ENHANCED ACADEMIC PROGRAMME EVALUATION MODEL FOR NIGERIAN UNIVERSITIES

ABSTRACT

Revamping the falling standard of university education is one of the foremost challenges of our political leaders in Africa and Nigeria in particular. It has been observed that poor assessment of academic programmes by accrediting agencies is one of the major reasons for the educational downturn experienced in most African countries today. Empirical study carried out to determine the effectiveness level of current Academic Programme Evaluation Model (APEM) for Nigerian universities reveals that the framework is inadequate and does not give a true reflection of the programme’s performance. In spite of the high ratings scored by most academic programmes during accreditation exercises, and despite huge government investment in infrastructure and man-power development, research has shown that Nigerian Universities have continued to produce graduates who lack the requisite knowledge and skill to engage in meaningful employment or compete favorably with their foreign counterparts. With the current APEM in Nigeria, periodic programme assessment may not produce the desired result. Current APEM does not cover important aspects of learning pedagogy in line with the position of several authors whose works were considered in this dissertation. The framework does not even involve the participation of all staff and all students in the evaluation process. There is need to develop an enhanced APEM that improves accuracy of assessment by capturing the programme’s overall impact on students in line with international best practice. This work aims at developing an enhanced APEM that corrects the inadequacies in the existing model. It determines true performance level of existing model; identifies and categorizes all variables, relations, and inadequacies in the existing system that hinder accurate evaluation; develops evaluation models that incorporate vital aspects of learning pedagogy into the scoring criteria; introduces evaluation mechanism that allow unbiased rating by authorized administrators, and to deploy database query and reporting tools for high-level analysis of patterns or trends. The new model developed in this work is both mathematical and graphical, and involved active participation of all faculties, and all students to become part of the academic programme assessment. Other enhancements introduced by our model have made programme assessment to become a day-to-day process, ongoing, and more formative than summative. We adopted the combined Structured System Analysis and Design Methodology (SSADM) and the Object Oriented Analysis and Design Methodology (OOADM) in the analysis and design of the system. The model was implemented by a dynamic web-application of the three-tier architecture having a front-end, a middleware, and a back-end. The middleware application logic was defined using VB.NET programming language and ASP.NET web application/scripting language based on .NET framework 4.0. Microsoft SQL server 2008 was used to design the back-end technology. ADO.NET was used to enable dynamic database interactivity with the web application, while Microsoft IIS express version 7.5 was adopted as the Web server to enable application’s response to user request based on http request. The results of this work include: an empirical report showing that majority of our academics clamour for an improvement in evaluation framework; an enhanced APEM with ten new performance criteria that capture programme’s overall impact on students; new mathematical models that provide ongoing and cumulative assessment; and a novel web application that guarantees automated approach to data capture and trend analysis. The enhanced APEM guarantees assessment that gives true reflection of programme’s performance thereby paving way for hardwork and continuous quality improvement.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1.            Background of Study

University Programme Evaluation is a systematic and ongoing method of gathering, analyzing and using information from measured outcomes to evaluate the quality of academic programmes with a view to improving student learning. Programme evaluation should not be an assessment of the individual student, faculty or staff. Rather, the emphasis is on what and how an academic programme contributes to the learning, growth and development of students as a group. Such evaluation should therefore provide a programme with feedback on its performance with the intent of helping its overall improvement.

The three main aims of university programme evaluation are: To improve – (the evaluation process should provide feedback to determine how the program can be improved), To inform

– (the evaluation process should inform faculty, strategic planners, and other decision-makers, of the contributions and impact of the programme. It should also inform external accountability activities such as accreditation), and, To prove – (the evaluation process should encapsulate and demonstrate to students, faculty, staff and outsiders what the programme is accomplishing (Martha and Kathryn, (2001)).

Universities and all institutions of higher learning are becoming increasingly aware of the need for constant programme evaluation (Don and Anthony, (2010). Both government and the general society are desirous to know how well the institution and its programmes are doing to improve service and students’ learning. These are some of the motivators for conducting academic programme evaluation.

Academic Programme Evaluation is usually conducted by accrediting agencies set up by the Government through the Ministry of Education or by professional organizations. In Nigeria, this quality assurance function is conducted by the National Universities Commission (NUC) for Federal, State and Private Universities. This process, as carried out by the NUC is termed “accreditation” and it is the process by which the quality and standard of educational institutions and their academic programmes are assessed.

There are 117 Universities approved by the Federal Government of Nigeria through the National Universities Commission (Okojie, 2008). If these institutions are allowed to operate

without an accrediting agency, the standard of education would be compromised, the ultimate goal of producing high-level manpower would remain a mirage and the graduates of the system would not be able to compete favorably with their peers in other parts of the world. Hence, the justifications for a body like the NUC to oversee and regulate the activities of these universities. Other organizations exist, which conduct accreditation for academic programmes in Nigeria, and all require that institutions assess how well the programmes are meeting their objectives to inform improvement efforts. Therefore, for universities and their academic programmes to remain afloat, they must demonstrate the ability to remain accredited by the NUC, and this requires that an active assessment process be in place that continuously examines its educational support services. It is worthy of note that all accrediting bodies demand a focus on operational excellence and commitment to continuous quality improvement.

The primary purpose of programme assessment is the improvement of quality education by a constant improvement on student learning. Based on this, any undertaking that enhances and improves learning, knowledge and growth of our university students cannot be considered a waste of time. To get the best from classroom activities, we also encourage a diversification of learning styles especially at the university level in order to get the best from students. Basically, students can be categorized according to their preferred style of learning, which include the following: auditory (aural) learners, visual learners, and tactile learners (Elizabeth and Dobolyi, 2015).

As we stated earlier, for a programme assessment effort to be truly successful, it must be an ongoing and continuous process. Academic programme assessment in Universities should be continuously reviewed and improved, and each academic department should look at its programmes and its learning outcomes on a continual basis and determine if there are better ways to measure student learning and other programme outcomes.

There are two types of evaluation process: summative and formative. The purpose of summative programme evaluation is to judge the quality and worth of an academic programme. On the other hand, the purpose of formative programme evaluation is to provide feedback to help improve and modify a programme. University academic programme assessment is intended to include the formative evaluation aspect and not only the summative evaluation technique where the results of programme assessment are used only for the elimination or retention of academic programmes.

Existing literature reveals a success story in the implementation of good Academic Programme Evaluation Models (APEM) in universities across the globe. However, Martha and Kathryn (2001) reveals some weaknesses associated with existing models of Academic Programme Assessment, and states that “programme assessment should focus on assessing student learning and experience to determine whether students have acquired the skills, knowledge, and competencies associated with their programme of study”. According to Martha and Kathryn (2001), effective academic programme assessment process should be based on the following criteria:

1. Systematic: Should be an orderly and open method of acquiring assessment information over time.
   1. Ongoing and cumulative: Over time, assessment efforts should build a body of evidence to improve programmes.
   1. Multi-faceted: Assessment information should be collected on multiple dimensions, using multiple methods and sources.
   1. Pragmatic: Assessment should improve the campus environment, not simply collected and filed away.

In the same vein, Basma and Paula (2008) suggested a strong emphasis on the learning, development and growth of students. It further gave various recommendations for an effective implementation of Academic Programme Assessment Models and to ensure operational excellence. His recommendations include:

(1) Assessment should be comprehensive, systematic and a continuous process, (2) Assessment should be a means for self-improvement, (3) Assessment measures should be meaningful, (4) Assessment should utilize multiple measures and multiple sources, (5) Assessment should be used as a management tool, (6) Assessment results should be valued and genuinely used to improve programmes and processes, (7) Assessment should be coordinated by one person and reviewed by a committee, (8) Assessment should involve the participation and input of all faculty and staff, and, (9) Assessment should include students.

The above suggestions and recommendations form the basis and major motivation for this study which focuses primarily on improved assessment of academic programme in Nigerian universities. Research has shown that Nigerian Universities have continued to produce graduates, who lack the requisite knowledge and skill for meaningful employment. Jiya (2012) proved by her research findings that the standard of university education has fallen

very low. Michael (2012) concludes that parents and students alike have lost faith in Nigerian universities; while President Goodluck Jonathan affirms the same fact during his inaugural speech in 2011 when he made a pronouncement that “Our University is underperforming in the delivery of quality education to her students”.

Abdulkareem and Oyeniran (2011) were even more direct when they posited that “performance assessment of Nigerian universities through periodic accreditation exercise is proving inadequate to meet developmental challenges at national and global levels”

The above findings are clear indication that our university academic programmes are performing poorly in spite of the high ratings they score during NUC accreditation exercises. This also indicates that the existing framework of university programme assessment in Nigeria does not reflect the true performance of these programmes, and does not cover important aspects of learning pedagogy. It also explains why our universities continue to produce unemployable graduates in spite of huge government investment in infrastructure, physical facilities, library, and man-power development, which are the major areas of focus during NUC accreditation exercises. The current model of assessment has failed to meet the two main objectives of NUC’s accreditation function which are to ensure that university academic programmes meet national needs and global competitiveness.

This study therefore takes a critical analysis of current assessment model with a view to ascertaining its level of ineffectiveness in measuring programme’s overall impact on the student. We will also develop a university programme assessment model that will enhance the current evaluation framework for university academic programmes to improve accuracy of assessment and to make the evaluation more reflective of actual programme performance. Our proposed model will address the concerns raised by Martha and Kathryn (2001), and Basma and Paula (2008) who suggest a strong emphasis on the learning, development and growth of students, and insist that Academic Programme Assessment focuses on assessing student learning and experience to determine whether students have acquired the skills, knowledge, and competencies associated with their programme of study. The implementation of the model will be a novel web application that guarantees automated approach to data capture and trend analysis. It will guarantee assessment that gives true reflection of programme’s performance thereby paving way for hardwork and continuous quality improvement.

1.2.            Statement of the Problem

Empirical study carried out to determine the level of effectiveness of current assessment framework for university academic programmes in Nigeria reveals that the framework is inadequate and fails to meet the objectives of NUC’s accreditation functions of ensuring that academic programmes meet national needs, and attain global competitiveness. Further analysis also reveals that in the existing model, the following inadequacies are being managed:

1. Day-to-day   and    continuous    assessment    of    university    academic                programme performance is practically impossible.
   1. Assessment of academic programmes is done only once in three or five years depending on the accreditation status earned in the last visitation.
   1. Assessment of academic programmes using this framework is not a true reflection of the programmes’ performance.
   1. Important aspects of university learning pedagogy are not considered in the scoring criteria.
   1. Assessment is basically summative and has no feedback mechanism that generates necessary performance reports to suggest ways of improvement.

Furthermore, an empirical study on the performance of the National Universities Commission (NUC) in assessing the performance of academic programmes in universities using such instruments as the Minimum Academic Standards (MAS), and the Self Study Forms (SSF) prove that the instruments are weak and neither captures vital areas of teacher-performance in the classroom nor adequately monitors the general performance of university lecturers. These inadequacies fuel the current global downward trend in university education because our institutions have failed to restructure their assessment models in line with global best practices.

There is need to design a new model that minimizes fraudulent activities and forgery associated with current evaluation framework where departments and universities organize records of non-existing staff and teaching materials to attract maximum scores during accreditation/verification exercises. There is need to automate most of the data-gathering procedures, and ensure day-to-day assessment of academic programmes. It has become necessary to provide feedback mechanism to determine how the programme can be improved upon in line with international best practices.

It is also necessary to allow all stakeholder take part in the scoring exercise, letting the records of assessment emanate from the students (through their course representatives), the course lecturers themselves, the heads of departments, and the academic planning units of various universities. With these in place, the system will ginger lecturers to take their duties seriously, deliver their lecturers and impact the necessary skill to the students. It will encourage vice-chancellors and heads of units to do the right thing and provide the needed infrastructure if their programmes must receive accreditation, knowing that the automated system will provide counter evidence and expose any act of bribery or falsehood. If this is achieved, then the productivity of the staff as well as that of the organization will be improved.

Investigation has shown that the existing system is counterproductive since evidence from programme evaluation does not usually show the reality on ground. Most students are not satisfied with inputs of some teaching staff and this manifest in student loitering during class hours, lateness to classes, truancy, and poor semester results. Employers of labour are no more satisfied with the quality of our graduates and the only way to recruit them is to subject them to further training. It has therefore become necessary to enhance the current university programme evaluation model and to improve on the state of the observed weaknesses.

1.3  Aim and Objectives of the Study

The aim of this study is to develop a university programme assessment model that enhances current evaluation framework used for university programme assessment to improve its accuracy and effectiveness. The system shall actualize the following specific objectives:

1. Determine ineffectiveness level of existing programme evaluation framework for Nigerian universities,
   1. Identify and categorize all variables, relations, and inadequacies in the existing model that hinder accurate evaluation,
   1. Develop evaluation model that incorporates vital aspects of learning pedagogy into the scoring criteria, and the logistics of day-to-day assessment,
   1. Guarrantee automated approach to data capture and allow unbiased rating by authorized administrators,
   1. Deploy database query and reporting tools for high-level analysis of patterns or trends,
   1. Design a dynamic web application that implements the model with joint participation and collaboration between the accrediting agency and the university.

1.4              Significance of the Study

The greatest need of Nigeria at this stage of her development is a revamp of her educational sector especially the institutions of higher learning, and the story is the same for most countries of the world. Analysis of current university performance reveals a yearly turn-out of low quality graduates and this has become a source of worry to most world leaders. Martha and Kathryn (2001), and Basma and Paula (2008), including several other researchers agree that this educational downturn is largely due to the continued adoption of programme assessment models that do not follow principles of good practice for academic programme assessment.

Therefore, this study is significant, being a pioneering effort that will stimulate further research interests towards developing alterative methodologies to enhance the system. Since assessment works best when it is ongoing, and not episodic, our model design promises to incorporate the logistics of day-to-day assessment and a feedback mechanism for programme improvement.

True assessment should include all aspects of university learning pedagogy, such as student satisfaction level, content delivery efforts, extent of credit-hour coverage, pass rate, and attrition rate.

The system will use collaborative methods for managing, sharing, and deploying curricula and for tracking student report to ascertain the impact of academic programmes on the students via a sophisticated management system. There are many benefits, including much greater collaboration among teachers and a more consistent measurement of students’ progress.

Again, this dissertation seeks to raise students’ interest in education, reduce lateness to classes, truancy, and poor semester results. It hopes to reduce the high level of student drop- outs including the poor student/teacher relationship currently experienced in our classroom learning environment.

Different stakeholders will benefit from this dissertation, including:

Employers of Labour: will be satisfied with the quality of university graduates. This will also reduce the huge resources spent by corporate organizations in training graduates to make them employable.

Students: when students are engaged, they take greater interest in study, and take responsibility for their own learning. A good assessment model will represent a change in the relationship between students and teachers in the learning process.

University management: The university management will be in control of activities within the university community and make better decisions concerning academic programmes.

The Institution: when the productivity of university lecturers and staff improve, there will be improvement towards the attainment of organizational goals.

Parents and Guardians: will be sure of the education of their ward and have faith in university education. Parents will have rest of mind that their wards will receive the requisite skills for self-employment after graduation.

1.5              Scope of the Study

This study covers the development of a university programme assessment model that improves current assessment framework used in evaluating and scoring academic programmes in universities. It is designed as a strategy to improve the effectiveness of universities in service delivery. The study reviews the present structure, and undertakes empirical studies to determine its level of effectiveness in achieving the set goal.

In order to validate the research gap identified, primary data were collected using the questionnaire as our primary instrument. This was done to investigate the level of effectiveness of present assessment framework. Data collection was limited to Nigerian universities only: federal universities, state universities, and private universities. The results of data analysis provided a justification for the development of the new model specified in the objectives of this study.

Again, the implementation of the model was specific to Nigerian universities only and was customized using the structure, nomenclature, and peculiarities of the Nigerian state. Hence, for it to be used elsewhere, few modifications may be expedient.

1.6              Limitations of the Study

Some problems exist which limited the exact realization of the objectives of this study. The sheer reluctance of some academic staff and some principal officers of our universities to furnish the researcher with the required information; the bureaucracy and the attendant length of time required by universities to release information needed for the study hindered the early completion of this project.

Some university staff did not eventually return their questionnaire, and there is always a tendency to resist change that will affect the persisting culture in any environment.

Other limitations existed, which include: Time Constraint, Inadequate Finance, Power Failure, and unavailable internet facilities in our universities. Notwithstanding these limitations, efforts were made to ensure a reliable and comprehensive work.

1.7              Definition of Terms

1. Academic Programme: Is a group and series of classes that are taken to earn a degree.
   1. Academic Programme Assessment: Is an on-going process designed to monitor and improve student learning.
   1. Criteria: The word criteria usually refer to the levels of performance used as markers of quality. For example, in evaluating a project, performance, or exhibition, evaluators set criteria for meeting a normative standard of excellence, not meeting that standard, or exceeding the standard.
   1. Standards: Standards are broad benchmarks against which the criteria are compared, the desired or target performance. The word benchmark is often used to refer to a standard. In programme evaluation, the standards are the benchmarks for programme performance and differ from student performance standards that guide assessment of student performance. Performance indicators can be used in program evaluation to define target performance.
   1. Assessments: Assessments are the methods used to collect evidence of performance that, through criteria that delineate levels of quality of performance, indicate to what degree standards are being met. A number of assessments over time provide evidence for inferring conclusions about a programme and making decisions for actions toward programme improvement.
2. Data: Factual information used as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or planning. They are sets of information collected from assessments of a variety of programme elements that constitute evidence of student learning and other criteria that are indicators of academic programme quality.
3. Pedagogy: Is the art and science of education (how learning is accomplished). It ranges from how the instructor develops conceptual knowledge to the method of transfer of such knowledge to learners.

• System: A system is an entity which maintains its existence through the interaction of its parts.
• Academic: An academic is person who teaches and or does research   at a university or collage.
• Model: A model is a simplified representation of a system at some particular point in time or space intended to promote understanding of the real system.
• Curricula / syllabi: A curriculum is a complete course of study offered by a school; a syllabus is the outline of a single course. In Nigerian universities for instance, curricula and course syllabi are created and organized solely by the universities themselves and only accredited by the Nigerian Universities Commission (NUC).

j.        Web-based Application

A web based application is a software package that can be accessed through the web browser and where the software and database reside on a central server rather than being installed on the desktop system and is accessed over a network. Web based applications are the ultimate way to take advantage of today’s technology to enhance your organizations productivity & efficiency, giving you an opportunity to access your business information from anywhere in the world at anytime, and improve interactivity among customers and partners.

k.      Collaborative learning

Is a situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something together. Unlike individual learning, people that engaged in collaborative learning capitalize on one another’s resources and skills (asking one another for information, evaluating one another’s ideas, and monitoring one another’s work. More specifically, collaborative learning is based on the model that knowledge can be created within a population where members actively interact by sharing experiences and take on asymmetry roles.

• Information Technology: Information Technology (IT) is the application of computers and telecommunications equipment to store, retrieve, transmit and manipulate data. It can also be defined in terms of the study, design, development, application, implementation, support or management of computer-based information systems.
• Classroom : A classroom or schoolroom is a room dedicated primarily to teaching or learning activities. Classrooms are found in educational institutions of all kinds, including public and private schools, home schools, corporations, and religious and humanitarian organizations, and attempts to provide a safe space where learning can take place uninterrupted and undistracted.

• School drop-out: This means leaving a school for practical reasons, necessities, or disillusionment with the system from which the individual in question leaves. Most commonly, dropping out refers to a student quitting school before he or she graduates or avoiding entering a University. It cannot always be ascertained that a student has dropped out, as he or she may stop attending lectures without terminating enrollment.

• E-learning: E-learning refers to the use of electronic media and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in education. It is broadly inclusive of all forms of educational technology in teaching and learning suh as multimedia learning, technology-enhanced learning (TEL), computer-based instruction (CBI), computer- based training (CBT), computer-assisted instruction or computer-aided instruction (CAI), internet-based training (IBT), web-based training (WBT), online education, and virtual education. E-learning can occur in or out of the classroom, and can be self- paced.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :