II. Exclusion of M.Phil/Ph.D Experience from Experience
The new regulation also has excluded the research experience (M.Phil and Ph.D) from the calculation of minimum years of experience for appointment to the positions of associate professors and professors. All of us in the higher education sector are aware of the fact that for completing an M.Phil course, a minimum of two years spent while for completing a Ph.D at least five years are spent. Further, there is Junior and Senior Research Fellowships are provided to the scholars by UGC, CSIR, ICSSR, ICAR, etc as well as the universities concerned. The scholars are involved in teaching apart from active research.
The questions here are
• Why the research experience as full time research scholar (M.Phi/Ph.D) could not be considered as experience for direct recruitment and promotion (CAS)?
• What is the rationale for this exclusion of this research experience?
• When UGC gives 5 advance increments to fulltime Ph.D scholars (if they have got awarded) when they join a higher educational institution, why can’t the five years experience be considered for the position of associate professor and professor under direct requirement as well as CAS?
III. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of PBAS with APIs
I would like to seek from your esteemed office certain important information on the PBAS with Academic Performance Indicators (APIs).
The new regulation has stipulated mandatory application of PBAS with three categories:
Category I: Teaching, Learning and Evaluation Related Activities
Category II: Co-Curricular, Extension and Professional Development Related Activities.
Category-III: Research and Academic Contributions
These categories each have a number of APIs, each having a differential score. And in each category there is a minimum score required for appointment of associate professor as well as professor posts. In this connection we require information in the form of answers to the following questions.
• What is the source for the conceptualisation of academic performance in higher education which is measured by the operational framework of PBAS with APIs? Is there any scientific behavioural theory or empirical literature base for that (in a journal article with high impact factor or a high quality book published by international publishers)? Kindly give the details of the literature. If possible supply copies of the same.
• Kindly give the academic profile of the members of the committee which has conceptualised and operationalised the PBA system with three categories of APIs? Specific information is requested on the academic background, subject, specialisation, teaching and research experience, publications of them (especially on their work on higher education, academic performance assessment ).
• Whether the draft PBAs with APIs was reviewed and appraised by established scholars in the field of testing and assessment of teachers under higher education system? If so kindly give information on the academic background, subject, specialisation, teaching and research experience, publications of them (especially on their work on higher education, and teacher performance assessment in higher education).
• On the part of UGC, was there any attempt made to test the empirical validity and reliability of this PBA system taking into consideration the rich socio economic and cultural diversity as well variations in the resource endowment of universities in the country? If any study was commissioned, kindly give the reports and data bases of such (Excel sheets/SPSS files).
• Under the PBAS, the three categories of APIs are weighted unequally and in each category of APIs, the teachers have to secure minimum total scores for recruitment or promotion. What are the sources for such assignment of differential scores and weights? Is there any empirical base for this differential weightage?
IV. Exclusion of Quality Indicators of Teaching and Research from PBAS
In the UGCs new regulation under the PBAS, the indicators of quality of teaching proposed in the draft regulation (Prof. Thiyagarajan Committee) such as student evaluation of teacher, expert evaluation of research work have been excluded(please see APPENDIX – III TABLE – II (B). Kindly, give information on the reasons for exclusion of these important indicators.
As a citizen of India, I request that as per the right to information act of Government of India, I may be provided with all above requested information in soft form so that the time, cost, energy will be minimum.
Yours sincerely,
(KANAGARAJ EASWARAN)
Place: Aizawl
Date: 11-08-2010
No comments:
Post a Comment