Metaevaluation of the system for evaluating Andalusian University Grades
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24965/gapp.v0i3.433Keywords:
Evaluation in Higher Education, strategic evaluation, Bologna process, quality in Higher EducationAbstract
The Bologna process of European convergence assigns evaluation a key role, as a system for quality assurance of grades, in order to increase the mutual trust among different national education systems. However, current evaluation models neither have been revised to include such a legitimistic perspective, nor have assumed the criteria for internationalization included in the official goals of Bologna declarations. The paper describes, through the opinion of academic staff, a metaevaluation of the evaluation system of grades used in the Andalusian universities. A questionnaire was administered to 81academics, chosen because of their previous experience as members of self-evaluation committees. . The questionnaire included 82 criteria for judging the quality of evaluation stages and key elements. Results show the valued characteristics that any evaluation system should fit. Academics have a certificationist conventional perspective over evaluation, rejecting a political alternative perspective and the opportunities added by evaluation in supporting the efforts of internationalization and European convergence.Downloads
References
AEA [American Evaluation Association] (1995), «Guiding principles for evaluators», en W.R. Shadish, D.L. Newman, M.A. Scheirer y C. Wye, eds., Developing the guiding principles. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 66: 19-26. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2002), «Metaevaluation of a total quality management evaluation system», Psychology in Spain, 6(1): 12-25.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2003), Guía de evaluación de servicios universitarios. Almería: Unidad para la Calidad de las Universidades Andaluzas.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2005), «The influence of evaluation on change in management systems in educational institutions», Evaluation, 11(4): 465-481.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2008), «Responsibility of Educational Institutions for Strategic Change», Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5 (10): 5-20. En línea: http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/181/197 (consulta: 15 noviembre 2009).
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2009a), Crítica y mejora de los sistemas de evaluación universitaria. Almería: Education & Psychology I+D+i.
Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., Cantón, P. y Pozo, C. (2009b), “Quality criteria for self-evaluation in higher education”, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 6(11) : 16-31. En línea: http://survey.ate.wmich.edu/jmde/index.php/jmde_1/article/view/203/211 (consulta : 15 noviembre 2009).
Bustelo, M. (2002), “Metaevaluation as a tool for the improvement and development of the evaluation function in public administrations”, ponencia presentada en la V Biennial Conference of the European Evaluation Society, Sevilla, 10-12 de octubre.
Chen, H.T. (1990), Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
DiMaggio, P.J. y Powell, W.W. (1983), «The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields», American Sociological Review, 48(2): 147-160.
Enqa [European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education] (2005), Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. En línea: http://www.enqa.eu/files/ENQA%20Bergen%20Report.pdf (consulta: 5 marzo 2009).
Guba, E. G. y Lincoln, Y. S. (1989), Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
Haug, G. y Tauch, C. (2001), Towards the European higher education area: Survey of main reforms from Bologna to Prague. Summary and conclusions. En línea: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/documents/EUA_Trends_Reports/TRENDS_II-April2001.pdf (consulta: 5 marzo 2009).
JCS [Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation] (1988), The personnel evaluation standards: How to assess systems for evaluating educators. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
Jeliazskova, M. (2002), «Running the maze: Interpreting external review recommendations», Quality in Higher Education, 8(1): 89-96.
Lawrenz, F., Keiser, N. y Lavoie, B. (2003), «Evaluative site visits: A methodological review», American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3): 341-352.
Patton, M.Q. (1997), Utilization-focused evaluation. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.
Rossi, P.H., ed. (1982), Standards for evaluation practice. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
Scriven, M. (2000), The logic and methodology of checklists. En línea: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/papers/logic&methodology_oct05.pdf (consulta: 5 marzo 2009).
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2001a), Evaluation contracts checklist. En línea: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/contracts.pdf (consulta: 5 marzo 2009).
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2001b), «The metaevaluation imperative», American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2): 183-209.
Sursock, A. (2003), «Reflections from the higher education institutions’ point of view. Accreditation and quality culture», en D.F. Westerheijden y M. Leegwater, eds., Working on the European dimension of quality. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Van Vught, F.A. (1994), «Intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of quality assessment in Higher Education», en D.F. Westerheijden, J. Brennan y P.A.M. Maassen, eds., Changing contexts of quality assessment. Recent trends in West European Higher Education. Utrecht: Lemma B.V.
Van Vught, F.A. y Westerheijden, D.F. (1994), «Towards a general model of quality assessment in higher education», Higher Education, 28(3): 355-371.
