1. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 1 Student Assessment: A Mandatory Requirement For Accreditation Dr. Salwa El-Magoli Chair-Person National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee

2. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 2 Institutional Standards Assessment of student learning demonstrates that the institution’s students have knowledge, skills, and competencies consistent with institutional goals and that students at graduation have achieved appropriate higher education goals learning

3. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 3 Fundamental Elements An Accredited Institution is Characterized by:  Articulated expectation of student learning that are constant with institution’s mission  A plan that describes student assessment activities including the specific methods to be used to validate articulated student learning goals/objectives  Evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning  Document use of student learning assessment as part of institution assessment

4. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 4 Student Outcomes Assessment Plan (SOAP) Student Assessment Procedure are Expected to: 1.Measure the achievement of ILOs and Program Objectives 2.Appropriate for the Purpose 3.Clear and published criteria for marking 4.Not rely on the judgments of single examiners

5. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 5 Student Assessment Procedure 5.To differentiate performance and encourage excellence and outstanding students. 6. Conduct Securely in Accordance with institution’s stated procedures 7. Subject to administrative verification ( Checks to ensure the accuracy)

6. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 6 9 Principles of Good Practice for Assessing Student Learning 1.The assessment of student learning begins with educational values.. 2.Assessment is most effective when it reflects an understanding of learning as multidimensional, integrated, and revealed in performance over time 3.Assessments works best when the program it seeks to improve have clear, explicitly stated purposes.

7. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 7 9 Principals (cont.) 4.Assessment requires attention to outcomes but also and equally to the experience that lead to those outcomes. 5.Assessment works best when it is ongoing not episodic 6. Assessment foster wider improvement when representatives from across the community are involved.

8. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 8 9 principals (cont.) 7. Assessment makes a different when it begins with issues of use and illuminates questions that really people care about 8. Assessment is most likely to lead to improvement when it is part of a large set of conditions that promote change 9. Through assessment educators meet responsibilities to students and to the public

9. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 9 Student Assessment and Accreditation Requirement Accreditation requirements are concerned with 5 major areas according to Egyptian System: I. Academic Standards ILOs Curriculum Development Student Assessment Student Achievement II. Quality of Learning Opportunities III. Research and other Scholarly Activates IV. Community Involvement V. Effectiveness of quality management and enhancement

10. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 10 Reminder An Accredited Institution is Characterized by:  Articulated expectation of student learning that are constant with institution’s mission  A plan that describes student assessment activities including the specific methods to be used to validate articulated student learning goals/objectives  Evidence that student learning assessment information is used to improve teaching and learning  Document use of student learning assessment as part of institution assessment

11. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 11 Institutions Satisfy the Criteria of Student Assessment What that means:  Integrity and Fairness  Transparency and Consistency in Procedures  Quality Assurance System in Place  Graduates Meeting Institution Mission  Public Community Confidence in HE

12. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 12 Lessons Learned 16 DEs (7 Universities) Developmental Engagement was carried on 16 Faculties from three Major Sectors:  Medical Science Sector: Medicine, Pharmacy, Nursing, and Physical Therapy faculties  Humanity and Social Sciences Sector: Political Science and Commerce faculties  Engineering and Science Sector: Agriculture, Engineering and Science faculties

13. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 13 The Results of 16 DEs in Conclusion  No One Satisfy the Criteria of Student Assessment  No One is Ready Yet to Apply for Accreditation

14. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 14 Common Features Shared Between 16DEs I. Legislation Hinders Academic Freedom in Examination Grading II. No Clear Identified ILOs or NARS III. Examination Methods Inconsistent, Personal and depends on knowledge recall Mostly, Highest weighting is given to written examination IV. System of QA not in Place V. Student Satisfaction( NO Rights for Feedback. VI. The award for top student often seemed independent of the assessment regime which, although it has grading, does not produce excellence in a transparent and systematic way. VII. Role of University Leadership is not clearly stated

15. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 15 Specific Featured Shared Between 16 DEs  Private Lessons  Massive Students Numbers  Fairness and Transparency.  Extremely generous and slipshod marking.  No reference to external/international standards.  Problems with oral examinations

16. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 16 New Roles Needed New and Clear Role is needed from: 1. Head of Departments, Deans and Vice- Deans and Presidents of the Universities 2. Examination Board 3. Internal and External Evaluator

17. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 17 Good Practice 1. Different Types of assessment were used to assess student’s performance effectively(8/16) 2. Existence of External Evaluator(2/16) 3. Students are given feedbacks(5/16) 4. QA Center published guide book for preparing examination “Excellent, examination, written, oral and practical”(1/16)

18. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 18 Good Practice, (cont.) 5. Objectivity and Fairness of Assessment Procedures (3/16) 6. Students were Aware of the grading criteria(3/16) 7. Exam papers and answer sheets assessed the full range of knowledge and intellectual skills defined by the ILOs (1/16)

19. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 19 Good Practice (cont.) 8.Developing a Check list and log book to improve the assessment of knowledge, skills and performance of interns.(1/16) 9.Committee of faculty members review assessment exams and student answer sheets to correlate to curricula(1/16) 10. The examination regulations are applied conscientiously.

20. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 20 Good Practice

21. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 21 Good Practice

22. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 22 Good Practice

23. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 23 Good Practice

24. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 24 Conclusions  Assessment as a mean not only to grade student but primarily as a tool to assist in learning process  Constructive Alignment, course objectives, content and assessment are aligned  Egyptian Code of practice for Student Assessment

25. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 25

26. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 26 Conclusions Do we need an Egyptian code of practice For students’ assessment ? (10 minutes(

27. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 27 Conclusions Do we all agree on the general framework of the Egyptian code of practice? (10 minutes(

28. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 28

29. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 29 Conclusions Volunteers From Faculties to Apply Egyptian Code of Practice and to Follow up with QAAP

30. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 30 Terms of References of Volunteers Faculties External evaluator. Accomplished DE and have an action plan. Score of 7out of 10 in good practice of the students' assessment. Procedure and policy in place. Good support from decision makers. (20 minutes)

31. 30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 31 Conclusions QAAP will coordinate and facilitate producing the draft of Egyptian Code of Practice for Student Assessment