NIAD-QE Study Seminar-2019
26th July, 2019
Tokyo, Japan

Presentation
on

NAAC’s Revised Accreditation Framework(RAF): A Paradigm ShiftDr. Jagannath Patil, Adviser
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC), Bengaluru

 Context: two decades of pioneering experience Reform Process Key Features of revised accreditation framework
 Quality Indicator Framework Current and Revised Framework by NAAC
 QIF: Criteria, Key Indicators,

Metrics & Weightage Chart RAF – NAAC reforms: Impact and expected outcomes RAF – Analysis of results of accreditation
 RAF – Challenges and Way forward

2

NAAC for Quality and Excellence

National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) is premierQuality assurance organization of India which has it’s genesis inrecommendations of National Policy on Education (NPE),1986 andPlan of Action 1992.
 Establishment of NAAC in 1994 by University Grants Commission(UGC) under provisions of 12 CCC of UGC Act, 1956.
 Autonomous body governed by the Executive Committee and General
Council, Also registered as Society in Karnataka having it’s base in Bangalore Core Academic Staff and National pool of Assessors
3To make quality the defining element ofhigher education in India through a
combination of self and external

quality evaluation, promotion andsustenance initiatives.

4

NAAC’s Mission
To arrange for periodic assessment and accreditation of
institutions of higher educationor units thereof, or
specific academic programmes or projects;
To stimulate the academic environment for promotionof quality of teaching-learning and research in higher
education institutions;
To encourage self-evaluation, accountability autonomy
and innovations in higher educationTo
undertakequality-related
research
consultancy and training programmes, andstudies,

To collaborate with other stakeholders of higher education
for quality evaluation, promotion and sustenance5

12,909 accreditation exercises(594 Universities and 12,315 Colleges),
1600 HEIs accredited
during the period of 2016-17

7000 IQACs,
series of goodpractices andquality
initiatives

Mandatory regime,
policy and funding
linkages

NAAC’s process based on global goodpractices and norms

6

INQAAHE

COL

CHEA

EuropeanCommission

APQN
APQR
NAAC withinternationa
l networks

UNESCONAAC

CHEA(Globalpartners)

NAACs Accreditation is recognised
globally for admissions, placements
and collaborations“Bengaluru Statement - 2016 on
Next - Generation Quality
Assurance of Higher Education” hasfacilitated 18 Global Quality
Assurance partners

Most USA universities recognise
NAACs highest
grade 3 year HEI degrees
equal to 4 year US degree
for further studies

Prestigious “APQN Quality Award2017” for International Cooperation in Quality Assurance
7

1st Cycle

2nd Cycle

3rd Cycle

4th Cycle

Total

Universities

353

166

73

2

594

Colleges

7926

3448

920

21

12315

8279

3614

993

23

12909

Total

Source: NAAC Statistics Unit, 20198

To know its strengths,
weaknesses, andopportunities throughan informed review
process

Funding agencies look
for accreditation data for
performance funding.

Institutions to initiateinnovative and modern
methods of pedagogy

New sense of direction
and identity.

The society look forreliable information on
quality education
offered.

Employers look forreliable information on
the quality of education.

Opportunity to attract
students from within
India and abroad.
9

Revised Accreditation Framework (July 2017) developedin consultation with statutory bodies, experts andStakeholders.
 Existing fifty (50) Core and Desirable indictors, about
Two Hundred (200) Assessment Indicators and questions
in manual synthesized.
 Referencing
with
National
Institutional
Ranking
Framework (NIRF) and International Practices.
 Consulted about 200 experts through national meet,workshops and Core Working Group and Sectoral
Working Groups meetings.
 Conducted a pilot study across the country to test theframework and benchmarks (100 HEIs).
 Quality Indicator Framework (QIF) hosted on website andfeedback sought.
 Provision of 5% optional/non applicable metrics toaddress diversity issue.


10










A Paradigm shift in approach and philosophy.
From qualitative peer judgments to data based
quantitative indicator evaluation.
System Generated scores (SGS) with combination of online
evaluation (70%) and peer judgment (30%).
Automated Evaluation Model with Increased objectivity &transparency.
Significant difference in evaluation of Universities,
Autonomous Colleges and Affiliated/Constituent Colleges.
Introducing key indicators on Alumni engagement andStudent satisfaction survey.
Data validation by external professional agencies.
Appropriate penalty provisions evolved for institutions
submitting
fraudulent
data/information/supporting
documents.

11

Introduction of Qualitative Metric (QlM) and Quantitative Metric(QnM) as basis of assessment.
Quality Benchmarks
 Benchmarks for each metrics are designed taking the consideration ofacademic experts’ views and field testing.
 The benchmarks of QIF are designed on 0-4 scale and thesebenchmarks are tested using pilot study.
 A series of meetings were conducted for statistical analysis ofbenchmark values of quality indicator framework.
 Separate benchmarks are designed for university, autonomous andaffiliated colleges
Pre- qualifier for visit
 Institution has to secure at least 30% in the quantitative metrics toqualify for peer team visit (PTV) which is considered as a cut off score
Third party data validation – Data submitted by HEIs is being scrutinised, verified and validated by
the third party evaluators commonly referred as Data Verification andValidation (DVV) partners
 Fully system orchestrated process where HEI, NAAC Co-ordinator and
DVV partner exchange data and clarifications

12

100 % ICT based Process
 The entire process of Assessment methodology is ICT based
evaluation from preliminary stage of application called IIQA till
the result declaration.
 (IIQA, SSR, DVV, Pre-qualifier and PTV. The final outcome is acombination of System Generated Scores (SGS), SSS and Peer
team score from peer team visit on Qualitative evaluation of theinstitute.
Institutional Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA)
 In order to reduce the duration of the process, Initial Application
comprising Letter of Intent (LOI) and Institutional Eligibility for
Quality Assessment (IEQA) involving eligibility checks document
verification and indicator based screening formats were designed
and deployed as a single application called as Institutional
Information for Quality Assessment (IIQA) thereby reducing thecycle time for each institution.
 Automatic selection - The system will automatically allot the
HEIs to the concerned NAAC Officers (System choosing andallocation of HEIs), DVV partners for third party evaluation andassessors selection based on the type of HEI (university/ subject
specialisation/ offerings, non local etc,)13

2.TeachingLearning and
Evaluation 3.Research,Innovation
1.Curricularand Extension
Aspects

7.Institutional
Values andBest
Practices

Outline ofQIF

6.Governance,
Leadership andManagement

4.Infrastructu
re andLearning
Resources

5. Student
Support andProgression

14

The criteria based assessment forms the backbone of A&A
process of NAAC. The seven criteria represent the corefunctions and activities of a HEI. In the revised framework notonly the academic and administrative aspects of institutional
functioning but also the emerging issues have been included.
The seven Criteria to serve as basis for assessment of HEIs are:Curricular Aspects
 Teaching-Learning and Evaluation
 Research, Innovations and Extension
 Infrastructure and Learning Resources Student Support and Progression
 Governance, Leadership and Management
 Institutional Values and Best Practices


Under each Criterion a few Key Indicators are identified. These
Key Indicators (KIs) are further delineated as Metrics.

15

Autonomous

AffiliatedType of HEIs

Universities

Colleges

Colleges

Criteria

7

7

7

Key Indicators

34

34

32

38

38

41

99

98

80

137

136

121

Qualitative
Metrics (QlM)

Quantitative
Metrics (QnM)
Total Metrics(QlM + QnM)

16

QlM QnM

Total

QlM

QnM

Total

Weightages

Weightages

253

747

1000

(25.3%)(74.7%)(100%)

302

698

1000

(30.2%)(69.8%)(100%)

348

652

1000

(34.8%)(65.2%)(100%)

Metrics Weightages
University

Autonomous

Affiliated

38

38

41

99

98

80

137

136

121

17

80.00%74.70%

69.80%

70.00%

65.20%

60.00%
50.00%

34.80%
40.00%

25.30%

30.20%

30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

18

The highlights of present QIF is as follows:2.7 - Student satisfaction Survey

30

50

50

3.3 - Innovation Ecosystem

30

20

10

5.4 - Alumni Engagement

10

10

10

7.1 - Institutional Values and Social
Responsibilities

50

50

50

7.2 - Best Practices

30

30

30

7.3 - Institutional Distinctiveness

20

20

20

19

Criteria
1. Curricular
Aspects

Key Indicators

Universities

Autonomous
Colleges

Affiliated / Constituent
Colleges

1.1 *(U)Curriculum Design and Development

50

50

NA

1.1. *(A) Curricular Planning and Implementation

NA

NA

20

1.2 Academic Flexibility

50

40

30

1.3 Curriculum Enrichment

30

40

30

1.4 Feedback System

20

20

20

150

150

100

2.1 Student Enrolment and Profile

10

20

30

2.2 Catering to Student Diversity

20

30

50

2.3 Teaching-Learning Process

20

50

50

2.4 Teacher Profile and Quality

50

60

80

2.5 Evaluation Process and Reforms

40

40

50

2.6 Student Performance and Learning Outcomes

30

50

40

2.7 Student satisfaction Survey

30

50

50

200

300

350

Total
2. TeachingLearning and
Evaluation

Total

Criteria

Key Indicators

Universities

Autonomous
Colleges

Affiliated / Constituent
Colleges

20

20

NA

20

10

10

3.3 Innovation Ecosystem

30

20

10

3.4 Research Publications and Awards

100

20

20

3.5 Consultancy

20

10

NA

3.6 Extension Activities
3.7 Collaboration

40
20
250

50
20
150

60
20
120

30

30

30

20

20

20

4.3 IT Infrastructure

30

30

30

4.4 Maintenance of Campus
Infrastructure

20

20

20

100

100

100

5.1 Student Support

30

30

50

5.2 Student Progression

40

30

45

20

30

25

5.4 Alumni Engagement

10

10

10

Total

100

100

130

3. Research,
3.1 Promotion of Research and Facilities
Innovations andExtension
3.2 Resource Mobilization for Research

Total
4. Infrastructure 4.1 Physical Facilities
and Learning
4.2 Library as a Learning Resource
Resources

Total
5. Student
Support andProgression

5.3 Student Participation and Activities

Criteria

Key Indicators

Universities

Autonomous
Colleges

Affiliated / Constituent
Colleges

10

10

10

10

10

10

6.3 Faculty Empowerment Strategies

30

30

30

6.4 Financial Management and Resource
Mobilization

20

20

20

6.5 Internal Quality Assurance System

30

30

30

100

100

100

7.1 Institutional Values and Social
Responsibilities

50

50

50

7.2 Best Practices

30

30

30

7.3 Institutional Distinctiveness

20

20

20

100

100

100

6. Governance,
6.1 Institutional Vision and Leadership
Leadership andManagement
6.2 Strategy Development and Deployment

Total
7. Institutional
Values and Best
Practices

Total

22

Example: Qualitative Metric (QlM) and Quantitative Metric (QnM)

Qualitative/
Quantitative
Metrics

Benchmark Values

1.3. Curriculum Enrichment
(30)

4

3

2

1

0

≥AA

AA-BB

BB-CC

DD-CC

<DD

1.3.1
Q lM

Institution integrates cross cutting issues relevant to
Gender, Environment and Sustainability, Human
Values and Professional Ethics into the Curriculum
(10)

1.3.2
Q nM

Number of value-added courses impartingtransferable and life skills offered during the last five
years
(10)

1.3.3
Q nM

Percentage of students enrolled in the courses under
1.3.2 above
(5)

≥AA

AA--BB

BB-CC

DD-CC

<DD

1.3.4
Q nM

Percentage of students undertaking field projects /internships

≥AA

AA–BB

BB–CC

DD–CC

<DD

(5)

23

Qualitative Metrics (QlM) are benchmark statements
evaluated by peers based on description, data and site
visits (peer judgement on scale of 0 to 4).
 Quantitative Metrics (QnM) are numbers of specificactivities/output/achievement
supportedwithdocumentary evidences. This is evaluated by Data
Validation & Verification (DVV) through ICT interface,anonymously.
 Based on series of Expert Committee Meetings and Pilot
studies benchmark values for QnM are decided by NAAC
and integrated into a software.
 Software based on predetermined benchmark values
gives score on 0 to 4.
24

INPUT FROMQUANTITATIVE METRICS
USING COMPUTER
GENERATED SCOREINCLUDING STUDENTSATISFCATION SURVEY(65% to 75%)

INPUT FROM QUALITATIVEMETRICS USING PEER
JUDGEMENT(25% to 35%)GRADE
OF HEIs25

Range of Institutional
Cumulative Grade Point
Average (CGPA)
3.51-4.00
3.26-3.50
3.01-3.25
2.76-3.00
2.51-2.75
2.01-2.50
1.51-2.00<= 1.50

Letter Grade

Status

A++
A+
A
B++
B+
B
C
D

Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Not Accredited

26

1
2
3

Peer Team Report
Statistical Analysis of Quantitative Metrics (QnM)
Institutional Grade Sheet

Above three (3) parts would be combined together to form
“NAAC Accreditaiton Outcome” document. It would be mademandatory for HEIs to display it on Institutional website
apart
from
hosting
itonNAAC
website.

27









Outcome documents: RAF of NAAC has introduction many new
concepts in its process. The final outcome of Assessment andAccreditation exercise brings an outcome document which is based on
ICT score (combination of evaluation of qualitative and quantitative
metrics). This document comprise of 3 parts
Peer Team Report: This report provides general information for the
institution and its context along with criterion wise analysis based on
peer evaluation of qualitative indicators, overall analysis on
Institutional Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Challenges
and also recommendations for Quality enhancement of the Institution.
Quality Profile of the Institution: This is a graphical representation
report based on Quantitative Metrics (QnM) which is a System
Generated Quality Profile of the HEI based on statistical analysis ofquantitative indicators in the NAAC’s QIF (Quality Indicator
Framework).This graphical presentation of institutional features werereflected through synthesis of quantifiable indicators.
Institutional Grade sheet: This contains the Institutional Grade
Sheet which is based on qualitative indicators, quantitative indicatorsand student satisfaction survey using existing calculation methods
but generated through the software.

28

The Quantitative Metrics (QnM) of SSR will be sent for Data
Validation and Verification (DVV) Process. After DVV process, a DVV
Deviation report will be generated. On the basis of the Deviation
report, the A&A process will proceed further as per the following
conditions:

Institutions whose metrics have deviated by ≤ 10% will proceedfor Peer Team Visit with a condition of a Pre-qualifier, that theinstitution should score at least 30% in Quantitative Metrics(QnM) as per the final score after the DVV Process. If the HEI
does not clear the Pre-qualifier score then they may apply in anyof the subsequent Windows by submitting the IIQA afresh andwith payment of fees.

29

Student Satisfaction Survey (SSS) : Institutions

will have to submit the entire
database. (At least 50% Student population) The SSS questionnaire will be mailed to allstudents.
 Responses should be received from at least 10%of the student population or 100 in case of
Colleges. (10% or 500 whichever is less in case of
Universities)
 If the response rate is lower than the limits, themetric will not be taken up for evaluation.
30

QIF for Specialised HEIs
NAAC has embarked on mission to address
different categories of institutions by designingseparate methodology to special category of HEIs
through developing separate quantitative andqualitative metrics for variety of specialised HEIs
such as Yoga, Sanskrit, Open and Distance
Learning(ODL),
HealthSciences,
Teacher
Education, etc.
Optional Metrics
Besides this, NAAC also introduced optional metrics- the provision to opt out some of the metrics which
may not be applicable to institutes for various
reasons and essential metrics, provision to HEIs i.e.,
mandatory and necessary to attend the essential
metrics.
31

S.No

1

2

3

4
5
6
7

Current Process

Revised Process

Accreditation Process - outcome
based on Peer judgment

Data based quantitative indicatorevaluation with combination of peer
judgment
Elaborate process of self and external Significant reduction in self/external
evaluation covering 7 criteria, 36 key evaluation covering 7 criteria, 34 key
aspect, 200 indicators and about 300 indicators and about 130 metrics
questions
No pre-qualifier for Peer Team Visit: Pre-qualifier for Peer Team Visit :Visit takes place for all HEIs after
Institution needs to score at least 30% of
SSR submission
the quantitative (system generated) score.
Interaction with students - onsite
Online student satisfaction survey
Onsite data verification by academic
peers
Manual Selection of peer teamLogistics arrangement done by
Institutions themselves (Teamconstitution known quite earlier)

Data verification and validation byExternal Agency
System enabled selection of peer teams for
onsite visit
Integration of logistics through External
Agency. Total confidentiality till visit date.

32

InputProcess

Output• Students• Teaching &• Skilled and• Curricula• Faculty staff• Non-teaching staff• Facilities &Infrastructure• Teaching
resources

Learning• Staffdevelopment• Student support& evaluation• Research• Administration

employablegraduates• Research
publications &output• Contribution tocommunity

Stakeholders’ Satisfaction

33

Out of total 121 Metrics
 30 – Input based Metrics
 53 – Process based Metrics
 38 – Output based Metrics

34

 Reducing

the subjectivity due to variance in peer
team assessment.
 Inculcationof competitive spirit by providing
Quantitative benchmarks as basis of assessment.
 Improvement of data management practices in HEIs.
 Increased use of ICT in Teaching, Learning andGovernance for quality improvement.
 Integrating the stakeholders involvement and feedback in quality improvement. (Key Indicators like
Feedback System, Student Satisfaction Survey,
Alumni Engagement)35 Introduction

and acceleration of Outcome
Based Education (OBE).
 Encouraging the culture of innovation andstart-up on campuses.
 Reinforcement of value and ethics (Criteria VII
on Institutional Values and Best practices).
 Institutionalisation of quality culture (IQAC,
etc)
 Promoting gender sensitivity on the campus.
 Incentivising the inclusive practices such as
reservation
policy,differently
abled(Divyangjan) friendly campus, etc)36 Encouraging

students to participate in extension
activities such as Swatch Bharat, Aids Awareness,
Gender Issues, etc.,
 Promoting e-resources of library for easy access tostudents.
 Focus on research in Universities (metrics on
Patents, Citations, h-index, etc.,)
 Emphasis on skills and co-relation of academics
with word of work.
 Attempt to reach golden mean of advantages ofRankings and Quality assurance process.
 Introducing new concept of Third party validation of
Data by external agencies.
37 Encouraging mobility of students and teachers.
 Recognising diversity (Optional Metrics).

 Relevance of curriculum with societal needs andglobal trends.
 Faculty
empowerment (FDP, seed money,
awards, etc.,)
 Encouraging eco-friendly practices on campus.

38

Analysis of Results of Accreditation declared as on 14th June
2019.

The results of 1056 HEIs have been declared under the
Revised Accreditation Framework (RAF). The Grade wise
break up is presented in Table 1.
 150 HEIs have scored A and above 716 have scored between B and B++
 175 have scored C grade 15 have scored D grade – means not accredited39

Table 1: Grade wise break up
Number ofColleges

Total

Grade

Number of
Universities

A++

4

5

9

A+

8

36

44

A

8

89

97

B++

6

156

162

B+

12

189

201

B

13

340

353

C

8

167

175

D

0

15

15

Total

59

997

1056

40

Cycle1

Cycle 2

Cycle 3

Cycle 4

Total

Universities

36

10

11

2

59

Colleges

544

174

266

13

997

Total

580

184

277

15

1056

41

Right step in the new era of technology driven mode ofassessment.
 Possibilities of Integrating RAF work with
India-Europe
Benchmarking Project on selected European and Indian
Universities on“Enhancing Quality AssuranceManagement and Benchmarking strategies in Indian
Universities” (EQUAM-BI).
 Novel experiment of integration of Student Satisfaction
Survey (SSS) into formal A&A process can be emulated byother agencies.
 Raisingbar of Indian HEIs through competitive
benchmarks using quantitative metrics.
 Experience by NAAC in use of ICT based data driven
assessment and accreditation and combination of
Qualitative Metric (QlM) & Quantitative Metric (QnM) for
assessment: A good practices worth adoption.


42

43

*Dr. Jagannath Patil
Adviser, NAAC
Past President, Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN) and The International Network
for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE),
Founder Chairperson, Asia-Pacific Quality Register (APQR)

jp.naacindia@gmail.com*This RAF is outcome of collective efforts of Core Working Group (CWG), Sectoral Working Groups[SWGs] , NAAC Colleagues and authorities. Author was convener of CWG.
44