Introduction: Towards a New Ranking Approach in Higher Education and Research

Vught, Frans van; Westerheijden, Donald F.; Ziegele, Frank

doi:10.1007/978-94-007-3005-2_1

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The university ranking systems that we have studied in detail are shown in Table 3. These were chosen for the following reasons: (1) The Times Higher Education (THE) ranking contains indicators related to teaching and learning, (2) U‐Multirank has been developed with the aim of addressing criticisms of other international rankings (Vught & Ziegele, 2011), (3) U.S . News Best Online Program focuses on online education.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There have also been criticisms of the quality of tools for online education, for example that some of the models are composed of an assemblage of benchmarks which do not build on a comprehensive theoretical approach (Masoumi & Lindström, 2012). Other criticisms of rankings include that they employ a variety of conceptual frameworks and volatile methodologies, yet they ignore institutional diversity and lead to homogenization, and many lack useful metrics for academic quality in terms of learning, teaching and assessment (Dill & Soo, 2005; Kehm, 2014; Vught & Ziegele, 2011). This therefore leaves us with the salient question of whether we can find a way to do better comparisons for online education?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing the comparators: How should the quality of education offered by online universities be evaluated?

Brasher

Whitelock

Holmes

et al. 2022

Euro J of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing universities and courses is of interest to a variety of stakeholders including potential students, policy makers, news and media organisations, ranking providers, and universities themselves. There are a range of existing university ranking schemes that provide comparisons (e.g. Academic Ranking of World Universities) but typically these are designed with face‐to‐face teaching and learning in mind. There is also a growing number of quality assurance tools and approaches aimed at ensuring the quality of online education This article reports on an analysis of a range of quality assurance systems for online higher education institutions and courses, together with variety of ranking systems targeting conventional universities—with the aim of establishing what they measure, and the metrics used to assess quality. The findings from this analytical study were compared with a meta‐analysis of the literature about how students choose their university in order to understand how these instruments influence current student opinion and can be used more proactively by universities themselves. The findings reveal: (1) current ranking systems are of limited value for most potential undergraduate students, particularly with reference to online education, (2) comparison systems that can be of value to students from a variety of different backgrounds are likely to be complex to set up and run, and (3) quality indicators that promote both formative and summative evaluation may be beneficial to both institutions and students.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the comparators: How should the quality of education offered by online universities be evaluated?

Brasher

Whitelock

Holmes

et al. 2022

Euro J of Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dropping the standard tables also makes it more feasible to go beyond the comparison of internationally oriented research universities to cover profiles such as: regionally oriented colleges, music academies, teacher training colleges, and universities of applied sciences. (Federkeil, File, et al, 2012;van Vught et al, 2012) In the example of the University of São Paulo, eight indicators are empty, indicating the absence of data for the institution (e.g., graduating on time). The remaining bars are filled in five levels, from "E" (1) to "A" (5).…”

Section: Issue 53 | April 2022 100mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multidimensionality through self-evaluation: From theory to practice in the Brazilian graduate system

Brasil¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nearly all science and technology research in Brazil is conducted within a national system of graduate education. Since the 1970s, a graduate program assessment has been an integral part of such a system, and it is currently held on a quadrennial basis. The evaluation model is dynamic, evolving from the experiences of evaluators, policymakers, and the scientific community during each four-year cycle. This study analyses policy initiatives from the 2017-2021 evolving effort, focusing on strategies and recommendations to implement multidimensionality and self-evaluation as integral components of Brazilian evaluation. The paper traces how the idea for a multidimensional assessment was introduced in the country and how U-Multirank, an international ranking of higher education institutions (HEI), has come to inspire an evaluation that is not institutional but of graduate programs instead. The study identified some benefits and limitations of the chosen inspiration and analysed how the Brazilian proposal aligned with the U-Multirank principles. Furthermore, the investigation shows there is little concrete difference from the proposed new model to the one Brazil has already in place. Finally, the last section of this study looks into the once pivotal idea to pursue a self-evaluation component, now relegated to a minor role in the model, but that could be raised to a position supporting the design of an actual multidimensional assessment model.

show abstract

“…Whether students after graduation really know how good teaching has been in enhancing their knowledge, skills and other competencies is subject to debate. Anyhow, we may safely assume that higher education clients cannot know its quality in advance (van Vught et al 2012). Higher education's being an experience or credence good underpins the importance of trust.…”

Section: Information Asymmetrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparency in Higher Education: The Emergence of a New Perspective on Higher Education Governance

Jongbloed

Vossensteyn

Vught

et al. 2018

European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Towards a New Ranking Approach in Higher Education and Research

Cited by 12 publications

References 1 publication

Comparing the comparators: How should the quality of education offered by online universities be evaluated?

Comparing the comparators: How should the quality of education offered by online universities be evaluated?

Multidimensionality through self-evaluation: From theory to practice in the Brazilian graduate system

Transparency in Higher Education: The Emergence of a New Perspective on Higher Education Governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About