King Saud University, College of Science Workshop: Programme accreditation and quality assurance Riyadh, June 13-14, 2009 III.1 The accreditation report: Comments and additional documents

Content 1.Structure of the accreditation report 2.Content of the accreditation report 3.The follow-up process

The accreditation report ASIIN Accreditation Report Bachelor Chemistry Bachelor Biochemistry offered by University... Last update: March 26, 2010 Universities receive a first version of the accreditation report about three to four weeks after the review visit, and the final version of the accreditation report after the accreditation decision as been taken.

First Accreditation Report: Function The first version of the accreditation report...  describes the degree programme(s) under review, the conditions under which they are delivered and data concerning their quality,  documents the assessment of the review team concerning the correspondence of the degree programme(s) to accreditation criteria,  documents the status quo after the review visit, but  will be the basis for the accreditation decision. The first version of the accreditation report...  describes the degree programme(s) under review, the conditions under which they are delivered and data concerning their quality,  documents the assessment of the review team concerning the correspondence of the degree programme(s) to accreditation criteria,  documents the status quo after the review visit, but  will be the basis for the accreditation decision.

Accreditation report: Structure

The accreditation report: Organisation of the text description evaluation / assessment

The accreditation report: Organisation of the text  The peers’ assessment in the “grey areas” will focus on room for improvement, but should also address positive points.  Use of different phrases will indicate the urgency of improvements, ranging from “find it advisable” / ”suggest” / ”propose” via “recommend” to “must” / “find it necessary”  The peers’ assessment in the “grey areas” will focus on room for improvement, but should also address positive points.  Use of different phrases will indicate the urgency of improvements, ranging from “find it advisable” / ”suggest” / ”propose” via “recommend” to “must” / “find it necessary”

Content 1.Structure of the accreditation report 2.Content of the accreditation report 3.The follow-up process

Section B-1: Formal Data

Typical issues  Award of credit points not conform to ECTS standards  Degree/title of qualification does not correspond to academic field and/or legal requirements (-> transparency)  Profile of Master‘s programme (more application oriented or more research oriented)  Type of Master‘s programme (consecutive, non- consecutive, further education)  Target enrollment does not seem to correspond with capacity and/or demand Typical issues  Award of credit points not conform to ECTS standards  Degree/title of qualification does not correspond to academic field and/or legal requirements (-> transparency)  Profile of Master‘s programme (more application oriented or more research oriented)  Type of Master‘s programme (consecutive, non- consecutive, further education)  Target enrollment does not seem to correspond with capacity and/or demand

Section B-2: Objectives and demand  Programme educational objectives  Programme learning outcomes  Module learning outcomes  Demand for programmes and graduates  Programme educational objectives  Programme learning outcomes  Module learning outcomes  Demand for programmes and graduates

Section B-2: Objectives and demand Typical issues  Lack of correspondence between programme educational objectives, programme learning outcomes, and module learning outcomes  Learning outcomes are in fact no learning outcomes  Demand for programmes and graduates does not seem to rely on concrete data / survey of labour market Typical issues  Lack of correspondence between programme educational objectives, programme learning outcomes, and module learning outcomes  Learning outcomes are in fact no learning outcomes  Demand for programmes and graduates does not seem to rely on concrete data / survey of labour market

Section B-3: Educational process  Entry requirements  Curriculum  Practical elements/application  Didactic concept  Modularisation and credit points  Exams  Regulations and formalities  Entry requirements  Curriculum  Practical elements/application  Didactic concept  Modularisation and credit points  Exams  Regulations and formalities

Section B-3: Educational process Typical issues (1)  Criteria and process for selection/admission are not or too vaguely defined  Curriculum does not seem to support the programme learning outcomes, e.g.:  important knowledge/skill areas are not covered on the required level,  no systematic practical application of theoretical knowledge  teacher-centered forms of teaching and learning do not support social skills (communication, team work…) Typical issues (1)  Criteria and process for selection/admission are not or too vaguely defined  Curriculum does not seem to support the programme learning outcomes, e.g.:  important knowledge/skill areas are not covered on the required level,  no systematic practical application of theoretical knowledge  teacher-centered forms of teaching and learning do not support social skills (communication, team work…)

Section B-3: Educational process Typical issues (2)  Credit points are not awarded based on student workload  Credit points are awarded simply for attendance  The amount of allocated credit points does not match with expected workload, based on content and learning outcomes  Student workload per term is too high  Too many contact hours leave not enough room for individual study Typical issues (2)  Credit points are not awarded based on student workload  Credit points are awarded simply for attendance  The amount of allocated credit points does not match with expected workload, based on content and learning outcomes  Student workload per term is too high  Too many contact hours leave not enough room for individual study

Section B-3: Educational process Typical issues (3)  Modules are not correctly defined and consist either of individual lectures (too small) or cover whole parts of a discipline (too large)  Modularisation does not support student mobility  Module titles do not indicate learning outcomes („Algebra I-II“, „Organic Chemistry I-III“, …)  No variety in forms of assessments – insufficient correspondence to learning outcomes  Technical problems concerning regulations & formalities Typical issues (3)  Modules are not correctly defined and consist either of individual lectures (too small) or cover whole parts of a discipline (too large)  Modularisation does not support student mobility  Module titles do not indicate learning outcomes („Algebra I-II“, „Organic Chemistry I-III“, …)  No variety in forms of assessments – insufficient correspondence to learning outcomes  Technical problems concerning regulations & formalities

Section B-4: Resources  Cooperation / network  Staff resources and training  Committees  Financial resources and infrastructure  Cooperation / network  Staff resources and training  Committees  Financial resources and infrastructure

Section B-4: Resources Typical issues  Insufficient integration of international perspective does not prepare graduates for career in science or industry  Number and qualification of teaching stuff  No provision for training of didactic competences of teaching staff  Insufficient/unclear financial resources and infrastructure for delivery of programme learning outcomes Typical issues  Insufficient integration of international perspective does not prepare graduates for career in science or industry  Number and qualification of teaching stuff  No provision for training of didactic competences of teaching staff  Insufficient/unclear financial resources and infrastructure for delivery of programme learning outcomes

Section B-5: Attainment of objectives  Data on student success  Assessment of exams and theses  Discussion with students (and graduates)  Data on student success  Assessment of exams and theses  Discussion with students (and graduates)

Section B-5: Attainment of objectives Typical issues  Data indicate high drop-out or failure rate  Data indicate that students do not manage to graduate within the regular programme duration  Data indicate that students often fail certain modules/courses or drop out  In each of these cases: Has the problem been identified, have measures been taken?  Exam questions, student project work and final theses not conform with the contents and level of intended learning outcomes Typical issues  Data indicate high drop-out or failure rate  Data indicate that students do not manage to graduate within the regular programme duration  Data indicate that students often fail certain modules/courses or drop out  In each of these cases: Has the problem been identified, have measures been taken?  Exam questions, student project work and final theses not conform with the contents and level of intended learning outcomes

Section B-6: Quality assurance  Evaluation on the course/module level  Evaluation on the programme level  Evaluation of graduate success  Feedback loops / continuous improvement  Evaluation on the course/module level  Evaluation on the programme level  Evaluation of graduate success  Feedback loops / continuous improvement

Section B-6: Quality assurance Typical issues  No systematic evaluation (i.e. student feedback) on the course/module or programme level  No processes to follow up on graduates‘ further careers  No incentives for improvement  No or insufficient processes for identifying and following up on problems  Measures to support development of „quality culture“? Typical issues  No systematic evaluation (i.e. student feedback) on the course/module or programme level  No processes to follow up on graduates‘ further careers  No incentives for improvement  No or insufficient processes for identifying and following up on problems  Measures to support development of „quality culture“?

Section C: Additional Information The review team may request  written information, based on oral statements made during the discussions, or  documents which were not included in the documentation. Each are to be submitted together with the university‘s comments. The review team may request  written information, based on oral statements made during the discussions, or  documents which were not included in the documentation. Each are to be submitted together with the university‘s comments.

Content 1.Structure of the accreditation report 2.Content of the accreditation report 3.The follow-up process

Timeline  Audit / review visit  Time for comments and delivery of additional documents: four (to six) weeks  Accreditation report delivered three (to four) weeks after the review visit

Comments Check for and correct factual errors („white sections“ of the report). Check for and correct errors of judgement („grey sections“). Indicate if an assessment may have been based on insufficient information and provide additional information (but: avoid information overload). Indicate where aspects important to your institution might have been addressed more precisely to facilitate continuous quality improvement. Check for and correct factual errors („white sections“ of the report). Check for and correct errors of judgement („grey sections“). Indicate if an assessment may have been based on insufficient information and provide additional information (but: avoid information overload). Indicate where aspects important to your institution might have been addressed more precisely to facilitate continuous quality improvement.

Comments  The university‘s comments are documented in the accreditation report (usually in full, in exceptional cases as excerpt).  Comments will be taken into account by Technical Committees and the Accreditation Commission  The review team should address all aspects raised in the university’s comments.  The peers’ recommendation is formulated only after submission of the university’s comments and takes additional information into account.  The university‘s comments are documented in the accreditation report (usually in full, in exceptional cases as excerpt).  Comments will be taken into account by Technical Committees and the Accreditation Commission  The review team should address all aspects raised in the university’s comments.  The peers’ recommendation is formulated only after submission of the university’s comments and takes additional information into account.