1. King Saud University, College of Science Workshop: Programme accreditation and quality assurance Riyadh, June 13-14, 2009 II.1 The underlying philosophy of the accreditation process www.asiin.de

2. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process 5.Conclusion Content http://www.asiin.de2

3. Characteristics: -assessment conducted by an external organisation > independence -aimed at clearly defined object assessed against pre-defined standards, both of which are not subject to negotiation or alteration in between different accreditation processes -positive result leads to certification concerning the object meeting the standards -certificate issued for a limited period of time > periodic reassessment (“re-accreditation”) -> While the accreditation process is often similar to other quality assurance processes (e.g. evaluation), the former is differentiated by the award of a certificate or its denial. Characteristics: -assessment conducted by an external organisation > independence -aimed at clearly defined object assessed against pre-defined standards, both of which are not subject to negotiation or alteration in between different accreditation processes -positive result leads to certification concerning the object meeting the standards -certificate issued for a limited period of time > periodic reassessment (“re-accreditation”) -> While the accreditation process is often similar to other quality assurance processes (e.g. evaluation), the former is differentiated by the award of a certificate or its denial. „Accreditation“ = process leading to a certificate with a defined meaning „Accreditation“ = process leading to a certificate with a defined meaning Definition: Accreditation http://www.asiin.de3

4. HEI Autonomy as Underlying Principle The approach to programme accreditation is based on the principle of the autonomy of institutions of higher education: Universities are in principle free to and responsible for setting their own quality standards for teaching and learning, research and development, and for other core processes. Responsibility implies stakeholder involvement, both from within the university and outside, and considering the effects of the institution’s actions on the social, political, economic, natural environment. http://www.asiin.de4

5. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process 5.Conclusion Content http://www.asiin.de5

6. This leaves us with a question...  If universities are to set their own goals for quality, what exactly is the assessment of degree programmes in the accreditation process based on? http://www.asiin.de6

7. Accreditation criteria as framework for quality Accreditation criteria set quality standards for degree programmes in a given field and respect the autonomy of the individual university: Learning outcome descriptors set a joint framework for the competency profile associated with degree programmes in a given field, but allow for considerable variation in the emphasis of individual programmes. Accreditation criteria do not prescribe the profile or objective of degree programmes nor the specifics of programme design and delivery. http://www.asiin.de7

8. Encouraging innovation and excellence The development of new degree programmes or of new and different ways of delivering the curriculum is explicitly encouraged. Universities are also encouraged to provide incentives for excellence in programme development and refinement, but it is left to the responsibility of the university as to how these incentives are provided. http://www.asiin.de8

9.  Accreditation Criteria have been developed on the principles of continuous quality improvement and focus on the educational process as a whole.  The principles of this approach rest on an underlying philosophy of quality which has implications for processes which need to be in place within the university. Accreditation criteria... http://www.asiin.de9

10. Universities need to systematically analyse their systems for variance (objectives outcome), make decisions based on fact, consciously define their organisation‘s internal and external stakeholders and actively seek input from both.  It drives out fear by encouraging the members of the university to risk making mistakes in order to learn more about the system.  A learning system will lead to continuous improvement of quality....and implications for universities http://www.asiin.de10

11. What does this mean? A process of continuous quality improvement for higher education programmes should involve: 1.a clear understanding of its mission, its constituents, and its objectives (what we are trying to achieve) 2.learning outcomes (the desired learning that needs to take place to meet the objectives) on the programme and on the course/module level 3.integrated processes (internal practices designed to achieve the outcome) 4.facts (purposeful data collection) 5.evaluation (interpretation of facts) 6.and action (feedback to support decision making and improve processes) http://www.asiin.de11

12. Process-oriented approach to programme quality assurance http://www.asiin.de12 Educational objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Educational objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Input of the university Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Input of the university Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Educational process: coherence of objectives, input + outcomes Feedback Programme accreditation

13. Accreditation as instrument of quality assurance The accreditation process has a two-fold function as instrument of quality assurance: For the entire system of higher education, programme accreditation serves to uphold quality standards established within the relevant academic community (this explicitly includes research and industry) by identifying programmes that do not reach these standards. For the university, programme accreditation is an instrument of quality improvement by providing feedback on the achievements, on strengths and on room for improvement – each in relation to established and accepted standards. http://www.asiin.de13

14. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process Content http://www.asiin.de14

15. Principle of peer review Overcoming the traditional view that inputs The accreditation process is based on the principle of peer review: Peer review is the process of subjecting one‘s work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. http://www.asiin.de15

16. Peer review in accreditation Overcoming the traditional view that inputs Peer-based reviews of degree programmes are conducted by “equals”, i. e. by colleagues from the relevant academic field(s). Review teams represent the academic community and prospective employers. Peers are involved on all levels of the accreditation process (review team, technical committees, programme accreditation commission). http://www.asiin.de16

17. The process-oriented approach to quality assurance corresponds with... http://www.asiin.de17 Educational Objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Educational Objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Input of HEI Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Input of HEI Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Educational process: coherence of objectives, input + outcomes Feedback Programme accreditation

18. ...a process-oriented approach to programme accreditation http://www.asiin.de18 Educational Objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Educational Objectives Programme learning outcomes / competence profile knowledge, skills, competencies Job / career profiles occupational area(s) work environment(s) Input of HEI Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Input of HEI Core process curriculum, didactic concept, programme structure Support processes e.g. student services, staff resources, infrastructure, quality assurance Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Outcome Correspondence of educational objectives and learning outcomes results of outcomes assessment and internal/external evaluation Educational process: coherence of objectives, input + outcomes Feedback Programme accreditation The assessment in the course of the accreditation process focuses on the coherence of the educational process, including processes for continuous quality improvement and for demonstrating the correspondence of intended and achieved learning outcomes. The assessment in the course of the accreditation process is based on established standards in the respective academic field(s). The key question is: Will graduates be enabled to enter a professional career relevant to their academic field?

19. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process 5.Conclusion Content

20. Joint development of a „code of conduct“ for peers in the accreditation process. Objective: http://www.asiin.de20 Exercise: The role of peers

21. 21 Auditor “Role Models” 1. show host - let’s talk about … 2. apprentice- as I do it? 3. mentor- share understanding 4. lawyer- evidence-based 5. police- compliance : tick or cross 6. doctor- diagnosis then cure 7. engineer- good spec, fulfil spec 8. judge- balance of probability 9. appraiser- strengths & weaknesses 10. educator- developmental, assessment … http://www.asiin.de21

22. a) Discuss the requirements for the attitude and the behaviour of members of a review team vis-a-vis the representatives of the university. Take into account own experiences concerning typical problems or critical situations, and also the peers‘ responsibilities vis-a-vis the „academic community“. (10 minutes) b) Jointly formulate a written profile outlining the requirements for the attitude and behaviour of peers as result of your discussion. (10 minutes) Please be prepared to present the result of your work to the auditorium. Thank you! Assignment: Exercise: The role of peers http://www.asiin.de22 20 minutesAvailable time:

23. You have discussed the effect of the peer review for two critical groups of stakeholders: the members of the reviewed institution and the academic community. You have discussed typical problems and critical situations and resulting rules of conduct. You have jointly fomulated a code of conduct for peers in the accreditation process. Intended learning outcomes: http://www.asiin.de23 Exercise: The role of peers

24. Name 3 types of behaviour peers in an accreditation process must apply. Name 3 types of behaviour peers in an accreditation process must avoid. To sum it up – „do“s“ and „don‘t“s: Did you find this exercise challenging? In how far? Exercise: The role of peers http://www.asiin.de24

25. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process 5.Conclusion Content

26. Conclusion Overcoming the traditional view that inputs Programme accreditation is based on the principle of autonomy of the university, including accountability to its stakeholders, and on the peer review principle, implying a review by fellow experts from the relevant academic field(s). assesses a degree programme against standards established within the academic community while allowing room for and encouraging new approaches. employs a process-based methodology, reflecting (and assuming) the process of programme design and delivery aiming at continuous quality improvement. is an instrument of (external) quality assurance and should be integrated into an institution’s overall approach to quality assurance. http://www.asiin.de26

27. 1.Accreditation: Definition and principles 2.Defining programme quality: Process-oriented approach 3.Peer review: Definition, function and approach 4.Exercise: The role of peers in the accreditation process 5.Conclusion Additional material Content http://www.asiin.de27

28. Typical requirement profile for peers Overcoming the traditional view that inputs Peers are renowned experts for the relevant academic field(s). Peers have been recommended by an expert organisation relevant to their academic field, but Peers act independently, not as representatives of a single interest group or organisation. Peers respect the requirements and procedural principles on which the accreditation process is based. http://www.asiin.de28

29. Typical requirement profile for peers Overcoming the traditional view that inputs Peers critically discuss the institutional strategy and the objectives of a degree programme with their colleagues at the university, but they do not prescribe either. Peers discuss the relevance of educational objectives to the stakeholders and scrutinise the accessibility of these objectives with given resources. Peers formulate questions rather than statements and allow their dialogue partners to explain their views. Ideally, peers will moderate the discussion process as to reach a joint understanding or at least a mutual understanding for opposing views. http://www.asiin.de29