Transcript A Study of College Rankings in Taiwan

IREG-4 Conference
International Rankings Expert Group
New Personalized Ranking of
the Taiwanese Universities
Angela Yung-Chi Hou, Ph. D
Research Fellow & Director of International Exchange
Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan
Associate Professor, Tamkang University, Taiwan
Associate Professor, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan
June 15, 2009
Astana, Kazakhstan
1
Development of College
Rankings in Taiwan
 Before
the 90s, most college rankings or league
tables in Taiwan published by mass media didn’t
draw the public attention due to validity and
creditability in methodology.
 Driven by global market of higher education,
universities and government agencies started to
develop rankings as a tool to encourage
institutions to strive for excellence.

Tamkang University and Higher Education
Evaluation & Accreditation Council of Taiwan
2
Popularity of College Ranking
in Taiwan
 Higher
education expansion
 Resources allocation
 Accountability
 Benchmarking
 Marketization in higher education
3
Three Major College Rankings in
Taiwan after the late 90s
 Tamkang


National College Ranking in 2002
HEEACT Global Ranking in 2007
HEEACT Personalized Ranking in 2008
4
Tamkang National College Ranking (1) “Academic Ranking of Universities in Taiwan
 There


are two purposes of the ranking
to understand the overall academic performance of
Taiwan higher education institutions
used as a self-improvement for Tamkang University.
 classified
all 140 ranked institutions into two
types, doctoral-master type and baccalaureate
type based on the framework of Carnegie
classification of higher education institutions
5
Tamkang National College Ranking (2) “Academic Ranking of Universities in
Taiwan

completely adopted U.S News & World Report model to
develop 16 indicators and 8 criteria
 Some criteria from Shanghai Jiao Tong ranking
(research output) and THES-QS ranking
(internationalization)
 The indicators were then weighted at a certain ratio and
the scores were aggregated to rank each college.
 The top one university received highest points while the
scores for the remaining schools descended accordingly.
6
Response Rate of Academic
Survey (2008)
Type
issued
returned
response
Rate（%）
Doctoral-master
453
234
51.66
Baccalaureate
271
136
50.18
Average
724
370
51.10
7
Table : Top 10 Universities
in 2008 Tamkang Ranking
Institutions
2008
2007
2003
National Tsing Hwa University
1
1
1
National Cheng Kung University
2
2
4
National Taiwan University
3
3
3
National Yangming University
4
4
/
National Jiao Tong University
5
5
2
National Central University
6
6
6
National Sun Yat-sen University
7
7
15
National University of Science and
Technology
8
8
5
National Chung Hsing University
9
12
11
National Chung Cheng University
10
10
10
8
HEEACT Global Ranking





“Performance
Ranking of Scientific Papers for World
Universities” Aim at understanding research performances of
Taiwan universities and funding allocation
developed by Higher Education Evaluation & Accreditation
Council of Taiwan in 2007
employs data drawn from SCI and SSCI to evaluate universities’
research performance.
In 2008, an additional edition published based on institutional size
in order to minimize its impact on the final outcome
in 2008, a new global ranking by field and published top 300
institutions in each field
 (agriculture & environment sciences, clinical medicine,
engineering& computing, technology, life sciences, natural
sciences, and social sciences)
9
Table 5: Criteria and Weighting
in HEEACT Global Ranking
Criteria
Indictors
Weight
Productivit Number of articles in the last 11 years (1997-2007)
y
Number of articles in the current years(2007)
10
Number of citations in the last 11 years (1997-2007)
10
Number of citations in the last 2 years (2006-2007)
10
Average Number of citations in the last 11 years
(1997-2007)
10
H-index of the last 2 years (2006-2007)
20
Number of highly cited papers(1997-2007)
15
Number of articles in high-impact journals in the
current year (2007)
15
Impact
excellence
20
10
30
50
10
Ranking outcomes
 institutions
in US and UK still play
predominant positions in the international
higher education landscape.
 only 2 universities in the Asian-Pacific region
are ranked within the world’s top 30
universities, and both of them are from Japan.
 5 Taiwan universities on top 500

http://ranking.heeact.edu.tw/enus/2008/page/methodology
11
Table 7: Ranks of Taiwan’s Universities in
HEEACT Performance Ranking for World
Universities (2007-2008)
Taiwan Institutions
2007
2008
National Taiwan University
185
141
2008 Rank
by number
of faculty
114
National Cheng Kung
University
National Tsing Hua
University
360
328
204
429
366
260
National Chiao Tung
University
National Yang Ming
University
471
463
327
/
475
385
12
Theme
 Outline
strategies and pathways for
establishing personalized college ranking in
Taiwan based on Berlin Principles
13
What ‘s Personalized College
Ranking ?
14
Features of personalized college
ranking

targets students as the major users clearly
compared to the league tables currently.
 It emphasizes the respect for user’s needs in
selection of indicators and weightings by their
own through the web-based platform.
 the goal of the information system function is
to lead to a match between the student and the
institution or the program that they’re most
interested
15
Four cases
 The
Center for Higher Education Development
 the Maclean’
 Studychoice123.nl partnership
 the Times
16
Background of Developmental Framework of
Taiwan personalized college ranking

Rapid Expansion in Taiwan Higher Education




Number of universities and colleges Increased by 120% in
the past 10 years with more than 160 institutions
Student enrollment With a total number of 1.3 millions
increased 65%
University Entrance Exam admission rate
More than 97% in 2008
Internationalization in Taiwan Higher Education

the total number of international students, including
degree-level, exchange, and language study students,
reached 17,742
17
The Role of the Higher Education Evaluation and
Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT) in developing
personalized college ranking system in Taiwan
 Founded
in 2005
 Two major jobs


Program evaluation
Ranking projects
 Role

planning to establish a very consumer-oriented
ranking service system to provide more transparent
university information for prospective students
locally and internationally
18
A Preliminary Framework of Taiwan
personalized college ranking
 2-year
project
 Four well-established personalized
rankings
 12 Teammates
 3 professors , 1IT engineer, 1 consultant ,
7 RAs
 Berlin Principles
19
A Preliminary Framework of Taiwan
personalized college ranking

Target group of the ranking

all school leavers seeking for a suitable
university with the fields they are interested in.
 Selection

of Institutions
68 4-year colleges and universities evaluated by
HEEACT from 2006 to 2010.
20
Focus group sessions
 ranking group
conducted 10 focus group
sessions to hear their opinions to be able to see
how the system will be developed and
improved in the initial phase of the ranking.
 including 5 public schools and 5 private ones;
A total of 168 students participated in
21
22
importance
Indicators
Number
Mean
Standard Deviation
Equipment expenses per full-time-equivalent
student
162
3.65
0.58
Expenditure per student
164
3.61
0.64
Proportion of student abroad
121
3.55
0.64
Number of volumes and volume equivalents per
full-time-equivalent student
165
3.49
0.67
library expenditure per full-time-equivalent
student
166
3.46
0.65
Graduation Rate
165
3.44
0.73
Total amount of National Science Foundation
grants per faculty
163
3.43
0.72
Total number of English taught courses
164
3.42
0.71
Academic survey
163
3.40
0.66
Faculty-student ratio
165
3.38
23
0.70
Table 7 Top 10 indicators that senior high school student feel
understandable
Understanding
Indicators
Number
Mean
Standard Deviation
Proportion of student abroad
120
3.30
0.72
Graduation Rate
166
3.29
0.70
Pass rate of English proficiency test
165
3.27
0.72
Faculty-student ratio
167
3.22
0.75
Equipment expenses per full-time-equivalent
student
165
3.20
0.75
Total number of English taught courses
165
3.19
0.75
Number of volumes and volume equivalents per
full-time-equivalent student
165
3.18
0.73
Proportion of international faculty
166
3.16
0.77
Proportion of full-time faculty with Ph.Ds
166
3.16
0.82
Proportion of international students
165
3.15
Source: author
24
0.78
Table 8: Model of Criteria
Tier
Content
Number
Criteria
academic survey, student quality , faculty resources ,
library acquisitions, research grant, research output,
teaching quality , learning output, international outlook
etc.
11
Indicator
enrollment rate, proportion of graduate students, number 24
of student awards graduation rate, proportion of faculty
members above assistant professors, proportion of
professors with a highest degree, proportion of full-time
faculty, faculty-student ratio, total expenditure per student,
number of articles published in SCI/ SSCI per faculty,
National Science Foundation grants per faculty,
proportion of international students, proportion of
international faculty, library expenditure per student, etc.
Preference
location, size, type, program/ discipline, etc.
4
Basic
information
history, enrollment, number of programs, and website,
room and board, student service, accreditation status,
governmental grants, scholarship, tuition, student clubs,
20
25
Data Sources
 Academic

survey
Response rate is up to 74.88% (422/ 316)
 Universities

Basic information from the websites of the
institutions
 Independent third

parties
Ministry of Education, 2008 Tamkang ranking
report, National Science Foundation, ISI
26
Presentation of results

updated annually on the HEEACT website
users can interactively make their own league
table by selecting and weighing indictors
according to their preference.





Top Group (green upward arrow, the indicator is in
the top 30% of all institutions ),
Middle Group (yellow sideward arrow, the indicator
is between 31% and 69% of all institutions )
Final Group (pink downward arrow, the indicator is
in the bottom 30% of all institutions).
Unranked Group (data are not collected from the
databases)
27
Applicability of the Berlin Principles to the
Taiwan Personalized College Ranking

User and goal


clear about purposes and target groups
Criteria and weighting


Transparency and relevance
Data collection


with proper procedures for scientific data collection.
Result presentation



web-based ranking system
will be empowered to rank the institutions according to
their preference
be updated annually through the use of IT system.
28
Methodology : 4 steps

There are 4 tiers in the model of criteria including 11 criteria,
24 indicators, 4 preferences and 20 items
 given a certain extent of autonomy over selection of
indicators and weightings.
 users will be able to rank


the institutions they are interested in by region, type, size and
program.
Select any institutions directly

More detailed information on universities such as founding
year, mission, and total enrollment, number of programs,
and website, accreditation status, government funding,
application, room and board, tuition will be listed for user’s
references on the ranking outcomes.
 http://140.136.202.38:83/index2.asp
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
National Taiwan University
No. 1, Sec. 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei, 10617 Taiwan(R.O.C)
Year founded: 1945
Campus setting: 1,354,304 square meters
Total enrollment: 32,716
Number of undergraduates: 17,615
Number of graduates: 15,101
Website: http://www.ntu.edu.tw/english/
Directions: Detail
Programs/ Degrees Offered
Undergraduate degree: 59
Master degree: 100
Ph.D. degree: 88
Master Programs for working students: 26
Financial Aid / Accreditation Outcomes
5 Year -5 Billion Research Project in 2008: 30 million dollars
2007 Scholarship: 556,479,315 dollars
2007 Endowment: 127,055,434 dollars (Detail)
2007 equipment bugets: 963,242,992 dollars
Other Information
Application: Detail
Tuition and Fees:
Outstanding Alumni: Detail
Num. of Student Studying Abroad: 169
Num. of English Taught Courses: 785
Campus Housing: Yes/ $NT 3500~9300 (Detail)
Num. of Student Clubs: 566 (Detail)
Close window
36
37
Table 8 Mean scores for users’ attitude toward the use of
the ranking system
Questionnaires
Mean
score
Q1. Definitions of indicators are clearly stated.
3.73
Q2. Selection of indicator number is reasonable. (between 5-10)
3.63
Q3. Presentation of ranking outcome is clear and understandable.
3.66
Q4. Presentation of basic information for each institution is clear and
understandable
3.69
Q5. Information provided is useful for me to select a school to study
3.76
Q6. It is convenient for me to operate this ranking tool.
4.06
Q7. Speed of this system is moderate and does not take me too much time. 4.23
Q8. Functions in the system are highly stable.
3.91
Q9. Web pages are presented clearly.
4.16
Q10. Contrast of color is nice and comfortable
3.81
Q11. Information on the web-pages is easily read.
3.93 38
Conclusions
 social
demand for data transparency
 respond the trend of internationalization in higher
education and respect the personal need of each
user according to the Berlin Principles
 to ensure that they can provide accurate and
relevant assessments, and measure the right
things for target groups
39
Thank You for Listening
Higher Education Evaluation &
Accreditation Council of Taiwan
http://www.heeact.org.tw/
40