Assessment of implementation of smart university management system: The case of Kazakh Ablai Khan University of International Relations and World Languages

  • 471 Views
  • 222 Downloads

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

The effective functioning of a smart university management system significantly improves higher education institutions’ competitiveness. This study aims to assess the implementation of a smart university management system on the example of Kazakh Ablai khan International Relations and World Languages University. The paper considers elements of a smart university system (smart learning technology infrastructure, smart faculty staff, and smart students) from the university managers’ and students’ viewpoints using the stepwise algorithm to raise the university’s competitiveness. During the study, 2700 students were surveyed to assess the implementation and operation of smart systems at the university, and ten experts (the expert team consists of deans and head of departments) were interviewed to identify the weights of each element. The survey results showed that the technology infrastructure for smart learning at the university is at a lower level (50%) than the competence of the teaching staff (60%) and students (89%). Furthermore, based on standardized factor scores and the weighted average, the implementation level of a smart university management system is low – C (0.498), where the weighted assessment of smart learning technology infrastructure is 0.2, smart teaching faculty – 0.19, and smart students – 0.108. According to the results, the university management needs to develop the smart learning technology infrastructure (free Wi-Fi, smart education environment, and smart classrooms) and improve the qualifications of its teaching staff (knowledge and skills, content of the courses, and educational process).

view full abstract hide full abstract
    • Table 1. Demographic data
    • Table 2. Distribution of university rankings according to the effectiveness of the implementation and operation of the SUM system
    • Table 3. Effectiveness of smart learning technology infrastructure (SLTI)
    • Table 4. Effectiveness of smart faculty staff (SFS)
    • Table 5. Effectiveness of smart student (SS)
    • Table 6. Comparison of elements
    • Table 7. Assessment of the level of SLTI, SFS, and SS through weighted means
    • Conceptualization
      Aliya Seitbatkalova
    • Data curation
      Aliya Seitbatkalova, Saken Mukan, Elmira Yeralina
    • Formal Analysis
      Aliya Seitbatkalova, Bulent Tarman, Elmira Yeralina
    • Investigation
      Aliya Seitbatkalova, Saltanat Tamenova, Bulent Tarman, Saken Mukan, Elmira Yeralina
    • Methodology
      Aliya Seitbatkalova, Saltanat Tamenova
    • Project administration
      Aliya Seitbatkalova, Saltanat Tamenova
    • Software
      Aliya Seitbatkalova
    • Writing – original draft
      Aliya Seitbatkalova
    • Supervision
      Saltanat Tamenova
    • Validation
      Saltanat Tamenova
    • Visualization
      Saltanat Tamenova
    • Writing – review & editing
      Saltanat Tamenova, Bulent Tarman, Saken Mukan, Elmira Yeralina
    • Resources
      Bulent Tarman, Saken Mukan, Elmira Yeralina