Institutional evaluation in Québec : an interpretation of organizational response to policy approaches in the context of Marianopolis College
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In the past two to three decades there has been tremendously increased interest from various sectors of society in the performance, effectiveness and social responsibility of higher education. As a result, an audit culture has evolved within which quality assurance has become an integral part of the politics of governance which assumes external regulation of academic activity to be the natural state of affairs. In Quebec, the Commission d'Evaluation de L'enseignement Collegial (CEEC) serves government instrumentally by institutionalizing accountability mechanisms, evaluation, and other quality assurance practices as technologies that transmit, as well as shape, particular values within the college-level sector. The underlying rationale for this study is to develop a deeper understanding of the institutional evaluation process. In order to attain this study's research objectives, a multidimensional theoretical framework is employed to analyze and interpret the ways by which the college of interest relates and responds to the institutional environment within which it is embedded. This framework draws upon neo-institutionalism theory in sociology and the emerging body of discourse literature within organizational studies. In answering the research question, a constructivist, qualitative interpretive case study of the college's self-evaluative experience is developed to clarify three specific aspects of the dynamics of quality assurance and the institutional evaluation process: how national policy regimes and organizations within their fields envision and approach quality assurance; which particular organizational strategies and procedures are adopted to achieve specific quality objectives in response to the organization's mission, vision and the institutional environment; and, how organizational interests are served in the process of implementing and complying with regulatory quality assurance procedures. Three substantive findings emerge from this study. Firstly, quality assurance policy in Quebec focuses on strengthening and sustaining the quality and integrity of academic programs and institutional management, and on encouraging and enabling colleges to develop a culture of evaluation. Quebec's quality assurance agency has placed improvement, the enhancement of relevance, effectiveness, quality and accountability in the forefront. Secondly, the College's evaluative discourse claims alignment with institutional and social expectations and the attainment of organizational mission and goals, the primary goal being the successful preparation of students for university studies. In fact, the overarching thesis which emerges from the data is that Marianopolis is characterized by superior institutional and student success. The competencies and capabilities of the College may be attributed to its commitment to academic excellence, as well as to specific strategic decisions and organizational processes that manipulate and convert resources and assets into new value-creating services. Thirdly, the College uses discourse to solidify its identity, and to be self-defined and identified in relation to specific standards and practices in conformity to institutional norms, policy, and social expectations, and to claim legitimacy in light of such alignment. The propositions that link the patterns, unifying themes and concepts within the data embody a coherent explanation of the organization's response to the management of the educational process in the context of accountability. These propositions have the potential to serve as a basis for transferability from the case of interest to the wider population of colleges. They also suggest avenues for future process-based research on the management and functioning of the colleges, and should inform models for holistic quality development in this regard.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,025 | 0,025 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».