Transcript Evaluation Instrument for Assessment of provisional and

SESSION 2
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT FOR
ASSESSMENT OF PROGRAMME
ACCREDITATION
OUTLINE
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Objectives Of The Session
The Nine Areas Of Evaluation Based On Standards In COPPA
Grading Scale
Uses Of The Scale
Explanatory Notes
Evaluation Instrument (Sample of Area 9)
Recommendations For Decisions: Performance By Levels
List Of Records Obtained And Verified For Provisional Or Full
Accreditation
• Summary Of Findings By Area
• Summary Of Attainment Level By Areas Of Evaluation
OBJECTIVES OF THE SESSION
• To review the MQA-01 or MQA-02 of a given
programme using the Evaluation Instrument based
on the Code of Practice for Programme
Accreditation (COPPA)
• To determine the grading on the specified areas of
evaluation assigned to the group
• To determine the result on the level of achievement
of the specified areas of evaluation
USES OF THE RATING SCALE
• To identify areas of strength and concerns
• To identify areas that need further information or
attention of institutions concerned
• To refine the areas of strengths and concerns after
gathering and verifying information
• To achieving objectivity in collective judgment
• To determine the outcome of the specified purpose
of the provisional accreditation/ accreditation.
EXPLANATORY NOTES
• The Code of Practice provides benchmarked standards and
enhanced standards which are defined by the use of terms that
indicates the quality expected in those standards.
• These terms are expressed by descriptors such as consistent, clear,
sufficient, appropriate, variety, comprehensive, continually, regularly,
continuously, periodically, abundant, optimum, conducive, high
degree, adequate, extensive, sufficient, etc.
• They generally denote an achievement of an appropriate size,
level or degree in compliance with the standards.
THE NINE AREAS OF EVALUATION BASED ON
STANDARDS IN COPPA
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Vision, Mission, Educational Goals and Learning Outcomes
Curriculum Design and Delivery
Assessment of Students
Student Selection and Support Services
Academic Staff
Educational Resources
Programme Monitoring and Review
Leadership, Governance, and Administration
Continual Quality Improvement
…cont…
• There are further sub-descriptors such as highly, fully, clearly, widely,
extensively, very, most, etc which indicate the degree of attainment
of a higher level of compliance of the benchmarked standards and
the enhanced standards.
• These sub-descriptors are dependent on the quality of the
documentation and the evidence obtained upon evaluation
during the institutional audit visit of institutional audit.
• The interpretation of the attainment of the levels should be reached
by consensus of the panel of auditors based on best evidences
and sound judgment in line with the good practices of institutional
audit.
…cont…
• The benchmark standards indicate a minimal level of practice (e. g
5.1.1: adequate staff) while enhanced standards refer to advanced,
higher, complex, better level of the practice(i.e. 5.1.2: good mix of
staff).
• Low ratings for benchmark standards cannot be followed by similar
or higher ratings of related enhanced standards.
• The attainment levels (AL1 to AL5) for benchmark standards and the
enhanced standards within an area of sub-area are connected and
therefore, must be consistent.
EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (Example)
AREA 1
AL 5
AL 4
AL 3
AL 2
AL 1
BM-Std
Programme
aims, objectives
and learning
outcomes are
very clearly
defined.
Programme
aims, objectives
and learning
outcomes
clearly defined
Programme
aims,
objectives and
learning
outcomes are
defined.
Programme
aims, objectives
and learning
outcomes
incoherently
stated
Programme
aims,
objectives and
learning
outcomes are
not defined.
Programme
aims,
objectives and
learning
outcomes are
defined.
(COPPA:1.1)
Nothing in the
MQA-01/MQA02 and the
evidence
gathered show
the above
mentioned not
present.
Description of
the practice
and evidence
that could
support the
assignment of
the attainment
level
Panel’s Collective Findings
MQA-01/MQA02 and the
evidence
gathered during
audit show the
above
mentioned is
clear,
connected and
compelling
MQA-01/MQA02 and the
evidence
gathered during
audit show the
above
mentioned is
stated showing
the linkages
between these
elements.
MQA01/MQA-02
and the
evidence
gathered
during audit
show the
above
mentioned is
stated and can
be
understood.
MQA-01/MQA02 and the
evidence
gathered during
audit show the
above
mentioned to
be present but
disorganised
and confused.
EXCEL-based Scoring Instrument
EXCEL-based Scoring Instrument
Summary of Rating (Benchmarked)
Summary of Rating (Enhanced)
GRADING SCALE
Level 5 Excellent - Minimally achieved attainment Level 3 or
above of all benchmarked standards and enhanced standards
Level 4 Good - Minimally achieved attainment Level 3 of all
benchmarked standards and at least 50% of the Level 3 enhanced
standards
Level 3 Satisfactory - Minimally all benchmarked standards at
Attainment Level 3
Level 2 Less Than Satisfactory – Achievement of at least 70% of
benchmarked standards at Attainment Level 3 in each of the 9
areas
Level 1 Unsatisfactory – Achievement of less than 70% of
benchmarked standards at attainment Level 3 in each of the 9
areas
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISIONS
OVERALL PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE
LEVELS
Benchmarked
Enhanced
At AL 3 (%)
At AL 3 (%)
FIVE
Excellent
100
100
FOUR
Good
100
50
THREE
Satisfactory
100
-
TWO
Less Than Satisfactory
70
-
ONE
Unsatisfactory
< 70
-
List of Records Obtained and Verified for Provisional or Full
Accreditation
No.
Name of Item
Source of
Information
Checked
by
Remarks
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY AREA
Area
Aspect
Level
Strengths
(Commendations - Strengths that
are unique or different from others)
Affirmations
(Opportunities for Improvement) –
Areas of Concern identified by HEP
and Plan of Action
Areas of Concern (not identified by
HEP in Self Review Report but
discovered by Assessors)
Recommendations
SUMMARY OF ATTAINMENT LEVEL BY AREAS OF EVALUATION
(e.g: Area 2)
ATTAINMENT LEVEL
NO.
AREA
CRITERIA
2.1
2
Curriculum
Design and
Delivery
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
Curriculum Design and
Teaching-Learning Methods
Programme Design and
Teaching and Learning
Methods
Curriculum Content and
Structure
Management of the
Programmes
Linkages with External
Stakeholders
Total
BENCHMARKED
STANDARDS
ENHANCED
STANDARDS
/3
/2
/6
/4
/3
/1
/6
/3
/1
/2
/19
/12
Note : Area 2
• Total number of benchmark standards – 19
• Total number of enhanced standards - 11
•
i.
Scores at benchmark standards at attainment level is based on
number of standards achieved at Level 3 in each sub-area
ii.
Overall attainment score is based on total number of standard
achieved in all sub-areas upon the total number of standards in all
sub-areas.
Standards in sub-areas which are not applicable are not
counted.
End of Session 2