Assessment and AccreditationOf

Open & Distance Learning Institutions

Guidelines for ODL Institutions

Distance Education CouncilIndira Gandhi National Open University

Maidan Garhi, New Delhi-110068www.dec.ac.in

Guidelines for ODL Institutions

Contents

1. Distance Education Council: An Introduction......................................................2.2. Need for Accreditation and Its Framework..........................................................3.3. Types of ODL Institutions .......................................................................64. Scheme of Assessment and Accreditation.............................................................65. Developing the SAP .....................................................................106. Visit to the Institution .....................................................................106.1 Coordination of the visit...................................................................................106.2 Preparing for the visit.......................................................................................106.3 Planning for the assessment processes..............................................................116.4 During the visit.................................................................................................116.5 End of the visit..................................................................................................13

Annexure: I Declaration of the InstitutionAnnexure: II Checklist

1

1. Distance Education Council: An IntroductionQuality Assurance in Open and Distance Learning (ODL) is becoming increasingly important due to the large-scale expansion in modes of educational delivery. In India ODL was introduced in its most primitive form as correspondence education in the 1960s. Over five decades it has evolved and taken on different forms from corresponding education in the 1960s and 70s to Open and Distance Education in the 1980s, and Virtual Education and Online Education in the last decade. In fact, all three generations of ODL are co-existing in the form of Correspondence Course Institutes/Directorates of Distance Education attached to conventional Universities; State Open Universities; National Open University; Professional Associations; Private Universities and Institutions and Foreign Universities. In India during the last five decades, ODL has emerged as an important mode for providing education to diverse sections of society. The inherent flexibility and affordability of the system, coupled with applications of new technologies, has made ODL move to centrestage inof the educational scenario. Programmes in widely diverse areas and at different levels are being offered to more than 2.5 million learners, who constitute nearly 25 per cent of the total enrolment in higher education. Open universities have increased manifold, from four in number during the Eighth Plan to fourteen in the Tenth Plan period. The number of dual mode universities offering programmes through distance mode has also shown a substantial growth and currently there are more than 140 Distance Education Institutions (DEIs). It is encouraging to note that a large number of private providers have taken the initiative to offer distance learning programmes. The rapid growth in the number of institutions and the speed, at which they are growing, has necessitated steps to be taken to ensure quality of education imparted through distance mode.

2

The Distance Education Council (DEC), was established in 1991 under section 16(7) read with Section 5(2) of the IGNOU Act, 1985. As per Clause (2)(a) of the Statute 28, the DEC is responsible for the promotion, coordination and maintenance of standards in the Open and Distance Learning system in the country.

The DEC, among its various responsibilities, “….has to take such measures as are necessary, consistent with the objects of the University to provide an innovative, flexible and open system of university education, for the promotion, including introduction and continuation, of courses and programmes which conform to the standards prescribed by the DEC, to maintain such standards in the institutions offering distance education programmes and to prevent, through such measures as are considered appropriate, institutions from offering courses and programmes which do not conform to the standards laid down by the Council….” .

2. Need for Accreditation and Its Framework

A common question raised in higher education circles is, “Should standards for quality assurance in ODL be different from quality assurance in conventional education?” In order to maintain equivalence and credibility of programme offerings it is generally agreed that while standards and benchmarks should be the same, the assessment framework should reflect the special features of ODL. Sustainability and credibility of new and emerging ODL systems would depend on good quality assurance mechanisms which are responsive to the needs of society and the national economy.Keeping in mind the concern for quality, the DEC has taken the initiative and entered into a dialogue with ODL institutions to devise means for institutional assessment and accreditation. Following this, the DEC has developed this ‘Handbook on Assessment and Accreditation of Open and Distance Learning Institutions’.

3

The Framework

The Distance Education Council’s scope of accreditation will cover institutions offering programmes primarily by the distance mode, ranging from Certificate level to Doctoral level programmes. A Distance Education Institution (DEI) may be operationally defined as an educational institution or organisation, which organises its pedagogy predominantly at a distance, using technology mediated mode for delivery of instructions and supporting the learning endeavour. Further, the DEC also reserves the right to limit the scope of its review to the kinds of institutions and type of programmes for which it feels adequate standards have been developed and is competent to review.

The accreditation by the DEC can be of two types, namely, the Institutional Accreditation, and Programme Accreditation.

The Institutional Accreditation will comprise of the following framework of reference regarding distance and online education offerings. Performance indicators, benchmark statements and their evidences in all aspects of the institution’s functioning will be collated.

Programme Design and DevelopmentProgramme Transaction and DeliveryStudent Assessment and EvaluationResearch, Consultancy and Community Engagement Learner Support Services and Progression Infrastructure and Learning ResourcesGovernance Structure and Leadership Internal Quality Assurance Processes Innovative Practices

In Programme Accreditation, the focus will be on understanding programme outcomes through the effective use of ODL. The Programme Appraisal Report will broadly conform to the above

4

criteria, taking into cognizance benchmarks from discipline experts and professional councils. Currently the DEC will only be considering Institutional Accreditation, while the Programme Accreditation will be taken up at a later stage.

3. Types of ODL InstitutionsInstitutions offering education through ODL can be: National/State Open Universities DEIs in Conventional Universities established by an Act of

Parliament or State Legislature; Deemed to be Universities declared by the Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956; and Institutions of National Importance declared by an Act of Parliament

Other ODL institutions of higher learning including private providers, which are recognized by the DEC.

All the above fall under two categories, i.e., single-mode and dual-mode institutions.

Single-Mode Institutions: Universities/Institutions offering education through the distance mode only. Such institutions include Open Universities that are established for dissemination of education through open and distance mode, virtual institutions offering programmes through e-learning, and the like.

Dual-Mode Institutions: Universities/Institutions disseminating education through full-time class-room teaching as well as distance mode. Earlier some of these were called Correspondence Course Institutions (CCIs) and relied only on the printed study material sent to the students by post. Slowly, there was a move to transform them from correspondence-mode to distance-mode institutions. These institutions have, in the recent past, brought in reforms by incorporating the ‘face-to-face’ component of counselling their learners and the use of multiple media in teaching-learning and delivery of programmes. Thus, there was a change in the nomenclature of the CCI to Directorate/Centre/Institute of Distance Education, and the like.

5

4. Scheme of Assessment and Accreditation The salient features of the Scheme of Assessment and Accreditation are as under:

The institutions that offer education through distance mode and are approved by the Distance Education Council and have been operational for a minimum period of three years or have at least two batches of students completing a terminal examination are eligible for accreditation, namely, .

Minimum period of Existence: The ODL Institution may be in

existence for five years are eligible for accreditation, : The ODL Institutions in existence for a minimum period of five years are eligible for accreditation, :

National/State Open Universities; DEIs in conventional universities established by an Act of

Parliament or State Legislature, Deemed To Be Universities declared by the Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and Institutions of National Importance declared by an Act of Parliament.

Other ODL Institutions of Higher Learning, including including

and private providers, which are recognised by the DEC. The institutions that are eligible for accreditation and have

received the DEC grants must apply within three years from the date of implementation of this scheme or receipt of last grant, whichever is later.

Thus all Open Universities, Dual-Mode Universities, Private Universities and Government/ Private Institutions imparting programmes through correspondence, ODL, exclusively online or a combination of the above are eligible.

The following six criteria shall serve as the basis of assessment of ODL institutions for accreditation. The scores and weightage for each criterion in the accreditation is given below:

6

Criteria Scores

Weightage(%)

I Infrastructure & Human Resource Capabilities

150 15%

II Academic Programmes And Learning Resources

300 30%

III Learner Support Services 250 25%IV Research And Consultancy 100 10%V Governance 150 15%VI Innovative Practices 50 5%

Total Score 1,000

100%

For the assessment of an institution as a unit that is eligible to be assessed, the DEC would follow a six-stage process, which is a combination of self-assessment and review. The six stages are:

I. Submission of Application & Letter of Intent: Any institution offering programmes through the ODL and falling in the categories mentioned above may submit its Letter of Intent (LOI) and Part I of the Self Appraisal Portfolio (SAP), alongwith the accreditation fee as prescribed to the DEC. The formats are placed at the end of this Handbook (4.2: Letter of Intent; and 4.3: the SAP).

II. Readiness Assessment: Screening of the SAP (Part I) by a National Assessment & Accreditation Board (NAAB) set up by the DEC to decide on the Readiness for Assessment. Once an institution is declared “Ready” by the DEC, the applicant institution will be communicated acceptance of application.

III. Preparation and Submission of SAP: The intending institution must prepare the Self Appraisal Portfolio (SAP Parts I, II & III) using the format/guidelines given in the DEC Handbook on Assessment & Accreditation of ODL Institutions. The SAP aims at providing an opportunity for the institution/Programme Head to measure its effectiveness and efficiency and to identify areas of its strengths and weaknesses as a provider of distance education.Along with the SAP, the institution will also submit a full set

7

of its course material for review by a team of subject experts constituted by the DEC.

IV. Peer Team Visit: Based on the completeness of the SAP submitted, the DEC will organise the peer team visit. The eligible institution will be visited by the peer team constituted by the DEC, Ddepending on the size of the institution and the programmes on offer. ,The peer team will be constituted with experts from the areas of programmes offered by the institution. The peer team may be headed by superannuated or working Vice-Chancellor/ Pro Vice-Chancellor of a University /Director of an ODL Institution. It may also include an expert from the industry as an observer. The peer team should include 5-6 members (including experts from OUs and DEIs) depending on the profile of the institution. The visit will be coordinated by a DEC representative. tThehe site visit may vary from three to four days. The on-site visit will result in a focused Peer Team Report (PTR), denoting the strengths and areas of concern of the institution. The draft report of the peer team will be shared with the Head of the institution for ensuring accuracy of institutional data/information and then submitted to the NAAB of the DEC for further processing. The peer team will validate the claims made in the SAP. The peer team will visit the institution and interact with the institution/programme head and faculty, check documentary evidence to understand the functioning of the institution/programme in totality. During the visit, support structures for the transaction of programmes in terms of Study Centres, technology-enabled methodologies employed and partnerships with industry/local community will also be looked into.

V. Assessment Outcome: On completion of the peer team visit, a peer team report highlighting the salient features of the institution/programme and evaluating its alignment with

8

the principles of ODL and extent of fulfillment of programme standards and benchmarks will be presented to the DEC.

VI. Grading: The Distance Education Council will review the report and take a decision about the grant of accreditation status and declaration of the institutional grade and also the validity period of accreditation.

If the institution disagrees with the decision of award conveyed

to it, it can appeal to the NAAB for reconsideration of the decision.

A significant outcome of the assessment and accreditation will be the final institutional grading. The grading will be done on a 5–point scale as given below:

Scores Obtained

Letter Grade

Performance Descriptor

901 – 1000 A+ Outstanding (Accredited)751 – 900 A Excellent (Accredited)601 – 750 B+ Very Good (Accredited)501 – 600 B Good (Accredited)400 – 500 C Satisfactory (Accredited)<400 Not Accredited

The assessment outcome is valid for a period of five years. Institutions that complete the five-year accredited period may volunteer for re-accreditation.

5. Developing the Self Appraisal Portfolio (SAP) The assessment and accreditation process begins with the

submission of the Letter of Intent and the institutional profile, as suggested in Part I of the SAP. After the NAAB admits the application and conveys its acceptance to the institution, the institution would begin to prepare the SAP (Part II) and develop the SAP (Part III) (i.e. Self Evaluative Report).

5 . 1 The SAP The SAP should be organised in three parts:

i.) Part I: Institutional information,

9

ii.) Part II: Criterion-wise details, and iii.) Part III: Self-evaluative report.

The objective of the SAP is to enable an institution to evaluate its own strengths and weaknesses.

The data would be the basis on which the institution should introspect on its functioning, evaluate what it has, what it is doing and what should be done to reach the level it expects to reach.

The criterion-wise questions in the Handbook for Assessment and Accreditation will provide the framework and guidelines for preparation of the SAP.

Answers to the questions under the six criteria, with supporting data may be provided meticulously. All the information provided by the institution must be based on facts and records, which should be made available to the peer team for validation at the time of the peer team visit.

5.2 The SAP (Part III) The SAP Part III (i.e. Self Evaluative Report) of about 3,000 words,

covering all the information contained in the SAP, should be submitted by the institution along with the SAP Parts I and II.

It is the responsibility of the institution to validate the claims by it made in the SAP during the peer team visit.

Appendices may be given, only where necessary, for presentation of data. The raw data and records projected in the appendices may be made available to the peer team during the visit.

Keeping in view the six criteria listed in the Handbook and the details given there in, the institution is expected to analyse the strengths, limitations, and best practices/innovations for each criterion. The institution may like to reflect and record what it has achieved and what it is planning to achieve in the coming years in the light of its mission and social commitment.

6. VISIT TO THE INSTITUTIONThis section outlines the expectations from the institution at various stages of the peer team visit for its smooth conduct and effective assessment.

6.1 Coordination of the VisitThe institution will designate a senior teacher or administrator as a liaison officer to liaise with the peer team and the DEC

10

coordinator. In other words, the liaison officer will serve as the link between the institution and the DEC.

The liaison officer should be:o preferably a senior faculty member/ administrator

involved in the preparation of the SAP and o a person who has sufficient knowledge about the

institution and its operations. The name, designation and contact details of the liaison

officer should be communicated to the Director, DEC and vice versa. The name, along with designation and contact details of the DEC coordinator will be communicated to the institution.

6.2 Preparing for the Visit The institution should send an undertaking to the DEC that the

members of the peer team are in no way related to the institution and would abide by the guidelines of assessment and accreditation laid down by the DEC.

Also, the institution should submit an undertaking not to give employment/ consultancy etc to any member of the peer team for a period of at least one year. (See Annexure 1).

The travel plan and visit schedule should be finalised by the liaison officer in consultation with the DEC coordinator.

The liaison officer should keep a record of contact information of the peer team members and the DEC coordinator.

The liaison officer should inform the peer team members of a tentative plan of travel by the shortest routes.

The liaison officer should make suitable arrangements for accommodation, local travel and logistics for the peer team visit.

All expenses related to the peer team visit will be borne by the institution as per Government of India rules. The liaison officer should ensure that the same is done before the end of the visit.

6.3 Planning for Assessment Process The liaison officer will perform the following tasks: List the documents that may be sought by the peer team.

Documents related to the facts, processes, activities mentioned in the SAP and other institutional materials that may be required by the peer team must be kept ready before the visit in a designated place in the institution.

11

Arrange for a meeting room at the institution for the peer team members to interact.

Place all the related documents in the peer team meeting room along with a list of the documents (Checklist given in Annexure-II).

Provide the visit schedule to all units/functionaries so as to be ready for demonstration, presentation, document viewing, interaction etc.

Make arrangements for availability of the services of a secretary well-versed with stenography and computers, to facilitate the development of the Peer Team Report.

Make arrangements for computers and printers exclusively for the peer team at their place of stay and also at the Institution.

6.4 During the VisitThe liaison officer:

guides the peer team during the visit. makes arrangements for availability of a computer along with

other secretarial facilities o at the place of stay. o in the specified room of the institution.

arranges for one common welcome for the peer team members.

discourages the arrangements for flowers/snacks at each unit. keeps to the schedule as far as possible. arranges for a working lunch. limits the photography to inaugural/formal welcome only, or

otherwise as desired by the peer team members. organises interactive meetings with:

o The Vice-Chancellor and members of various statutory bodies of the university/institution;

o Faculty members, other officers and staff of the university/institution;

o Coordinators of study centres and academic counselors; o Students and alumni; ando Other stakeholders.

(Separate meetings of the peer team with the above should be organised.)

Peer team member/s can request for documents other than those already placed in the meeting room, which must be made available to the team members.

12

The institution has to respond to queries made by the peer team to justify the claims made in the Self Evaluative Report.

6.5 End of the Visit The draft of the PTR will be shown to the Vice-Chancellor/Head

of the institution. The Head of the institution may, in consultation with the

officers of the university/institution suggest amendments based on factual data.

The chairperson of the peer team, in consultation with other members of the team, finalises the report and submits the same to the Vice-Chancellor/ Head of the institution.

The Head of the institution returns the duly signed and stamped report to the chairperson of the peer team.

The institution makes arrangements for payment of TA, DA and sitting fees to the peer team members as per the Government of India rules.

An exit meeting will be arranged by the institution, in which the highlights of the report can be presented by the chairperson of the peer team.

Annexure: IDECLARATION

Declaration of No Conflict of Interest by the Institution

Name of the Institution:

Declaration

Certified that none of the following members of the Peer Team namely:

1. ………..2. ………..3. ………..4. …………5. ………….6. …………..

are involved with the institution and

13

have no stake in the institution, or do not have personal involvement (of Self/ Parent/ Spouse/

Children) as an employee/ consultant/ learner etc to the best of our knowledge.

Place :Date :

Signature of the Registrar/Head of the institution

………………………………………………………(office seal of the institution)

14

Annexure: IIChecklist

1. Self- Appraisal Portfolio (SAP)a. SAP Part – I

i. University Act, Statutes and Ordinances/ Resolutions of the University to start Distance Education in case of DEI.

ii. Copy of Letter of Recognition from DECiii. Budget Plan for the current year iv. Statement of Expenditure for the last three yearsv. Profile of the Institution

b. SAP Part – IIi. Building planii. List of computer H/W & S/W iii. List of schools/departmentsiv. List of teaching and non-teaching staff at Hqrs.,

RC, SCv. Policy documents on

1. Recruitment, 2. Staff development, promotion etc.3. Programme development and its

implementation4. Admission process5. Student support6. Evaluation system7. Any others

vi. List of training programmes organised/attended by staff

vii. List of programmes on offer with enrolment viii. A document on credit system followed by the

institutionix. List of research project(s) under during last three

yearsx. List of MoUs with industries/institutions and other

agenciesxi. Prospectus xii. Annual Reports for the last three yearsxiii. Guidelines for establishing RCs/SCsxiv. Guidelines on selection and appointment of

academic counsellors/ coordinators etc.xv. Vision/ mission statementsxvi. Organisational structure/ chartxvii. Authorities of the institution; their roles and

responsibilities

15

xviii. Roles and responsibilities of officers, heads of units, non-academic and technical staff of the institution

xix. Perspective plan of the institution

16