A conceptual framework for evaluating higher education institutions

Abstract

Purpose – Performance evaluation is a topic that has been researched and practiced extensively in business organizations but has received scant attention in higher education institutions. A review of literature revealed that context, input, process, product (CIPP) model is an appropriate performance evaluation model for higher education institutions. However, little guidance exists for choosing appropriate metrics and benchmarks in implementing the CIPP model. The purpose of this paper is to develop a framework using CIPP model for performance evaluation of higher education institutions. Design/methodology/approach – To achieve the purpose of the study, a review of literature was conducted to identify an appropriate evaluation model. Then metrics and benchmarks framework were formed based on practical approaches used in a large university in the USA. Findings – Nine perspectives in performance evaluation using the CIPP model and their application in higher education institutions were developed and discussed. The discussion provides examples, relative prevalence including frequency of usage, advantages and limitations of each of the nine perspectives of performance evaluation in higher education institutions. An actual application of the suggested CIPP model in the USA largest university, by student enrollment, was provided. Implications for institutional assessment and continuous improvement for higher education institutions were made. Originality/value – The study provides a practical framework, model and guidelines that can be used by higher education institutions to evaluate and enhance their performances and better prepare students to effectively work in society.

Implementation of the CIPP evaluation model in Indonesian nursing schools

“…The program evaluation monitors the project implementation process to help the staff carry out activities and for users to be able to judge the program's performance (Stufflebeam, 2003). The "process" evaluation is important in order to provide feedback to allow the program to be implemented correctly, to improve the program and to verity accountability in the work plan (Chinta, Kebritchi, & Ellias, 2016;Kahn et al, 2014;O'Sullivan, 2013;Pfitzinger M, 2016). In addition, another researcher explained that the "process" evaluation concerns the link between theory and practice and the implementation of the curriculum (Stavropoulou & Stroubouki, 2014).…”

Dealing with heterogeneity: An analysis of Spanish universities

“…In terms of publications, a similar behaviour is observed as in some knowledge fields it is easier for academics to develop their research activities and publish in scientific journals (engineering and medical sciences) than in other fields (arts and humanities) (McKelvey and Holmén, 2009). On the contrary, the recent work of Chinta et al (2016) point out that the fact of offering different studies and diversifying the fields in which the university develops its activity, enriches, complements and can improve universities' results. Thus, based on these latter arguments we hypothesise that:…”

“…This is relevant in the case of universities as this type of business heavily relies on individual's knowledge and capacities (Huggins et al, 2012). The first dimension we consider refers to academic staff (Chinta et al, 2016). This dimension does not only capture the commitment of staff in the missions of the universities but also their capabilities and merits (e.g.…”

Development of Vocational Education as Demands Revitalization of Vocational High School in Dual Skills Program

“…The goal of CIPP is to improve issues within the organization [30]. CIPP is recommended as an appropriate evaluation model for assessing higher education institutions [25].…”