21, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Askling, B. Higher education and academic staff in a period of policy and system change. High. Educ. 2001, 41, 157–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nilsson, K.A.; Wahlén, S. Institutional response to the Swedish model of quality assurance. Qual. High. Educ. 2000, 6, 7–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lafuente, J.; Martinez, A.; Palacio-Massotti, C.; Pardiñas, A.F. Satisfaction with higher education of Spanish graduates in the pre-Bologna era: A mirror of employment conditions? J. Furth. High. Educ. 2012, 36, 519–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pierce, J.; del Robisco, M.M. Evaluation of oral production learning outcomes for higher education in Spain. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2010, 35, 745–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ion, G.; Cano, E. Assessment practices at Spanish universities: From a learning to a competencies approach. Eval. Res. Educ. 2011, 24, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Duque, L.C.; Duque, J.C.; Suriñach, J. Learning outcomes and dropout intentions: An analytical model for Spanish universities. Educ. Stud. 2013, 39, 261–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
López-Pastor, V.M.; Pintor, P.; Muros, B.; Webb, G. Formative assessment strategies and their effect on student performance and on student and tutor workload: The results of research projects undertaken in preparation for greater convergence of universities in Spain within the European Higher Education Are. J. Furth. High. Educ. 2013, 37, 163–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jiménez, A.; Palmero, C. New Approaches to University in Spain: Academic Change, Creative Dimensions and Ethical Commitment in the Establishment of the European Higher Education Area. J. Educ. Adm. Hist. 2007, 39, 227–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gonzalez, J.M.G.; Arquero Montaño, J.L.; Hassall, T. The change towards a teaching methodology based on competences: A case study in a Spanish university. Res. Pap. Educ. 2014, 29, 111–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
RodrÃguez Conde, M.J. La garantÃa de la calidad, base de la movilidad. REDU Rev. De Docencia Univ. 2011, 9, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Carvalho, G.M..; Reis, E.; Pinto, R.J.M.R. Governação do Ensino Superior Universitário Público em Portugal a Educação Sob a Égide da Nova Gestão Pública. Ph.D. Thesis, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2019. Available online: https://www.repository.utl.pt/bitstream/10400.5/17791/1/GC_TD_2019.pdf (accessed on 2 April 2023).
Trullen, J.; RodrÃguez, S. Faculty perceptions of instrumental and improvement reasons behind quality assessments in higher education: The roles of participation and identification. Stud. High. Educ. 2013, 38, 678–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hernández Pina, F. Evaluación y acreditación del profesorado, programas e instituciones educativas. Rev. Electrón. Interuniv. Form. Profr. 2014, 17, 15–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
ENQA. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area; European Association of Institutions in Higher Education: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Fortes, M.T.; de Mattos, R.A.; Baptista, T.W. de F. Accreditation or accreditations? A comparative study about accreditation in France, United Kingdom and Cataluña. Rev. Assoc. Med. Bras. 2011, 57, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schwarz, S.; Westerheijden, D.F. Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Haruna, A.; Jumba, A. Politics of thuggery and patronage in the North-eastern Nigeria. Acad. Res. Int. 2011, 1, 111–120. [Google Scholar]
Lyndem, B.; De, U.K. Education in North East India: Experience and Challenge; Concept Publishing Company: Delhi, India, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Pillai, K.N.M.; Srinivas, G.; Madhusudananpillai, K.N. A Study of the Post-accreditation Scenario in the North Eastern Region of India: A meta-evaluation of the National Assessment and Accreditation Council processes and procedures. Qual. High. Educ. 2006, 12, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sahay, B.S.; Thakur, R.R. Excellence through Accreditation in Indian B-Schools. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2007, 8, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Felix, G.T.; Bertolin, J.G.; Polidori, M.M. Avaliação da educação superior: Um comparativo dos instrumentos de regulação entre Brasil e Portugal. Avaliação Rev. Avaliação Educ. Super. 2017, 22, 35–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Guerra, M.d.G.G.V.; Leite, C. Estudo descritivo sobre o sistema de avaliação de cursos de educação superior em Portugal. Avaliação Rev. Avaliação Educ. Super. 2022, 27, 347–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gamboa, A.J.; Melão, N.F. The impacts and success factors of ISO 9001 in education: Experiences from Portuguese vocational schools. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2012, 29, 384–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eaton, J.S. An Overview of U.S. Accreditation; Council for Higher Education Accreditation: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Altbach, P.G.; Reisberg, L.; Rumbley, L.E. Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution; Brill: Boston, MA, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Harrison, J.; Vanbaelen, R. Engineering education accreditation: A look at communication and language. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), Limerick, Ireland, 12–15 July 2015. [Google Scholar]
Lucander, H.; Christersson, C. Engagement for quality development in higher education: A process for quality assurance of assessment. Qual. High. Educ. 2020, 26, 135–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lim, D. Quality assurance in higher education in developing countries. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 1999, 24, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Knight, J. The changing landscape of higher education internationalisation—For better or worse? Perspect. Policy Pract. High. Educ. 2013, 17, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agrawal, E.; Tungikar, V.; Joshi, Y. Method for Assessment and Attainment of Course and Program Outcomes for Tier-I Institutes in India. J. Eng. Educ. Transform. 2021, 34, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Golowko, N.; Kopia, J.; Geldmacher, W.; Förster-Pastor, U.S. Comparative study on quality management at German private universities. Qual.-Access Success 2017, 18, 85–94. [Google Scholar]
Staub, D. ‘Another accreditation? what’s the point?’effective planning and implementation for specialised accreditation. Qual. High. Educ. 2019, 25, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Altbach, P. Academic Freedom: A Realistic Appraisal. Int. High. Educ. 2015, 57, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
Harvey, L. The power of accreditation: Views of academics. J. High. Educ. Policy Manag. 2004, 26, 207–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van Kemenade, E.; Pupius, M.; Hardjono, T.W. More value to defining quality. Qual. High. Educ. 2008, 14, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vlăsceanu, L.; Grünberg, L.; Pârlea, D. Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions; UNESCO: Bucharest, Romania, 2007; Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000134621 (accessed on 2 April 2023).
Brennan, J.; Mills, J.; Shah, T.; Woodley, A. Lifelong learning for employment and equity: The role of part-time degrees. High. Educ. Q. 2000, 54, 411–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dill, D.D. Designing academic audit: Lessons learned in Europe and Asia. Qual. High. Educ. 2000, 6, 187–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Opdenakker, M.C.; Van Damme, J. Effects of schools, teaching staff and classes on achievement and well-being in secondary education: Similarities and differences between school outcomes. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 2000, 11, 165–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stensaker, B.; Langfeldt, L.; Harvey, L.; Huisman, J.; Westerheijden, D. An in-depth study on the impact of external quality assurance. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2011, 36, 465–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ewell, P.T. Assessment and accountability in America today: Background and context. New Dir. Inst. Res. 2008, 2008, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Hazelkorn, E. Reshaping the world order of higher education: The role and impact of rankings on national and global systems. Policy Rev. High. Educ. 2018, 2, 4–31. [Google Scholar]
For smoothly carrying out successful accreditation, determine your activities processes and auxiliary systems. Accordingly make documents file with an unique file no in the documents. Remember each file must be identified by a identification number
ReplyDelete