From comparison to operationalization: a proposal for interpreting qualitative indicators in the accreditation of Ecuadorian technical and technological higher education institutes
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The accreditation of Ecuadorian Higher Technical and Technological Institutes (ISTT) faces a recurring challenge: interpreting qualitative indicators with sufficient clarity, consistency, and technical grounding, while avoiding ambiguous or overly subjective judgments. In response to this issue, this study proposes an operational framework for the interpretation of such indicators based on a comparative analysis of the 2024 External Evaluation Model of CACES and ANECA’s AUDIT program. A qualitative, documentary, and comparative study was conducted to identify convergences, divergences, and assessment criteria that may help translate both frameworks into more consistent interpretative guidelines. The findings show that both models converge around principles such as continuous improvement, traceability, and evidence-based assessment, although they differ in their unit of analysis and in the logic used to organize and assess information. Based on these findings, an operational typology of evidence and an interpretation sequence
are proposed to reduce discretion and strengthen the coherence of evaluative judgment. The study concludes that this proposal provides a relevant technical basis for supporting accreditation processes in Ecuadorian ISTT, although further validation in real institutional contexts is still required.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Todos los artículos publicados en la Revista de Investigación, Formación y Desarrollo: Generando Productividad Institucional (RIF) se distribuyen bajo la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), que permite compartir y adaptar el contenido, siempre que se otorgue el debido reconocimiento a la autoría, no se utilice con fines comerciales y se mantenga la misma licencia.
Los autores conservan sus derechos de autor y otorgan a la revista el derecho de primera publicación. Esto permite a terceros compartir y adaptar el contenido con fines no comerciales, siempre que se atribuya correctamente la obra original y se mantenga la misma licencia.
Para más información sobre la licencia, consulte: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
How to Cite
References
Agencia Nacional de Evaluación de la Calidad y Acreditación. (2024). Guía del Modelo AUDIT. Sistemas de Aseguramiento Interno de Calidad (Doc. 02, V02.01). https://www.aneca.es/documents/20123/68562/Doc.%2B02%2BV02.1%2BGu%C3%ADa%2Bdel%2BModelo%2BAUDIT.%2BJulio%2B2024.pdf
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Consejo de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior. (2019). Reglamento de evaluación externa con fines de acreditación para institutos y conservatorios superiores. https://www.caces.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/Documents/2022/DOCUMENTOS%20WEB%20INSTITUTOS/RESOLUCI%C3%93N-No-127-SO-18-CACES-2019-Reglamento-de-evaluaci%C3%B3n-de-ICS.pdf
Consejo de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior. (2021). Modelo de evaluación externa 2024 con fines de acreditación para los institutos superiores técnicos y tecnológicos. https://www.caces.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/Documents/2022/DOCUMENTOS%20WEB%20INSTITUTOS/Modelo%202024%20aprobado%20por%20el%20pleno%20%281%29.pdf
Consejo de Aseguramiento de la Calidad de la Educación Superior. (2023). Guía del modelo de evaluación externa 2024 con fines de acreditación para los institutos superiores técnicos y tecnológicos: Indicadores cualitativos. https://www.caces.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/1.-Presentacion-Modelo-2024_Guia.pdf
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (1993). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
Liu, S., Tan, M., & Meng, Z. (2015). Impact of quality assurance on higher education institutions: A literature review. Higher Education Evaluation and Development, 9(2), 17–34.
Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical foundation, basic procedures and software solution. https://qualitative-content-analysis.org/wp-content/uploads/Mayring2014QualitativeContentAnalysis.pdf
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Schindler, L., Puls-Elvidge, S., Welzant, H., & Crawford, L. (2015). Definitions of quality in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Higher Learning Research Communications, 5(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.18870/hlrc.v5i3.244
Schreier, M. (2014). Qualitative content analysis. En U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 170–183). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n12