The perceived impact of external evaluation: the system, organisation and individual levels—Estonian case

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of how the employees of higher education institutions perceive the impact of external evaluations. The study was conducted using the concurrent mixed method and involved 361 employees from Estonian universities and professional higher education institutions. The results indicated that evaluation is mostly deemed necessary at the levels of the organisation and the system; from the personal viewpoint of an employee, positive effects of external evaluations are perceived to a lesser degree. The negative influences mentioned were increased bureaucracy, extra work and stress. Top managers of institutions most often saw the positive influences from external evaluations since they help to implement reorganisations and development activities within an organisation. Managers perceived the positive effects of external evaluations on their everyday work as well, more than other employees did. Researchers felt the positive effects of external evaluations least. Nearly a quarter of all employees of higher education institutions do not perceive the effects of external evaluations on their everyday work at all. Employees of professional higher education institutions perceive the positive effects of external evaluations to a greater extent than employees of universities do, indicating that external evaluation has contributed to the development of their organisations. The differences in opinions of the employees of higher education institutions regarding perceived positive and negative impacts of external evaluations-whether on individual, organisation or system points of view-indicate that employees do not identify closely enough with the organisation and its strategic goals.

Quality of University Management and Its Impact on the Local Community

“…Among the most important issues is the discussion on the ways to compare world's universities (Salmi, 2009), to compile a list of quality indicators (Udam, Heidmets, 2013) and to implement them in various forms of training (Ahamer, 2013). The attention to managerial aspect is most pronounced in the research devoted to the construction of comparable management and research quality assessments (Adler, Harzing, 2009;Vilgats, Heidmets, 2011;Biju, Nair, 2017;Seema, Udam, Mattisen, Lauri, 2017).…”

Modelling Teachers Accountability in the Higher Educational Institutions Using Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory Approach

“…A systematic approach needs to be followed wherein all stakeholders are considered to be part of a living system where accountability-driven roles and responsibilities nurture and facilitate effective knowledge creation and dissemination (Alexander, 2000). Enhanced teachers' accountability through various performance measure indicators helps in creating enhanced learning outcomes in terms of higher enrolment rate and graduation rate and large number of research papers and patents (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002), thereby resulting in overall effectiveness (Milken, 2000;Seema et al, 2017). Teachers' contribution to the HEIs gets enhanced when it is supported by input-level accountability indicators such as meeting timely monetary requirements, gaining access to training opportunities and growth, setting well-defined goals and objectives, being a part of communities and developing a sense of professionalism, following fair recruitment procedures and having adequate availability of material and resources (Broucker & Wit, 2013;Church, 1995;Cornwall, 1999;Jayasuriya, 2015).…”

“…Faculty evaluation also results in publishing good quality research papers and in obtaining large number of patents and grants (Milken, 2000). Thus, the measures result in an overall improvement in teacher effectiveness (Banta, 2005;Dobbins et al, 2011;Huisman & Currie, 2004;Kniola, 2013;Seema et al, 2017). Improved faculty effectiveness leads to a superior delivery of quality education, meeting student's needs and providing an exceptional educational experience (Hillman et al, 2014;Pavicic et al, 2009;Trow, 1996).…”

The effect of accreditation on higher education performance through quality culture mediation: the perceptions of administrative and quality managers

“…Scales for all variables were based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 representing "strongly disagree", 3 representing "neutral" and 5 representing "strongly agree". Accreditation was measured using five items previously developed in the higher education context (Seema et al, 2017). Quality culture was measured using four items as found in previous literature (Wu, 2015).…”