For the academic year of 2024/2025, the University of Oxford was ranked as the best university in the world, with an overall score of 98.5 according the Times Higher Education. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University followed behind. A high number of the leading universities in the world are located in the United States, with the ETH Zürich in Switzerland the highest ranked neither in the United Kingdom nor the U.S.

These data are gathered as part of the Summary of Annual Examination Results exercise. This exercise takes place between May and December of each year and collects information on the examination performance of post-primary pupils in Year12 and Year 14 in Northern Ireland.

Data on the top universities for Law in 2025.

Data on the top universities for Education Studies in 2025.

Abstract

Abstract Over the years, Kenya has made progress in promoting gender access, equality, and equity in education through policy and legislative reforms that target empowerment for effective participation and contribution to national development. The overall outcome of this is increased representation of women in various institutions. However, evidence indicates that women continue to face systemic barriers and challenges that inhibit fair access, equality, and equity in education. Some of these challenges emanate from shortcomings in the education system; such as the curriculum, teacher training, and ineffective pedagogical approaches that consequently exacerbate the systemic barriers and challenges faced by women and girls. There is a dearth of empirical evidence on gender mainstreaming practices being implemented in classrooms in Kenya as part of efforts to promote gender access, equality, and equity in education. Therefore to address the research gap, this exploratory study seeks to examine three issues: 1) how gender mainstreaming practices are implemented in the teacher training programs; 2) how gender mainstreaming is practiced in primary and secondary classrooms in Kenya (pedagogy, instruction, and interactions), and 3) to explore how the basic education curriculum implementation promotes gender equity. We will utilize a mixed-methods sequential exploratory design to explore the effect of observed gender mainstreaming practices in classrooms, teacher-training programs, and in the basic education curriculum as well as the relationships between the aspects. Data for the study will consist of both qualitative (focus group discussion, key informant interviews) and quantitative (institutional questionnaire, assessments, classroom observations). The data will be collected at the school level (250), as well as among education managers at both county and national education offices. The data analysis is expected to generate evidence on the impact of gender mainstreaming practices on learners' outcomes in Math, English, and Sciences as well as a deep understanding of the nature of the gender mainstreaming practices. The study will provide implications and recommendations for effective gender mainstreaming policies and practice responses.

Geographic coverage

National coverage covering 10 counties (Busia, Garissa, Mandera, Marsabit, Tana River, Turkana, Samburu, Wajir, Nairobi, and West Pokot)

Analysis unit

The unit of analysis for the institutional questionnaire was the schools The unit of analysis for the student questionnaires was the students The unit of analysis for the classroom observation rubric was the class The unit of analysis for the teacher training college tutor knowledge skills and attitude survey was the tutor The unit of analysis for the teacher trainee knowledge skills and attitude survey was the teacher trainee

Universe

10 counties in Kenya comprised of 9 counties with the highest rates of child poverty and Nairobi county because it has high concentration of informal urban settlements.

Sampling procedure

Sampling Procedures and Participants Primary data was collected from students in pre-primary, primary, and secondary schools (mixed gender day schools) (primary grade 6, and secondary form 2), in-service teachers, headteachers and principals, pre-service teachers, teacher training tutors/lecturers, county/national education curriculum support officers, and quality assurance officers, and officials at the Ministry of Education and the Teacher Service Commission. We targeted 250 schools (125 primary and 125 secondary) spread in 10 counties in Kenya with the highest rates of child poverty - above 60% (KNBS, 2018). The counties include (Busia, Garissa, Mandera, Marsabit, Tana River, Turkana, Samburu, Wajir, Nairobi, and West Pokot). We chose these counties because children, girls in particular girls in these areas, encounter some form of marginalization, due to child poverty levels. Additionally, vulnerable boys and girls have diminished chances of access to inclusive education because they belong to schools that serve poor households in a low-resource context. Hence may require targeted actions in mainstreaming gender issues in education.

Our overall sampling strategy took into consideration school performance in the most recent national examinations - the Kenya Certificate for Primary Education (KCPE) for primary schools and Kenya Certificate for Secondary Education (KCSE) for secondary schools. In particular, we grouped schools into three categories based on their performance - low, medium, and high performing. In each of the 10 counties, primary, and secondary schools were listed according to the league tables (best performing to worst performer). Thereafter, we created quintiles with schools falling in the lower two (40%) quintiles constituting low performing schools; those in the 3rd quintile forming the middle performing schools; while those in the upper two quintiles (top 40%) forming the best performing category. A similar procedure was followed to identify day secondary schools - day secondary schools admit the majority of students and are located in almost all parts of the country/county). After our sample size was identified, they were proportionately distributed in the three groupings taking the number of schools in a county into consideration.

Out of the 250 schools sampled for the study, 125 schools were sampled for classroom observations, that is, 62 primary and 63 secondary schools. At the primary school level, 21 observations in mathematics, 21 in science, and 20 in English were done. An equal distribution of 21 observations for mathematics, English, and science were done for secondary schools. We observed a total of 147 teachers. A further random selection was employed to distribute the science classroom observations at the secondary school level, translating to 7 observations each for physics, chemistry, and biology. An illustration of the classroom observation distribution is provided below. The grade to be observed in a subject was randomly selected, such that we had only one subject observed per school. In the case of secondary school where there are several science subjects, we focused on physics, biology, and chemistry. The subject observeded in a particular school was randomly selected. Once a subject was observeded in a selected school, it was not observeded in a subsequently selected school until all the other subjects in question were observed. It is worth noting that in Kenya, traditionally, girls perform better in English while boys perform better in Math). KNEC assessment data was collected from the school head teacher/principal for each of the observed grades. All head teachers and principals of selected schools responded to an institutional questionnaire. The questionnaire collected information on the school background, facilities, enrollment, schooling charges, staffing, and governance. Twenty (20) students from all selected schools and from the targeted grade (except in PP2) completed a student questionnaire that gathers information on individual student's background, homework engagement, school background, and subject choices

We conducted qualitative interviews that shed light on how the teacher-training curriculum responded to gender mainstreaming policies, gender-inclusive teaching practices inside the classroom, and strategies implemented by the Government and private sector to mainstream and promote gender issues in the curriculum. The KIIs targeted a total of 40 in-service teachers - 4 teachers in each county - categorized by type of school (public, private, day, boarding, primary, secondary, single/mixed gender; 6 pre-service tutors from 4 teacher training colleges (TTCs) and 2 Universities; 10 curriculum support officers and 10 quality assurance officers from each county; 2 officials from the Ministry of Education (Directorate for basic education and gender officer); and 1 official from the Teacher Service Commission (in-charge of teacher training). In addition, we conducted 6 FGDs with pre-service teachers from 4 TTCs. 10 FGDs were conducted with students - one in each county; five in primary schools (3 with girls and 2 with boys), and five in secondary schools (3 with boys and 2 with girls). Each FGD was held with 6 participants. The KII guides and FGD guides were pilot tested and revised accordingly to ensure the reliability and clarity of the tools. The KII and FGD guides were sent to the selected respondents before the interviews for familiarity purposes and adequate preparation for the actual interviews. The KIIs lasted a duration of up to 1 hour whereas the FGDs up to 2 hours.

Sampling deviation

N/A

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Institutional questionnaire: targeting School heads/administrators in each of the school sampled and collected data on school background information, school facilities, enrolment for the current school year, school charges, staffing, and governance.

Student questionnaires: targeting Grade 6 and Form 2 students in each of the sampled school and collected data on Student background information, social-economic status, homework, and homework support, choice of subjects, school environment, absenteeism, and extra tuition.

Classroom observation rubric: targeting PP2, grade 6 and Form 2 teachers and tutors in teacher training colleges (TTCs) and collected data on Gender and inclusion equitable practices in the classroom: language use, lesson planning, teaching, and learning materials, asking questions, group work, demonstration or practical lessons, feedback to students, classroom set up and

Abstract

The Quality Preschool for Ghana Impact Evaluation 2017, Endline survey (QP4G-EL 2017) was approved by the Strategic Impact Evaluation Fund (SIEF) of the World Bank on August 2015 in the Great Accra Region of Ghana. The official project name is called "Testing and scaling-up supply- and demand-side interventions to improve kindergarten educational quality in Ghana”, known as “Quality Preschool for Ghana (QP4G)”.

The project seeks to increase the quality of preschool education during the two years of universal Kindergarten (KG) in Ghana through intervening in the supply-side (i.e., teacher in-service training) and the demand side (i.e., increasing parental awareness for developmentally appropriate quality early education).

The primary goal of the impact evaluation is to test the efficacy of a potentially scalable (8-day) in-service teacher training to improve the quality of KG teacher practices and interactions with children and to improve children’s development, school readiness and learning in both private and public preschools in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. Additional goals of this evaluation are: to test the added value of combining a scalable (low-cost) parental awareness intervention with teacher in-service training; to compare implementation challenges in public and private schools; and to examine several important sources of potential heterogeneity of impact, primarily impacts in public vs. private schools.

The current submission is for the Endline Survey, conducted with 3 types of respondents across two phases – School survey and Caregiver [household] surveys. The school survey was conducted from February to March 2017 and consisted of collecting the following data: (a) direct assessments of children’s school readiness, (b) surveys of KG teachers, (c) direct observation of inventory of facilities within KG classrooms [environmental scan]; videotaping of KG classroom processes, teaching, and learning (not being submitted); as well as video coding of KG classroom video recordings using Teacher Instructional Practices and Processes Systems (instrument not being submitted). The caregiver survey was conducted via phone from May to July August 2017 on the primary caregivers of the KG children. The caregiver survey sought information on caregivers’ background, poverty status, involvement or participation in school and home activities, and perception about ECD.

Geographic coverage

Urban and Peri-Urban Districts, Greater Accra Region

Analysis unit

Units of analysis include individuals (KG teachers, children, caregivers), KG classrooms and preschools.

Universe

The survey universe is 6 poor districts in the Greater Accra Region. We sampled 240 schools, 108 public (Govt.) schools and 132 private schools. The population of interest is KG teachers and children in KG 1 and KG 2 classrooms in these schools, as well as the caregivers of sampled students.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

This impact evaluation applies a cluster-randomized design. Eligible schools were randomly selected to participate in the study. The eligible population was schools with KG 1 and KG 2 classrooms (the two years of universal preprimary education) in six districts in the Greater Accra Region. In these six districts, we have sampled 240 schools; 108 public schools and 132 private schools in total.

The unit of randomization for this randomized control trial (RCT) is schools, whereby eligible schools (stratified by public and private sector schools) are randomly assigned to: (1) in-service teacher-training program only; (2) in-service teacher-training program plus parental awareness program; or (3) control (current standard operating) condition.

The sampling frame for this study was based on data in the Education Management Information System (EMIS) from the Ghana Education Service. This data was verified in a 'school listing exercise' conducted in May 2015.

Sample selection was done in four stages: The first stage involved purposive selection of six districts within the region based on two criteria: (a) most disadvantaged (using UNICEF's District League Table scores, out of sixteen total districts); and (b) close proximity to Accra Metropolitan for travel for the training of the KG teachers. The six selected municipals were La Nkwantanang-Madina Municipal, Ga Central Municipal, Ledzokuku-Krowor Municipal, Adentan Municipal, Ga South Municipal and Ga East Municipal.

The second stage involved the selection of public and private schools from each of the selected districts in the Accra region. We found 678 public and private schools (schools with kindergarten) in the EMIS database. Of these 361 schools were sampled randomly (stratified by district and school type) for the school listing exercise, done in May 2015. This was made up of 118 public schools and 243 private schools. The sampling method used for the school listing exercise was based on two approaches depending on the type of school. For the public schools, the full universe of public schools (i.e., 118) were included in the school listing exercise. However, private schools were randomly sampled using probability proportional to the size of the private schools in each district. Specifically, the private schools were sampled in each district proportionate to the total number of district private schools relative to the total number of private schools. In so doing, one school from the Ga South Municipal was removed and added to Ga Central so that all districts have a number of private schools divisible by three. This approach yielded 122 private schools. Additionally, 20 private schools were randomly selected from each of the districts (i.e., based on the remaining list of private schools in each district following from the first selection) to serve as replacement lists. The replacement list was necessary given the potential refusals from the private schools. There were no replacement lists for the public schools since all public schools would automatically qualify for participation.

The third stage involved selecting the final sample for the evaluation using the sampling frame obtained through the listing exercise. A total of 240 schools were randomly selected, distributed by district and sector. Schools were randomized into treatment groups after the first round of baseline data collection was completed.

In the final stage, the survey respondents were sampled using different sampling techniques: a. KG teachers: The research team sampled two KG teachers from each school; one from KG1 and KG2. KG teachers were sampled using purposive sampling method. In schools where there were more than two KG classes, the KG teachers from the "A" stream were selected. For the treatment schools, all KG teachers were invited to participate in the teacher training program.

b. KG child-caregiver pair: The research team sampled KG children and their respective caregivers using simple random sampling method. Fifteen KG children-caregivers pair were sampled from each school. For schools with less than 15 KG children (8 from KG1, 7 from KG2 where possible), all KG children were included in the survey. KG children were selected from the same class as the selected KG teacher. The survey team used the class register to randomly select KG children who were present on the day of the school visit. Sampling was not stratified by gender or age. The caregivers of these selected child respondents were invited to participate in the survey.

The research team sought informed consent from the school head teacher, caregivers, as well as child respondents.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Data were collected at Endline Survey using structured questionnaires or forms.

Child Assessment: Child Assessment was conducted using International Development and Early Learning Assessment [IDELA] tool designed by Save the Children. IDELA was adapted based on extensive pre-testing and piloting by different members of the evaluation team. The adapted version measured five indicators of ECD. The indicators were early numeracy skills, language/literacy skills and development, physical well-being and motor development, socio-emotional development, and approaches to learning. IDELA contained 28 items. In addition, one task was added – the Pencil Tap – to assess executive function skills. IDELA was translated into three local languages, namely, Twi, Ga, and Ewe. These local language versions had gone through rigorous processes of translation and back translation. No change was made to the IDELA used.

Environmental Scan: The Environmental Scan tool was designed to take inventories of the facilities in the KG classrooms. No changes have been made to the Endline version of the KG Class Environmental Scan. The class environmental scan also included a video recording of the KG classroom processes and systems. TIPPS: The video recordings were coded using an early childhood education adapted version of TIPPS. Seidman, Raza, Kim, and McCoy (2014) of New York University developed the TIPPS instrument. TIPPS observes nineteen key concepts of teacher practices and classroom processes that influence children’s cognitive and social-emotional development. The concept sheet was used to code the kindergarten classroom videos.

Teacher Survey: The Teacher Survey measured KG teachers’ attitudes, behaviors, and perceptions on their background, nature and work conditions, depression and anxiety, external control, motivation, job satisfaction, burnout, and perceptions of early childhood education.

School Attendance Records: The School Attendance Records Form was designed to record

Context

2020 Indonesian University Ranking

Content

What are the most popular Universities in Indonesia? uniRank tries to answer this question by publishing the 2020 Indonesian University Ranking of 577 Indonesian higher-education institutions meeting the following uniRank selection criteria:

being chartered, licensed or accredited by the appropriate Indonesian higher education-related organization - offering at least four-year undergraduate degrees (bachelor degrees) or postgraduate degrees (master or doctoral degrees) - delivering courses predominantly in a traditional, face-to-face, non-distance education format

Aiming is to provide a non-academic League Table of the top Indonesian Universities based on valid, unbiased and non-influenceable web metrics provided by independent web intelligence sources rather than data submitted by the Universities themselves.

Credit to :https://www.4icu.org/id/

The data stored includes: a) life-grids and transcripts from two hour semi-structured interviews pertaining to 98 students about their lives prior to university and their experience of university education and life in their first year (27=C, 23=D, 23=P, 25=S); b) transcripts relating to 31 of these students who became case study students and who were also interviewed about their second and third year education and experiences (6=C, 9=D, 9=P, 7=S); c) a survey of students from all three years of the degree with 769 returns from across the four institutions (210=C, 158=D, 163=P, 238=S) (48.5% 1st Year, 28.9% 2nd Year, 21.7% 3rd Year, .9% 4th Year); d) interviews with 12 seminar tutors who were interviewed about their teaching which was videoed (3=C, 3=D, 3=P, 3=S).

Recent increases in the number of students attending universities appear to be accompanied by persistent inequities: poorer students go to less prestigious and well-resourced universities and, according to most league tables, receive a lower quality education. This project will question the assumption that education in higher status universities is necessarily better; and, will develop alternative definitions of 'quality' which allow that a university education is for personal growth and the public good, as well as for economic returns. The project will evaluate the comparative quality of teaching and learning in first degrees in sociology and allied subjects in four distinct universities by drawing on the work of the sociologist Basil Bernstein who argues that formal education disadvantages the already disadvantaged. By way of interviews with lecturers and students, case-studies, a survey, video-tapes of teaching, evaluation of student work and analysis of documents the research team will capture the relationship and interactions between students' lives and backgrounds; the degrees that they study; and the conditions in their universities. It is hoped that a better understanding of what should count as a good and just university education in different institutional settings will generate both debate and practical applications.

Data on the top universities for Medical and Health in 2025, including disciplines such as Medicine and Dentistry, and Other Health Subjects.

The HESA Student record is collected from subscribing Higher Education Providers (HEPs) throughout the devolved administrations of the United Kingdom. The data collected as part of the Student record is used extensively by various stakeholders and is fundamental in the formulation of: Funding, Performance Indicators, Publications (including UNISTATS), League tables.

The Student record collects individualised data about students active during the reporting period. A wide range of data items are collected, including: the student's entry profile and personal characteristics, module and course level data, funding information and qualifications awarded.

All HESA records are collected on the basis of the HESA reporting period that determines the time period that the data being returned relates to. This ensures consistency across the data streams collected. The reporting period is from 01 August year 1 to 31 July year 2, for example, the 2016/2017 Student record was collected in respect of the activity which took place between 01 August 2016 and 31 July 2017.

Further information on the HESA Student record can be found on the HESA website: https://www.hesa.ac.uk/collection/archive

Data on the top universities for Computer Science in 2025.

Data on the top universities for Engineering in 2025, including disciplines such as Chemical Engineering, Civil Engineering, and Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering.