A Comparative Analysis of International and Indonesian Quality Assurance Assessments: Review of Elementary Education Study Program

Indra Gunawan, Tatang Herman, Wahyu Sopandi, Atep Sujana, Hany Handayani, Zaenal Abidin
{"title":"A Comparative Analysis of International and Indonesian Quality Assurance Assessments: Review of Elementary Education Study Program","authors":"Indra Gunawan, Tatang Herman, Wahyu Sopandi, Atep Sujana, Hany Handayani, Zaenal Abidin","doi":"10.18178/ijlt.9.3.213-218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Quality assurance is an essential issue in higher education, therefore Agency for Quality Assurance through Accreditation of Study Programs (AQAS) and LAMDIK as independent quality assurance institutions in Indonesia are present as widely-known quality assurance institutions in Indonesia with differences between standards or criteria on the instruments of the two institutions. This study is based on a research question about how much similarity the assessment variables of the two quality assurance institutions. Hence, this research aims to comparatively analyze the instrument of the two institutions, to figure out which standards or criteria are the focus of the assessment, as well as to analyze the follow-up for the assessment for further study. The data source used was the assessment criteria of the two institutions therefore the methodology was multi-layered research consisting of narrative content analysis followed by statistical analysis, final expert recommendation review, and expert interviews which produce a comparative description. One of clear findings of this study was that AQAS use top-down model hierarchically, starting from the university, faculty, or school, and then to the study program being assessed. Statistical analysis used was fuzzy classifications such as 0, 0.25, 0.50001, 0.75, and 1 which were interpreted as fully out, more out than in, neither fully in nor fully out, more than out, and fully in. The similarity of standards or assessment criteria between the two institutions was shown by PRI from the results of the analysis using the fs-QCA application which pointed out at 0.66667 or close to 67% exceeding 0.5 which was a significant level of inconsistency. The inconsistency value occurred because there are several differences in AQAS standards and assessment criteria at LAMDIK which are influenced by education policies in Indonesia such as the tri dharma policy of higher education that requires community service.","PeriodicalId":93451,"journal":{"name":"International journal of learning and teaching","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of learning and teaching","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18178/ijlt.9.3.213-218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Quality assurance is an essential issue in higher education, therefore Agency for Quality Assurance through Accreditation of Study Programs (AQAS) and LAMDIK as independent quality assurance institutions in Indonesia are present as widely-known quality assurance institutions in Indonesia with differences between standards or criteria on the instruments of the two institutions. This study is based on a research question about how much similarity the assessment variables of the two quality assurance institutions. Hence, this research aims to comparatively analyze the instrument of the two institutions, to figure out which standards or criteria are the focus of the assessment, as well as to analyze the follow-up for the assessment for further study. The data source used was the assessment criteria of the two institutions therefore the methodology was multi-layered research consisting of narrative content analysis followed by statistical analysis, final expert recommendation review, and expert interviews which produce a comparative description. One of clear findings of this study was that AQAS use top-down model hierarchically, starting from the university, faculty, or school, and then to the study program being assessed. Statistical analysis used was fuzzy classifications such as 0, 0.25, 0.50001, 0.75, and 1 which were interpreted as fully out, more out than in, neither fully in nor fully out, more than out, and fully in. The similarity of standards or assessment criteria between the two institutions was shown by PRI from the results of the analysis using the fs-QCA application which pointed out at 0.66667 or close to 67% exceeding 0.5 which was a significant level of inconsistency. The inconsistency value occurred because there are several differences in AQAS standards and assessment criteria at LAMDIK which are influenced by education policies in Indonesia such as the tri dharma policy of higher education that requires community service.
国际与印尼品质保证评鉴之比较分析:基础教育学习计画检讨
质量保证是高等教育的一个重要问题,因此,质量保证机构通过学习计划认证(AQAS)和LAMDIK作为印度尼西亚独立的质量保证机构,作为印度尼西亚广为人知的质量保证机构,在两个机构的工具标准或标准之间存在差异。本研究是基于两个质量保证机构的评估变量有多少相似度的研究问题。因此,本研究旨在对两个机构的工具进行比较分析,找出哪些标准或标准是评估的重点,并分析评估的后续工作,以便进一步研究。使用的数据来源是两个机构的评估标准,因此方法是多层研究,包括叙述性内容分析,然后是统计分析,最后的专家建议审查,以及产生比较描述的专家访谈。本研究的一个明显发现是,AQAS采用自上而下的分层模型,从大学、教师或学校开始,然后到被评估的学习项目。使用的统计分析是模糊分类,如0、0.25、0.50001、0.75和1,这些分类被解释为完全出局、出局多于出局、既不完全出局也不完全出局、出局多于出局和完全出局。两个机构之间的标准或评估标准的相似性由PRI从使用fs-QCA应用程序的分析结果中显示出来,该结果指出在0.66667或接近67%,超过0.5,这是显着的不一致水平。产生不一致值的原因是受印尼教育政策的影响,如高等教育的三法政策要求社区服务,LAMDIK的AQAS标准和评估标准存在若干差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信