Self Assessment in Higher Education: An Empirical Evidence from the Department of Business Administration of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology, Bangladesh.

The paper aimed to explore the self assessment practices in higher education in Bangladesh with special reference to Department of Business Administration of Shahjalal University of Science and Technology. For self assessment purpose the researchers have collected opinion from students, alumni, employer and faculty members on eight areas. In collecting data the study used a semi-structured questionnaire on four point scale . To test the internal consistency the researchers have used Cronbach's (alpha) test of coefficient. The study found that the department is in very weak position almost in all aspects from all assessors. The study suggested to the concerned authority of the department to allocate sufficient fund and logistic facilities for the development of higher education of the department. 
 
 Key words: Self assessment, higher education, development of higher education.


INTRODUCTION
Education is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, values, beliefs and habits of a group of people transformed from one generation to next generation through storytelling, discussion, teaching, training and research (Dewey and John, 1916John, , 1944)).Higher education also called tertiary education started after completion of higher secondary education and it is provided by colleges and universities.It includes teaching, researches and, social activities at both the undergraduate and graduate levels.The goal of higher education is to help students develop into reflective practitioners who are able to reflect critically upon their own professional practices (Schon, 1987;Falchikov and Boud, 1989;Kwan and Leung, 1995).Assessment in education is a systematic process of gathering, reviewing and using important quantitative and qualitative data and information from multiple and diverse sources about educational program for the purpose of improving teaching learning quality and capacity and evaluating whether academic and learning standard are being maintained through the program.It is a continuous effort like a watch dog.Self assessment (SA) is an appraisal conducted by the institution or faculty or department to review whether the offered program(s) achieved the established objectives and meet the quality as demand by the market or users(employers) of the product (graduates).Its aim is to improve quality of the program and the quality and skills of the graduates ultimately.It is a continuous process for development which has no end.Boud (1995) identified two essential components of assessment viz.identification of standards and criteria for judging the quality of the work and the judgment on the extent to which the standards and criteria have been reached.
According to Andrade and Du (2007), "Self assessment is a process of formative assessment during which students reflect on and evaluate the quality of their work and their learning, judge the degree which they reflect explicitly stated goals or criteria, identify strengths and weaknesses in their work, and revise accordingly."The importance of SA to learning is recognized by many professions (Ahern, 2003).It has been highlighted as an essential component for the professional preparation of teachers (Bailey, 1981).Alternatives in assessment have received attention and different forms have been developed in higher education (Birenbaum and Dochy, 1996).The skill of self-, peer-and co-assessment is very important in the development of lifelong learning and the development of autonomous individuals (Sambell and McDowell, 1997).The present paper is an empirical evidence of self SA of the department of business administration in Shahjalal University of Science and Technology (SUST), Bangladesh.SUST is a public university and the first by its nature in Bangladesh; it is located in Sylhet, a divisional city of the country occupying 130 hectors area; it has 9000 students in 25 departments under 7 schools of studies.Since the establishment in 1998-99 the Department of Business Administration has been offering four-year duration BBA and one-year duration MBA program in different areas of Business Education viz.(i)Accounting and Information Systems; (ii) Finance and Banking; (iii) Marketing; (iv) management; (v) Management Information Systems; and (vi) Human Resource Management.The department has produced around 600 graduates in 11 batches.Now it is offering three-semester long MBA with research, M. Phil and PhD also.There are 10 M. Phil and two PhD fellow in the department.For SA purpose a sub -project was submitted and finally awarded after scrutiny by University Grants Commission (UGC) of Bangladesh under Higher Education Quality Enhancement Project (HEQEP) entitled "Self Assessment for Department of Business Administration" firstly in the department and also in the university.The objectives of the sub-project were to-(i) design and review existing curricula and their contents; (ii) assess the existing teaching learning and assessment methods in the department for ensuring quality; (iii) assess Islam and Chowdhury 115 the quality of students and measuring their skills, progress and achievement in terms of employment needs; (iv) collect the feedback from the students regarding curriculum , teaching -learning and assessment methods; (v) assess the capabilities of imparting post graduate studies through SWOT analysis; (vi) exercise peer observation method for improving the teaching -learning methods;(vii)exercise academic guidance and counseling system for career development of students; (viii) prepare the department for achieving the international accreditation.The project helped in SA of the department and finally the authority has noticed to confiscate the weakness of the department for improving student learning capacity.Further through the sub project the researchers have learned how to make SA in higher education.It helped to improve the quality of teaching learning environment and finally the quality of the graduates will be enhanced.

METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
For assessment purpose researchers have collected data from the students, faculty members, alumni and employer through separate semi structured questionnaire for each group.The questionnaires were prepared covering all relevant aspects of self assessment developed through different workshops and seminars on SA organized by UGC with faculties of universities of Bangladesh.The number of respondents was 207 in total consisting 147 students, 12 faculty members 29 alumni and 18 employers.Data has been collected through face to face interview by the researchers during three months period of time.Before collecting data four seminars were organized on different aspects of SA with all students, teachers and alumni.As SA is a new concept in Bangladesh we made understand the employers about SA through face to face conversation during data collection.The questionnaires were on four point likert scale where 1 assigned for strongly disagree, 2 for disagree, 3 for agree and 4 for strongly agree.Likert's scale was used in SA (Harrington, 1995).For assessment of reliability of questionnaires we used Cronbach's (alpha) test of coefficient of internal consistency.We know that if value is 0.90 or above then the reliability of assessment is excellent, if value is 0.80 to 0.89 then the reliability of assessment is good, and if value is 0.70 to 0.79 then reliability of assessment is acceptable.

Area of self assessment
From the experience in different works and seminars in national and international areas, the researchers have identified the following areas of SA: (i) governance of university and department; (ii) curriculum design and The head should conduct all academic and administrative functions with the assistant of faculty members.The assessments on governance of students and faculty members is given in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 clarifies that the scale point of governance is 2.67(66.75)on average.It shows that the average satisfactory level of the students on governance ranges between disagree and agree.The Cronbach's (alpha) test is not acceptable (0.40).The assessment by teachers on governance is given in Table 2.
Table 2 clarifies that the average scale point is 2.53(63%).Therefore the satisfactory level of organization and management is between agreeing and disagree.The Cronbach's (alpha) test is excellent (0.91).Therefore, the assessment on governance of both the students and faculty members lies between agreeing and disagree while the assessment is good or excellent.

Curriculum design and content and review:
The curriculum design and content and review have been assessed by students, faculty members' alumni and employers.The collected data are depicted in Tables 3  and 4.
Table 3 shows that the average scale point of curriculum design and content analysis is 2.61(65%).The highest satisfaction of the students is on courses of the program.The range of satisfaction has been varied between 1.81 and 3.31.Therefore, students' satisfactory level lies between disagreeing and agree.Data from faculty members on curriculum design and content and review is given in Table 4.
Table 4 clarified that the average scale point on  curriculum design, content and review is 2.61 (65%).Therefore the satisfactory level of work skill and teamwork is between agree and disagree.The Cranach's (alpha) test is excellent (0.91).We have collected data from 29 members of alumni.The average assessment result is given in Table 5.
Table 5 portrayed that the assessment of alumni on curriculum and teaching learning is 2.14 (54%).The assessment on role of curricula in developing knowledge is 2.12 (53%).The role of curricula in developing communication skill has been assessed and is 2.64 (66%) and in while the assessments on role of curricula in developing inter personal skill and teamwork is 2.89 (72%).The assessment on role of curricula in developing leadership is 2.61 (65%).The overall assessment on curriculum is 2.48 (62%).It is observed that all the test are excellent or good in terms of Cronbach's test.Therefore, the curriculum and teaching learning of the department is in poor position.We have collected data from the 18 employers of our graduates for overall assessment.The collected data is given in Table 6.Table 6 clarified that the satisfaction scale of the employer ranged between 1.94 and 3.56 and on average 3.07.Therefore the employer's evaluation lies in agree to our graduates.Therefore the quality of our curriculum and teaching learning is good from employer perspective.Therefore we can say that the assessment of the employers is excellent.

Assessment of teaching and learning and learning evaluation:
There are two parts in teaching-learning and learning assessment.One is teaching-learning and  another is learning assessment.These two is discussed below: Teaching-Learning: Teaching learning was assessed by students, faculties and alumni.Their assessments are given roughly in Tables 7-10.Table 7 clarified that the satisfaction of students on teaching learning varied between 2.09 and 2.91 and on average 2.61(65%).Therefore the satisfactory level of the students on teaching learning is between disagree and agree not strongly agree or strongly disagree.The assessment by faculty is given in Table 8.
Table 8 clarified that the average assessment of f on teaching is faculty members' 2.45 (61%) which lies between agree and disagree.
Therefore, assessment result on teaching-learning is 2.61 by students and 2.45 by faculties 2.14 (Table 8) by alumni and by employer 3.07(table-2.4)on over all curricula and teaching learning.Thus the assessment on teaching learning by different stakeholders ranged between 2.45 and 3.07 which are lies between disagree and agree.

Assessment of learning evaluation:
It means the assessment on policy and procedure of student performance in the department as well as in the university.This system also assessed by students and teachers.The assessment of student is given in Table 9.Table 9 revealed that the average assessment point on learning evaluation is 2.59 (64%).Student's satisfaction ranges between disagree and agree.The assessment result of faculty members is given in Table 10.
Table 10 shows that the average scale point is 2.34 (58%).Therefore the satisfactory level of learning assessment is between agreeing and disagrees.Therefore the assessment of students and faculty members on learning evaluation are 2.59 and 2.34 respectively and both lies between agreeing and disagrees while assessment is good and excellent statistically.

Assessment of institutional structure and facilities:
There are three class rooms and one computer lab with 10 computers in the department.The area of the class rooms are-(i) 182 square meter, (ii) 102 square meter,(iii) 102 square meter respectively and the total area is 386 square meter.The area of the computer lab is 52 square meter.There is no seminar library and no common room for men and female students.WiFi of internet is available.
Institutional structure and facilities are analyzed from students as well faculty members through Tables 11-16.
Table 11 showed that the scale point of students satisfaction varies between 1.46 and 2.78 and on average 2.08 (50%) Therefore the institutional structure and facilities is poor and it is near about disagree.There are 18 faculties in the department and out of them one professor and 5 associate and 12 assistant professors.Again out of 18 teachers 13 are in the station and 5 on study leave.The past experience shows that on average there were 7-10 teachers remains at the station since the establishment of the department.There is two non academic staff one is office assistant and another is office peon.Student's assessment on number academic and non academic staffs is given in Table 12.Table 12 depicted that the average scale point on quality of staff is 2.26 (45%).It implies that the satisfactory levels of the students on quality of staff are between disagreeing and strongly disagree.It means the assessment is poor in quality.Teachers' evaluation on institutional structure and facilities is given in Table 13.
Table 13 portrays that the average scale point is 1.73(43%).It implies that the satisfactory level of institutional structure is between strongly disagreeing and disagree.The assessment on institutional facilities is given in Table 14.Therefore the assessment of students, alumni, faculty on institutional structure and facilities ranges between 1.73 to 2.25 lying between disagree and agree.

Assessment of students' support, counseling and development:
There is a central student adviser and      guidance in r the university as a whole.In the department there is no student adviser and guidance.This area has been evaluated by students as well as faculties.The assessment result is of student is given through Tables

17-19.
Table 17 clarifies that average student's assessment is 2.56(64%) on student support and it falls between disagree and agree of consent while the assessment is acceptable.Average student's assessment is 2.43(60%) on students counseling and it falls between disagree and agree while the assessment is good.
Table 18 described that the average scale point development of skills is 2.69(67%).It told that the  satisfactory level of the students on development of skills is between disagree and agree and the assessment is good.Teacher's assessment on student support, counseling and development Table 19 Table 20 clarified that the average scale point of student support, counseling and development is 2.18(54%).It indicates that the satisfactory level of student support, counseling and development is close to disagree while the Cronbach's (alpha) test is excellent.Therefore we can conclude that the facilities for students, counseling and development in the department are poor.

Assessment on research and extension:
This area includes research facilities and extension facilities in the department both in terms of fund and faculty.There is no research fund for the students in the university as well as in the department.The department has only five Ph.D holder teachers having no fund for research.The assessment of students and faculties is given in Tables 21-22 in this area.
Table 21 clarified that average point of students' assessment is 1.99(50%) on research and extension.It shows that students are disagreeing and strongly disagree on this aspect while the assessment is good.
Table 22 clarified that the average faculty's assessment is 1.92(54%) on research and extension.It means that faculties are disagreeing and strongly disagree on this aspect while the assessment is excellent.
Assessment of process control: Process control means the process of education.There is an average of 1 year session jam, that means at least one year is required excess while 4 year is standard time period for completion of degree.A student has to wait 1-2 year more to  complete his graduation.Both the students and faculties have given their assessment on this area as given in Tables 23 and 24.Table 23 clarified that the average student's assess-ment on process control is 2.36(59%).It lies between disagree and agree or poor or good while the assessment is acceptable.Table 24 clarified that the average faculty's assessment on process control is 2.46(62%).It lies between disagree and agree or poor or good while the assessment is excellent.Therefore, the process control of the university and the department is not satisfactory to the students as well as faculties.
Peer observation: Peer observation in teaching is a collegial process where one teacher observe another in the process of his professional duties and then he provides supportive and constructive feedback that enables the observed to reflect upon and improve how he or she performs these duties.In another word it is a third party observation of teaching to observe the relationship between the teacher and the participants.It helps increasing teachers' confidence, greater collegiality, encourages debate and dissemination of best practice and improves teacher interactions with students (Marshall et al., 2008) There is no provision of peer observation in the department of business administration and SUST also and even in the country.As a result the assessment There are identifiable pockets of excellence within the department, largely led by individuals.Department is required to focus on team building.Interpersonal relationship among the teachers is very important to develop team spirit which is important to ensure quality of teaching and learning.The achievement of the recommendations provided above can only be possible with emphasis on a team sharing the same vision and mission viz.quality of teaching and learning and consequently quality graduate.Department must build on its existing goodwill among its stakeholders particularly industry to further strengthen the quality of program and graduates.

Conclusion
The foregoing discussion and analysis demonstrated that self assessment in tertiary education is essential for ensuring quality graduate.The department of business administration of SUST has some weaknesses with some strength.The concerned authority should take necessary steps to improve the weakness areas for producing quality graduate in business administration.

Table 1 .
Student's assessment on governance.

Table 2 .
Assessment result on governance by faculty members.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 3 .
Student's assessment on curriculum design and content review.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 4 .
Assessment of teachers on curriculum design and content review.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 5 .
Assessment of alumni on curriculum and teaching learning.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 6 .
Assessment of employer on curriculum and teaching learning.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 7 .
Teaching learning assessment by students.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 8 .
Assessment of faculty members on teaching -learning.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 9 .
Assessment of learning evaluation by students.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 10 .
Assessment of learning evaluation by faculty members.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 11 .
Assessment of students on institutional structure and facilities.
Source: Produced from collected data

Table 12 .
Student's assessment on number academic and non academic staff.
Source: produced from collected data.

Table 13 .
Assessment of faculties on institutional structure.
Source: produced from collected data.

Table 14 .
Assessment of faculties on institutional facilities.

Table 14 .
Assessment of faculties on institutional facilities.
Source: produced from collected data.

Table 15 .
Assessment of faculty on recruitment, promotion and development.
Source: produced from collected data.

Table 16 .
Assessment of faculty members on institutional support.

Table 17 .
Assessment by students on student's support.
Source: produced from collected data.

Table 18 .
Assessment by student on student's counseling.

Table 19 .
Student's evaluation on development of skills.

Table 20 .
Students' support, counseling and development.

Table 21 .
Student's assessment on research and extension.
Source: Produced from collected data

Table 22 .
Faculty's assessment on research and extension.
Source: Produced from collected data.

Table 25 .
Summary of SA from students and teachers of the department.The use of lesson plan should be consistent throughout the department.Standardization in format and coverage is required.A student handbook containing academic calendar, course content, learning outcomes, breakdown of assessments and reading list should be provided to support teaching and learning.The student admission procedure should be reviewed to make programs specific.The department should establish a quality assurance cell to support and coordinate all quality assurance activities and key performance indicators should be developed and implement to measure achievement of annual targets.(iii)The university must review and improve on existing facilities such as: (a) furnished classrooms to meet current demands; (b) multimedia to support delivery; (c) common/washroom for female students; (d) computer labs; (e) seminar rooms and staff rooms.(iv)An environment should be developed for culture of quality and development through motivation the academic faculties and students.A teacher-mentor should be appointed to support student activities in the department.Faculty must be available for student guidance and academic counseling outside lectures.A review of the central system for processing and release of examination results according to the academic calendar is urgently needed to avoid 'session jams'.(v) Allocation of courses to lecturers should be on the basis of their experience and capacity.Teaching staff workload should be reviewed to improve performance.More academic staff with suitable qualification and experience should be appointed.The provision of 'Temporary Appointment against Leave Vacancy' should be implemented to take over the duties of the teaching staff who are on study leave.To this end a review of the current recruitment policy and process may be required.Recruitment process should be reviewed to incorporate 'demonstration' as part of the qualifying criteria for appointment.New staff training and support (orientation) must be introduced, clearly documented and implemented.Pedagogical training for staff should be mandatory to support better classroom management and to enhance teaching capacity.(vi) Department should consider the employment of graduate students as teaching assistants to support teaching and learning particularly in the first and second years of the undergraduate program.(vii) There is a need to track and minimize class cancellations by faculties.Where class cancellations are inevitable due to emergencies, classes must be rescheduled.Teacher evaluation by the student must be implemented throughout the department and the university.Peer observation culture should be introduced for teaching development.Scheduled academic and career guidance activities with the support of alumni and industry must be incorporated.(vii) Research and development to be encouraged through allocating sufficient fund.