Monitoring Behavior And Supervisory Control In Assignment Assessment Procedure At Victoria University

Setting of the control process

Discuss about the Monitoring Behavior and Supervisory Control.

Control process is a prerequisite for successful attainment of the organizational objectives by the means of operational processes and its alignment to the organizational values and standards. The institutes lay their control process according to their service offering patterns. For the successful completion of this assignment, the assignment assessment procedure of the Victoria University will be analysed in reference to the idea and elements of control process. In this following essay the author has discussed how the university is controlling the assignment assessment procedure by following the steps of control process.

As mentioned by Horovitz and Webb (2015) control process can be identified as the process of direction and management of the organizational process for attaining the organizational goals. In the organizational environment, a strategic control of the organizational procedures needed to maintain in a chronological way. Depending of the service pattern of the organizations, the process of “control” involves diversified activities. In case of the educational organizations, like universities, the process of student assessment follows those strategic steps. As mentioned by Chang (2016) the elements of the control process involves a cyclic order of fixing the standards, measurement of the performances, comparison, corrective action and follow up.

Within a university, the assessment of the students, their performances and providing feedback is an integral part of student’s learning procedure (Ramzi and Ayadi 2016). Hence, it is important for such organizations to control the assignment assessment procedure with the elements of control process. Within the Victoria University of Australia, the following strategic way of control process has generally been maintained.

As mentioned by Lipták (2013) “controlling is the process of ensuring that actual activities conform to the planned activities”. Hence, it can be speculated that the alignment of organizational objectives with the control procedure is a prerequisite for the success of the whole operation. While controlling a certain process, standardization is needed to attain the objectives of the organization. As mentioned by Horovitz and Webb (2015) standardization is needed to be followed for establishing the guidelines with which will be the performance measured and supervised, the extent of deviation that will be tolerated and the corrective actions to be taken for eliminating any failure for attaining the performance.

Within the Victoria University, the organization sets in standards both for the students and the assessors. As mentioned by Ramzi and Ayadi (2016) attainment of fair procedure of assessment is a necessary standard in the assignment assessment procedure in an educational institute. Victoria University sets a standard of maintaining fair assessment for the assessors and strives to make it valid by aligning the learning modules to the assignments (Vu.edu.au 2017). On the other hand, for the students, the university sets the standard of marking and other procedures like, submission and plagiarism. Moreover, the university also have punishment measures for both the students and the assessors for breaching the set standards (Vu.edu.au 2017). Thus, the university maintains the first element of control process in the assignment assessment procedure for attaining the objective of fair and effective learning.

Measuring the actual performance

As mentioned by Horovitz and Webb (2015) the second element or step of control process involves the measurement of the actual process to align it to the set standards. In this particular element, the organization organizes supervision for the control and management of the task. As discussed by Chang (2016) after the completion of the task, the supervisors measure it for assessing the performance and attainment of the level of the set objectives and standards.

In Victoria University, the students are supervised by their concerned assessors for the successful attainment of the marking and learning standards (Vu.edu.au 2017). As discussed by Kuh et al. (2014) the supervision within the operational process augments the chance of standard attainment by the performers. Hence, the university supervisors maintain a monitoring procedure within the whole process of assignment writing and submission (Vu.edu.au 2017). Finally, the assignment is evaluated by the assessor to find the level of standard and objective attainment.

As discussed by Lipták (2013) in the third level of control process, a comparison is needed to be held. Here, the organization identifies if there is any deviation from the set standards, their necessity and validity and sets some permissible limits to deviate from those standards. In the management procedure, the minor deviation from the set rules is generally accepted. However, the measure deviations call for change in the standard or realignment of the performed task.

Here, in the context of Victoria University, the assessors compare the set standards regarding the content, word count, plagiarism, submission and others with the performance of the student. In the standardization, the university sets the desired word count, forma or the date of submission. In this comparison stage, the assessor identifies whether the student has maintained all the provided guidelines for the completion of the assignment or not (Vu.edu.au 2017). Minor deviations from the set norms are generally accepted by the faculty. However, any severe deviation from the set norm leads the assessors to find out the potential causes behind it. In the Victoria University, the faculty discusses the causes of deviations to the students to guide them in the attainment of the set standards. Moreover, a non-fulfilment of the standards may lead the assessor to guide the student to experience a corrective action (Vu.edu.au 2017).

As discussed by Grobelna et al. (2014) in the process of control management, the supervisors need to take corrective actions when the performance level is less than the standards. As mentioned by Bellman (2015) the corrective action action may include review of strategies and goals, modification of the ways of performing a task, change in the existing directions and also in organization structure. However, in the educational system, the procedure of performance management of the students involves a different set of corrective actions. As mentioned by Kuh et al. (2014) in the educational organizations, the attainment of the set standards ensures fair judgement, the ability of the students to make unique and original analysis and an in-depth knowledge.  

Comparison

In the context of the Victoria University, a negative deviation, i.e. the non-fulfilment of the standards is marked negatively and the student faces regulatory actions like fail of the assignment or resubmission (Vu.edu.au 2017). As discussed by Ramzi and Ayadi (2016) in the educational institutes, opt for such corrective actions, as they possess the main objective of providing an effective education. Moreover, the major purpose of corrective action is operating the process in such a manner so that it becomes able to attain the previously set standards or make useful inputs to this procedure. Hence, the corrective action of the Victoria University includes a resubmission procedure.

As mentioned by Sheridan (2013) the final step of the control process involves the measure of “follow up”. Perkins (2014) has identified that after conducting the corrective measures, the management or the supers need to conduct a follow-up. A “Follow-up” is conducted with the aim of finding out whether the remedial actions are attained properly. In addition to this, the follow up action investigates whether the causes of deviation from the set standards has been eliminated or not. In successful attainment of the follow up actions, the performance can be made equal or superior to the recognized standards (Baldea and Harjunkoski 2014).

In the context of the Victoria University, the faculty members make regular follow up of the students who have failed to attain the set standards for their assignments (Vu.edu.au 2017). The students can opt for the supervision of their concerned mentors in the process of resubmission of a certain assignment. In this course, the date and format of the assignment may be altered for attaining the objective of effective education.

As discussed by Olsson (2013) the elements of the control process follow a cyclic order and provide inputs to each others for improving the whole process. In the context of the Victoria University, the standardization helps in assessment which leads to comparison. The process of comparison improves the process of standardization and correction. Then the follow up helps in attaining the standardized policies.

Conclusion:

Hence, in conclusion it can be said that the Victoria University is following the factors of control process in successfully manage and attaint the educational objectives of the organization in its procedure of assignment assessment. From opting for the assessment standardization to the feedback process, the university is following the chronological steps of control process for providing fair and effecting learning outcome. In the organizational setup, the cyclic order of control process helps an organization in managing the operational procedures with ease and better potentiality of achieving the set goals. In the educational setup, providing fair and in-depth knowledge is a fundamental objective of the whole organizational process. Hence, the management of the assignment assessment is a vital procedure within a university. By opting for the systematic procedure of control process Victoria University is managing this task with great precession.

References:

Baldea, M. and Harjunkoski, I., 2014. Integrated production scheduling and process control: A systematic review. Computers & Chemical Engineering, 71, pp.377-390.

Bellman, R.E., 2015. Adaptive control processes: a guided tour. Princeton university press.

Chang, J.F., 2016. Business process management systems: strategy and implementation. CRC Press.

Grobelna, I., Wi?niewska, M., Wi?niewski, R., Grobelny, M. and Mróz, P., 2014, June. Decomposition, validation and documentation of control process specification in form of a Petri net. In 2014 7th International Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI) (pp. 232-237). IEEE.

Horovitz, J.H. and Webb, P., 2015. Top management control in Europe. Springer.

Kuh, G.D., Jankowski, N., Ikenberry, S.O. and Kinzie, J., 2014. Knowing what students know and can do: The current state of student learning outcomes assessment in US colleges and universities. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment (NILOA).

Lipták, B.G. ed., 2013. Process Control: Instrument Engineers’ Handbook. Butterworth-Heinemann.

Olsson, G., 2013. Process control. Tuning Biological Nutrient Removal Plants, pp.171-196.

Perkins, J.D. ed., 2014. Interactions between process design and process control. Elsevier.

Ramzi, S. and Ayadi, M., 2016. Assessment of Universities Efficiency Using Data Envelopment Analysis: Weights Restrictions and Super-Efficiency Measure. Journal of Applied Management and Investments, 5(1), pp.40-58.

Sheridan, T.B. ed., 2013. Monitoring behavior and supervisory control (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.

Vu.edu.au. (2017). Home | Victoria University | Melbourne Australia. [online] Available at: https://www.vu.edu.au/ [Accessed 7 Jan. 2017].