Transcript National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment

National Commission for
Academic Accreditation &
Assessment
Developmental Reviews at King
Saud University and King Faisal
University
Section 1
Purposes, Scope and Timelines
Objectives



To support implementation of quality
assurance systems in the institution.
To provide experience with self study
and accreditation processes.
To identify matters that will need to be
considered in preparation for actual
accreditation reviews.
To Achieve these Objectives

Self study and accreditation processes
will have to be followed as closely as
possible.


Some adjustments may be necessary
because of the early stage of
implementation of QA processes.
The fewer the adjustments the more useful
the developmental review will be in
achieving the objectives.
Aspects of quality to be
evaluated


Extent to which mission and goals are
achieved.
Performance in relation to 11 standards.
Self studies must report on both these
elements.
Standards
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Mission and Objectives
Governance and Administration
Management of Quality Assurance and Improvement
Learning and Teaching
Student Administration and Support Services
Learning Resources
Facilities and Equipment
Financial Planning and Management
Faculty and Staff Employment Processes
Research
Institutional Relationships with the Community
Two Forms of Self Study and Review

Institutional


Total institution including overview of all
programs, and administrative and
academic functions.
Programs

Ten selected programs reviewed in depth.
Programs
King Saud University
Medicine and Surgery
Dentistry
Pharmacy
Chemistry
Computer Science
Architecture
Accounting
Food Science and Technology
Special Education
Civil Engineering
King Faisal University
Medicine
Dentistry
Pharmacy
Chemistry
Computer Science
Architecture
Accounting
Food and Nutrition Sciences
Special Education
Nursing
Action Following Reviews






Draft reports completed
Factual accuracy checked with institution.
Reports finalized.
Institution invited to respond.
(for real accreditation) Commission decides
on accreditation. This will not be done for
the developmental reviews.
Later reports from institution on action taken
to implement recommendations.
Steps Involved
Introduction of Quality Systems
Quality Center, Quality officers, Program and course specifications and reports,
Identification of indicators and benchmarks, Gathering of evidence of quality, Initial
self evaluation, Development and implementation of strategic plan for quality
improvement.
Institutional/ Program self study.
Commission decision on
accreditation
External Review
Institution response—Action
planned in response to report
Report on External Review (Drafted
checked, finalized).
Follow up report from institution on
action taken
Key Dates for Developmental
Reviews







April 30, 2008 Self study reports and key documents
sent to NCAAA.
May 15, 2008 Self study reports sent to external
reviewers.
June 30, 2008 Responses to queries
November 1 to 19, 2008 Site visits by reviewers.
November 26, Advice on factual accuracy.
December 31, Final Reports.
January 31, Response to recommendations
These dates MUST be adhered to.
Section 2
Organizational Arrangements
Administration and Organization


Self studies are major undertakings and
require effective leadership and wide
involvement.
Coordination is essential, both within each
self study, and between them. The number
of programs being reviewed concurrently with
an institutional review makes this
coordination particularly important.
Administration and Organization




Leadership by senior administrator and quality
director working as a team.
Steering committee to provide support, advice,
planning etc.
For institutional self study—distribute detailed work
across a number of sub-committees (subject to
coordination and oversight by steering committee
and leaders).
For program self studies—Must have one main
committee. Desirable to have sub committees, but
what is appropriate will depend on circumstances.
Administration and Organization



Timelines are critical. Start early.
For each self study—individual or small group
should draft a final report taking sub
committee reports and information into
account. Each report is a single report by the
institution, not a collection of sub-committee
reports.
Notes distributed include some suggestions
for sub committees.
Build on Initial Self Evaluation


Re-examine opinions and conclusions. What
evidence is needed to address all of the
important aspects of quality identified in the
self evaluation scales?
Recommendation. Committees consider what
evidence is needed for their particular task,
then have these reviewed by leaders/steering
committee to consider possible coordination.
(Existing statistical data, sampling rather than
population studies, common items that can
be done once etc.)
Evidence

Evidence provided should include the KPIs defined by the
Commission, and any other evidence considered appropriate by
the institution. (and program). The Commission’s KPIs are not
intended to cover everything.
(Note: At this stage it is possible that data may not be available for some
of the Commission’s indicators. However good reasons should be given
and plans should be in place, and described, to provide what is missing
in future.)


The evidence sought for indicators includes some information
from student surveys. At least some of these should be used.
Evidence should include comparative figures from other
institutions as benchmarks. (the institution should make
arrangements for sharing information with other comparable
(good) institutions.
Administration and Organization

Procedures should allow for widespread
involvement—eg. Invite input from
faculty, students, other stakeholders.
Self Study Process






See extracts from Handbooks
Leadership, Coordination.
Steering Committee
Sub committees for Institutional Review
Committees in Departments for Program
Reviews—(Include independent opinion)
For both institutional and program reviews


Consider achievement of mission and objectives
Consider performance in relation to standards
Documents Needed


Self study Reports
Needed for the institutional review and for
each of the program reviews.
Follow the templates provided, but present
each report as a continuous document
rather than just filling in the spaces on the
forms.
Reports should be provided on CD and in
hard copy.
Requirements for Reports




See templates
The report for the institutional self study, and for
each of the periodic program self studies should be a
single, separate, self contained document.
Other documents (Eg self evaluation scales, program
or course reports etc) should be available separately.
They are not part of the self study reports.
The reports should explain objectives sought, give
background if necessary for explanation, cite
evidence and draw valid defensible conclusions.
Evidence should be presented in summary form, but
full reports on major items of evidence should be
available separately if needed.

Draft final reports should be considered
by senior administrators. (Not changed
or watered down, but they should know
all about it, be able to provide input,
and share in working out possible
actions in response.)
Section 3
Issues and Relationships
Relationship to Initial Self Evaluation

The initial self evaluation followed
similar processes and data and
conclusions from that activity can be
used. However they will need to be
brought up to date, detailed procedures
described, and a lot more evidence
provided.
Relationship to Strategic Plan for
Quality Improvement


The strategic plan for quality improvement which is
required by December 31 should be provided as a
background document. (As well as any more general
strategic planning documents)
The more detailed self studies for the developmental
reviews may lead to some suggestions for changes in
the strategic plan(s). Any such proposed changes
should be noted in the self study report, and a
separate brief background document prepared
summarizing suggested changes and the reasons for
them.
Relationship of Institutional Self
Study to Program Self Studies



The institutional self study deals with the total
institution including an overview of the quality of all
the programs. (noting strengths and weaknesses)
The program self studies deal in depth with each
program and it is possible that particular programs
may vary from the overall picture.
Information from the detailed program analyses
should be shared with the institutional committees
and should be considered by them in forming their
overall report.

In the program self studies general
standards should be considered from
the perspective of each particular
program. This may give a different
result from the evaluation for the
institution as a whole. For example, the
library may be very effective generally,
but not provide much support for a
particular program.
Relationship of Program and
Course Specifications and Reports
to Self Studies





The program and course specifications and reports are part of
ongoing quality assurance arrangements.
The program specification should be an attachment to a periodic
program self study report, and course specifications and the
annual reports should be available for reference by the review
team if required.
For the developmental review it is understood that a full set of
specifications and annual reports may not be available,
however:
Program specifications and at least some course specifications
should be provided for each of the programs being reviewed,
There should be at least one annual program report and some
examples of course reports for each of those programs available
for reference. These could be based on either the end of the
2006/7 academic year, or the end of Semester 1 in 2007/8.
Relationship Between Male and
Female Sections




An institution with separate sections for male and female
students, and a program with separate sections for male and
female students should be reported on and evaluated as a
single institution (or program).
However because there may be differences between the
sections, information should be gathered for each section, and
then combined in a way that gives an overview of common
strengths and weaknesses, and also details of variations, and
conclusions about what should be done about them.
Accreditation judgments will be based on the total institution or
program.
See Standard 2.4 which deals with relationships between male
and female sections.