Criterion 1 – Program Mission, Objectives and Outcomes Weight = 0.05 Factors Score 1 Does the program have documented measurable objectives that support.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Setting internal Quality Assurance systems
Advertisements

Special Meeting on ICT Education in Tertiary Institutions Towards a Regional Perspective on Quality and Academic Standards in ICT Education and Training.
Gateway Engineering Education Coalition Engineering Accreditation and ABET EC2000 Part II OSU Outcomes Assessment for ABET EC200.
Engineering Programs Evaluation: KFUPM Experience
College Strategic Plan by
Computer Science Accreditation/Assessment Issues Bolek Mikolajczak UMass Dartmouth, CIS Department Chair IT Forum, Framingham, MA January 10, 2006.
University of Peshawar 13 th QEC Meeting August 18-19,2009, Karachi.
Industry Advisory Board Department of Computer Science.
Graduate Program Review Prof. Emad Ali. Major Review Steps Self-study Report External evaluation Apply actions for improvement.
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
Assessing Students Ability to Communicate Effectively— Findings from the College of Technology & Computer Science College of Technology and Computer Science.
ACCREDITATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS,THEIR PROGRAMMES AND COURSES 1.
QUALITY ASSURANCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.
The Accreditation: The Policies on Distance Learning.
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELL University of the Punjab,
Enhancing the Quality of Education through Self Assessment Procedures
QEC initiates SA through the dean one semester prior to the assessment Department forms the PT that will be responsible for preparing SAR QEC reviews.
Education Sector Strategic Plan DOSE VISION STATEMENT: By 2015 universal access to relevant and high quality education has been achieved.
SAR as Formative Assessment By Rev. Bro. Dr. Bancha Saenghiran February 9, 2008.
Federal Emphasis on Accountability in Higher Education and Regional Accreditation Processes Carla D. Sanderson Commissioner, Southern Association of Colleges.
Prof. György BAZSA, former president Hungarian Accreditation Committee (HAC) CUBRIK Workshop IV Beograd, 13 March, 2012 European Standards and Guidelines.
SELF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1.Program Mission Objectives and Outcomes 2.Curriculum Design and Organization 3.Laboratories and Computing Facilities 4.Student.
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELL University of the Punjab Current Location: Institute of Quality & Technology Management.
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST BENEFICENT.
Highlights from Dr. Robin Dasher-Alston To Periodic Review Report Committee November 24, 2003.
SELF ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE PROF. DR. AAMIR IJAZ DIRECTOR QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELL University of the Punjab, Quaid-e-Azam Campus, Lahore
JAZAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF NURSING & ALLIED HEALTH SCIENCES
Institutional Effectiveness &. Institutional Effectiveness & Strategic Planning IE & SP Committees have developed a new system that integrates these two.
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST BENEFICENT.
ISECON 2001 Gorgone & Feinstein1 STATUS OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS ACCREDITATION ISECON, October 2001 John T.Gorgone, Bentley College David L. Feinstein, University.
SELF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA 1.Program Mission Objectives and Outcomes 2.Curriculum Design and Organization 3.Laboratories and Computing Facilities 4.Student.
Venue: M038 Date: Monday Sep 26,2011 Time: 10:00 AM JIC ABET WORKSHOP No.7 How to write the Self-Study Report ? Presented by: JIC ABET COMMITTEE.
WHO Global Standards. 5 Key Areas for Global Standards Program graduates Program graduates Program development and revision Program development and revision.
Some examples of quality standards and their use for self assessment and planning CINDA Workshop for TEIs Ramallah, May 2007.
Management in relation to learning processes Proposal Sources: ANECA, CHEA, DETC.
Standard Five - Library and Information Resources Committee Members Chris Brown, College of Education, Co-Chair Scott Smith, University Libraries, Co-Chair.
Members of the NSAC Placement Testing Specialist Transfer Credit Evaluation Team AP credits Dual credits Academic Advisors First year of study at Benedictine.
Dr. Amina M R El-Nemer Lecturer Maternity and Obstetric Nursing Dep. IQAP Manager Program Specification.
ABET is Coming! What I need to know about ABET, but was afraid to ask.
Learning Goals at St. John Fisher College Peter J. Gray, Ph.D. Director of Academic Assessment United States Naval Academy May 2004.
Accreditation Update and Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Deborah Moeckel, SUNY Assistant Provost SCoA Drive in Workshops Fall 2015
Gateway Engineering Education Coalition Background on ABET Overview of ABET EC 2000 Structure Engineering Accreditation and ABET EC2000 – Part I.
About District Accreditation Mrs. Sanchez & Mrs. Bethell Rickards Middle School
ABET ACCRIDITATION STATUS AND TASKS AHEAD By Dr. Abdul Azeem.
SZABIST INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH DEPARTMENT QUALITY ENHANCEMENT CELL.
Graduate Program Completer Evaluation Feedback 2008.
AL Maaref University The Road Ahead FBA Student Induction Day Hussin Jose Hejase, PhD March 4, 2016.
QA in HEIs: ZIMCHE’s Perspectives Workshop on trends in HE for BUSE Administrators 8-9 April 2016 Evelyn Garwe, Deputy CEO.
Note: In 2009, this survey replaced the NCA/Baldrige Quality Standards Assessment that was administered from Also, 2010 was the first time.
Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, & Students 1. Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, and Students Standard 4: Faculty, Staff, and Students (#82) INTENT STATEMENTS 4.1.
8th International Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Africa Windhoek, Namibia (19 – 23 September 2016) Practicum on African Quality.
CBU CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY Assessment, Accreditation, and Curriculum Office CBU - OIRPA.
ABET Accreditation College of IT and Computer Engineering
DEVELOPMENT OF STUDY PROGRAMS IN UNIVERSITY OF PRISHTINA/KOSOVO
The Application Process Understanding the IERs (Institutional Eligibility Requirements ) 2106 TRACS Annual Conference.
Data You Can Use for Accreditation
Accreditation External Review
Quality Assurance of Higher Education Programs:
Program Quality Assurance Process Validation
in the leisure services profession ACCREDITATION CERTIFICATION
QM and Accreditation—Sounds Boring but It’s BASIC
UMKC General Education Revision - Background June 7, 2016
by Salih O. Duffuaa Professor of Systems Engineering KFUPM
Assessment and Accreditation
Program Review Teaching and learning committee Santa ana college
Assessing Student Learning
ASSESSMENT Overview January 30, 2006 and February 1, 2006
PROGRAM REVIEW PROCESS
Program Modification “Academic Year 2019” Assumption University
Presentation transcript:

Criterion 1 – Program Mission, Objectives and Outcomes Weight = 0.05 Factors Score 1 Does the program have documented measurable objectives that support faculty / college and institution mission statements? Does the program have documented outcomes for graduating students? Do these outcomes support the program objectives? Are the graduating students capable of performing these objectives? Does the department assess its overall performance periodically using quantifiable measures? Is the results of the program assessment documented? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 1 (S1) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of ……………….. Higher Education Commission Directives Assessment Team Report in Rubric Form

2 Criterion 2 – Curriculum Design and Organization Weight = 0.20 Factors Score 1 Is the curriculum consistent? Does the curriculum support the program’s documented objectives? Are theoretical background, problem analysis and solution design stressed within the program’s core material Does the curriculum satisfy the core requirements laid down by respective accreditation bodies? (Refer to Appendix A of the Self Assessment Manual) Does the curriculum satisfy the major requirements laid down by HEC and the respective councils / accreditation bodies? (Refer to Appendix A of the Self Assessment Manual) Does the curriculum satisfy the general education, arts and professional and other discipline requirements as laid down by the respective accreditation bodies/ councils? (Refer to Appendix A of the Self Assessment Manual) Is the information technology competent integrated throughout the program? Are oral and written skills of the students developed and applied in the program? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 2 (S2) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of ……………………..

3 Criterion 3 – Laboratories and Computing Facilities Weight = 0.10 Factors Score 1 Are laboratory manuals / documentation / instructions etc. for experiments available and readily accessible to faculty and students? Are there adequate number of support personnel for instruction and maintaining the laboratories? Are the university’s infrastructure and facilities adequate to support the program’s objectives? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 3 (S3) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of …………………..

4 Criterion 4 – Student Support and Advising Weight = 0.10 Factors Score 1 Are the courses being offered in sufficient frequency and number for the students to complete the program in a timely manner? Are the courses in the major area structured to optimize interaction between the students, faculty and teaching assistants? Does the university provide academic advising on course decisions and career choices to all students? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 4 (S4) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of …………………….

5 Criterion 5 – Process Control Weight = 0.15 Factors Score 1 Is the process to enroll students to a program based on quantitative and qualitative criteria? Is the process above clearly documented and periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives? Is the process to register students in the program and monitoring their progress documented? Is the process above periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives? Is the process to recruit and retain faculty in place and documented? Are the process for faculty evaluation and promotion consistent with the institution’s mission? Are the process in 5 and 6 above periodically evaluated to ensure that they are meeting their objectives? Do the processes and procedures ensure that teaching and delivery of course material emphasize active learning and that course learning outcomes are met? Is the process in 8 above periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives? Is the process to ensure that graduates have completed the requirements of the program based on standards and documented procedures? Is the process in 10 above periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 5 (S5) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of ………………………..

6 Criterion 6 – Faculty Weight = 0.20 Factors Score 1 Are there enough full time faculty members to provide adequate coverage of the program areas / courses with continuity and stability? Are the qualifications and interests of faculty members sufficient to teach all courses, plan, modify and update courses and curricula? Do the faculty members possess a level of competence that would be obtained through graduate work in this discipline Do the majority of faculty members hold Ph.D. degrees in their disciplines? Do faculty members dedicate sufficient time to research to remain current in their disciplines? Are there mechanisms in place for faculty development? Are faculty members motivated and satisfied so as to excel in their profession? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 6 (S6) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of ……………………..

7 Criterion 7 – Institutional Facilities Weight = 0.10 Factors Score 1 Does the institution have the infrastructure to support new trends such as e-learning Does the library contain technical collection relevant to the program and is it adequately staffed? Are the class rooms and offices adequately equipped and capable of helping faculty carry out their responsible? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 7 (S7) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of …………………..

8 Criterion 8 – Institutional Support Weight = 0.10 Factors Score 1 Is there sufficient support and finances to attract and retain high quality faculty? Are there an adequate number of high quality graduate students, teaching assistants and Ph.D. students? Total Encircled Value (TV) SCORE 8 (S8) = [TV/No. of Questions *5)] * 100 * Weight Department of ……………………. S1+S2+S3+S4+S5+S6+S7+S8 =