Mapping Accreditation Needs to Academic Plans that Matter
This post is
a continuation of my previous post on B-Log on NAAC Accreditation and Quality
Shift in HEIs. A series of posts is planned which will attempt to connect the
NAAC accreditation needs and the HEI quality uplift possibilities with
interventions at multiple levels of the teaching-learning processes and
academic-administrative strategies. The first blog post (available here: http://pkbabu.blogspot.com/
What I dwell on here is about how the Key Indices included in the NAAC Accreditation parameters of the HEIs can be considered as questions which a Department / Faculty member can ask to self-evaluate its/ his/ her performance and how the academic goal-setting can be tied to these accreditation norms. Questions / Key Indicators (KIs) about the curriculum planning and delivery mode of content delivery by the faculty members of the colleges are spread across the first two criteria of the NAAC Assessment. If the HEI can take its cue from here and initiate processes to meaningfully integrate the said practices to its methods of content delivery, it will go a long way not just in getting good grades, but also in raising the quality of the institution through raising the quality of student experiences.
Take the case of ‘effective curriculum planning and delivery’ through well-planned academic calendar which features as a KI at the beginning of Criteria 1. I am sure that all the accredited HEIs have an academic plan probably prepared for the accreditation sake. Some will have a Functional one too, of course. The challenge is to prepare a truly functional academic calendar which could be put into action as the academic year rolls by. This will require action plans being prepared by all the constituent elements of the college like teaching departments, Clubs, Wings, Centers and other bodies/arms of the HEIs to start with.
Each of these elements which make up the HEI should be made aware of the institutional and accreditation objectives in advance. I have mentioned institutional and accreditation objectives separately because it is possible and at rarefied academic heights, it is the responsibility of some, if not all, of the HEIs to play the lead and be the reason why the accreditation and advisory bodies revisit their benchmarks. The depts, Cells or even student collectives are to be educated to operate on the said lines. As mentioned, the sole goal of either a dept or an Energy club run by the students need not be What the accreditation manual has demanded. It could be more than that. The club or Dept plan can align its plan with the accreditation manual. But there could be many nodes where the two - institutional plans and accreditation norms - meet and part. One needn't worry about the institutional worm rising high above the accreditation worm. That’s how the bars are raised and prompting a rework of the benchmarks set.
Final institutional Academic plan of action can be stitched together after a series of sits across the planning table, headed by the Internal Quality Keepers. These are meetings which will not just check alignment of the plans with the accreditation scales, but also the direction of the vision too. These are meetings which sound the depth of plans, and the reach and applicability of ideas. The ideas pitched must have reached this table after being thoroughly tested through dept / cell level meetings and hence are assured of passing this test often. Still the final analysis does matter.
Outcome is key for the plans. Not merely because the Higher Education is laying significant emphasis on outcome-based learning these days. An activity planned, an event held, an add-on course delivered or a training provided must leave behind specific, measurable outcome in terms of learning. A curriculum designed or a training regime developed or a skill set imparted should be evident for all to know and experience.
A fool with a plan is better off than a genius with none, they say. A fool with just a plan which is not put into practice or can’t be implemented is no better than one without it, often. Many of the annual academic plans are exemplary. The issue could be, as mentioned, the issue of putting it into action. Or, the nonchalant attitude which doesn’t help push either the designers or the executer of the plan to run it. Plans are to be run. The whole lot of excitement and difficulty lies there. Without a proper mechanism to oversee the execution of the plan with periodic assessments and stock taking, it will be hard to claim ownership of the plan. It will be the responsibility of the Internal Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) - the Quality Leadership of the HEI - to realistically assess and back up the plan. The stock taking by the IQAC has to weigh the previously approved Plan for its success as well as its failure too. The components which didn’t work out need to be analyzed for the causes and answers sought.
Each element of the plan can also be the trigger of something bigger, capable of leading to the next level, inspiring the build to the next floor or extending to the next community and so on. A diploma leading to an advanced diploma or a single training programme growing to a six-session yearlong certificate programme, a sapling distribution event for community growing to the setting up of a nursery and the like! In such a growth story, outcome is assured all around.
An Annual Academic Plan which started off as a requirement to meet an accreditation need can thus be made the best of in this manner. It will be absolutely wrong to state loudly that there needed an accreditation benchmark to wake the institution up to the need of such a plan. Academic Calendars and Annual Plans were always part of the institutional requirement. If that 'tradition' has died out as we were busy teaching, the accreditation requirement may be taken as a wake up shout!
- Babu. P. K., Ph D
This needs to be sent to all teachers.
ReplyDelete