DEVELOPING AN INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISM: ENHANCING QUALITY OF EDUCATION

Training Kit

By

Dr. Abdul Wahid Usmani

PhD ( Assessment & Evaluation) Director QEC Dow University of Health Science

Forewords:
One fine morning, I was invited to conduct a series of workshops at Dow University. After the workshop, one of the officials arranged my meeting with the Vice Chancellor, Prof. Masood Hameed Khan. After the first meeting, Prof. Masood gave me file containing the details of QEC and asked me to establish QEC at Dow university. The readings of material provided caught my interest and the scope of QEC appealed me so much that I decided to opt for it. Thus my academic life ended and QEC initial work started. In the first meeting for new QECs the resource persons shared experience and we learnt a great deal but there was a feeling of DO MORE.

Since establishment of QEC at Dow, I regularly attended the meetings for progress review. After some time, Prof. Azam Ali Khwaja joined and very after his joining, he utilized all resources and I must admit that the efforts of Prof Khwaja and his team kept all the QECs at their toe all the time and we enjoyed working under his supervision at our institutions.

When I was asked to conduct a workshop, the first thing that I did was to recall my initial days and the problems that we faced. It was obvious that there must be a document for new QECs so that they may consult and address the issues accordingly. This idea led to preparation of this TRAINING KIT.

I believe that it is a first draft that would be further enhanced after the workshop as the users would certainly provide their own feedback based on their own contexts.

I am grateful to Advisor QAA, Managing Director QAA and his team for providing all of us opportunities to share experience and learning with fellow professionals.

Dr Usmani November, 2009

awusmani@yahoo.com

Table of Contents
i. Forewords

1. Approaches of Assessment
2. International Quality Assurance Bodies 3. What is Program Assessment 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Self Assessment Objective of Self Assessment Elements of a Successful Assessment Mechanism of Self Assessment

3 6 8

4. Organization of QEC 4.1 Scope of QEC Work 4.2 Job Description of QEC officials 4.3 Recruitment for QEC and Equipment 4.4 Action Plan of Quality Enhancement Cell (Initial Plan) 4.5 Awareness Session 5. What is a Program Team 5.1 Working with Program Teams

11

17

5.2 TOR of Program Team 5.3 Training of Program Team 6. Awareness on Criteria given for Self Assessment 6.1 Criteria of SAR 7. Feedback Forms 7.1 7.2 Administration of Feedback Form Analysis of Forms 27 25 20

8. What is Assessment Team 8.1

8.2 8.3

Working with Assessment Teams

TOR of Assessment Team

Training of Assessment Team

1. Approaches of Assessment
Over the past decade, quality and quality assurance clearly have become key issues internationally for higher education (Kells and van Vught, 1988; Kells, 1992; Anwyl, 1992; Craft, 1992 and 1994; Harman, 1 996b). Wherever you go, managers of higher education systems and institutions today are concerned about quality and how to put in place appropriate quality assurance mechanisms, while ministers, bureaucrats, employers and business interests are all increasingly concerned about the outputs of higher education institutions and the suitability of graduates to meet workplace needs. Quality assurance is a new term that has come into the higher education vocabulary over the past decade or so. While there are many definitions of quality assurance in the literature (eg, see Ball, 1985; Birnbaum, 1994; Lindsay, 1992; van Vught and Westerheijden, 1992), in essence, quality assurance refers to systematic management and assessment procedures adopted to ensure achievement of specified quality or improved quality, and to enable key stakeholders to have confidence in the management of quality and the outcomes achieved. Stakeholders are individuals and groups who have a major interest in the higher education institution or system and its achievements. Some authors (eg Brennan, 1997) prefer use of the term quality assessment instead of term quality assurance. However, while a great deal of effort in quality assurance relates to quality assessment, quality assurance in this paper is thought of as a broader term which embraces not only assessment but also other activities including, for example, follow-up efforts aimed to achieve improvement. The main approaches to quality assurance management are summarized in Table 1. This table sets out under separate categories information on the agency or unit with responsibility for the management of quality assurance at both national and institutional levels; participation in reviews and other activities; the main methodologies employed; the focus of quality assurance activities; the purposes of such activities; and reporting and/or follow-up activities.

T A B L E : Approaches to Quality Assurance Management

A. Responsible Agency/Unit (a) National or System Level Unit or section within a Government agency Separate quality assurance agency established by Government Separate quality assurance agency established by Government but with considerable independence Agency established by a group or association of higher education institutions Agency established jointly by Government and higher education institutions

(b) Institutional Level Senior University management Academic Board, Academic Committee or Academic Senate Specialist committee or board, set up by governing body, senior management, or senior academic body B. Participation in Reviews and Other Activities Voluntary Compulsory Voluntary, with some measure of pressure/persuasion C. Methodologies of Review and Assessment Self study or self evaluation Peer review by panels of experts, usually including the use of at least some external panel members and one or more site visits Analysis of statistical information and/or use of performance indicators Surveys of students, graduates, employers, professional bodies Testing the knowledge, skills and competencies of students

D. Focus (a) National or System Level National reviews of disciplines reviews of research only reviews of teaching only

5 reviews of both research and teaching Institutional evaluations reviews of teaching only reviews of research only reviews of quality assurance processes comprehensive reviews usually including teaching, research, processes National evaluations of the higher education system (b) Institutional Level Reviews of departments, faculties and schools Reviews of courses and programmes Reviews of particular institutional functions, or administrative and service units management, and quality assurance

E. Purposes Accountability Improvement and renewal Combination of purposes

E. Reporting and Follow-up Activities Report provided solely to the institution or unit concerned Report provided to the institution or unit but also published or made more widely available Formal reports provided to the Minister, Ministry, higher education funding or coordinating agency, or at institutional level to Vice-Chancellor/Rector Public reporting Use of ranking and wide publication of the results of such ranking Performance funding Accreditation or validation Improvement and renewal activities
Ref: Higher Education Quarterly,

09515224

Volume 52, No. 4, October 1998, pp 345-364 The Management of Quality Assurance: A Review of International Practice
Grant Harman, University of New England

2. International Quality Assurance Bodies:

Following bodies are working in the field of QA/E. Only few have been listed.

International

Network

for

Quality

Assurance

Agencies

in

Higher

Education (INQAAHE) The International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher

Education (INQAAHE) is a world-wide association of some 200 organisations active in the theory and practice of quality assurance in higher education. The great majority of its members are quality assurance agencies that operate in many different ways, although the Network also welcomes (as associate or institution members) other organisations that have an interest in QA in HE. http://www.inqaahe.org/

The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) QAA checks how UK universities maintain their own academic standards and quality. We review and report on how they meet their responsibilities, identify good practice and make recommendations for improvement. We publish guidelines to help UK universities and colleges develop effective systems to ensure students have the best learning experience. http://www.qaa.ac.uk/

The Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) The Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) has been developed with the purpose of serving the needs of quality assurance agencies in higher education in a region that contains over half the worlds population. This is a fast-growing region, with an increasing appetite for education, and with increasing mobility of students and providers to meet that need. In turn, this makes it a region of growing and developing quality assurance agencies that needs to be able to deal with public and private providers, and with education and students that cross national borders. APQN is already helping to build alliances between agencies, and assisting countries/territories that do not have a quality assurance agency of their own. Many hands have contributed to the development of the Network, especially the support from World Bank and UNESCO. The devotion and collaboration have

7 brought the continuous expansion and flourish of APQN. So wed like to take this opportunity to thank all of them. www.apqn.org

The Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education ANQAHE The Arab Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education ANQAHE has been established in June, 2007 as a nonprofit nongovernmental organization. The purpose to establish the Arab network for quality Assurance in higher education is to create a mechanism between the Arab countries to: Exchange information about quality assurance Construct new quality assurance agencies or organizations Develop standards to establish new quality assurance agencies or support the already present one Disseminate good practice in quality assurance Strengthen liaison between quality assurance bodies in the different countries

http://english.anqahe.org/cms.php?id=1

Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) of HEC: Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is engaged in systematic implementation of quality enhancement procedures/criteria to attain improved levels of international compatibility and competitiveness at institutional and program level. Established in 2005, QAA is engaged in developing a viable and sustainable mechanism of quality assurance in the higher learning sector in order to meet the rising challenges of transforming the country into a knowledge economy.

http://www.hec.gov.pk/InsideHEC/Divisions/QALI/QualityAssurance/QualityAssura nceAgency/Pages/Default.aspx

3. What is Prgoramme Assessment?

Assessment is a systematic process of gathering, reviewing and using important quantitative and qualitative data and information from multiple and diverse sources about educational programs, for the purpose of improving student learning, and evaluating whether academic and learning standards are being met.

3.1 What is Self Assessment:

Self assessment is an assessment conducted by the institution itself to assess whether programs meet the educational objectives and outcomes with the purpose to improve program's quality and enhancing students learning

3.2 Objectives of Self Assessment:

Following are the objectives: Improve and maintain academic standards Enhance students' learning Verify that the existing programs meet their objectives and institutional goals Provide feedback for quality assurance of academic programs

3.3 Elements of Successful Assessment:

Purpose identification Outcomes identification Measurements and evaluation design Data collection Analysis and evaluation

3.4 Mechanism of Self Assessment:

The QEC initiates the SA one semester prior to the end of the assessment cycle through the Vice Chancellor / Rector Office in which the program is offered Upon receiving the initiation letter the department shall form a program team (PT). The PT will be responsible for preparing a self-assessment

9 report (SAR) about the program under consideration over a period of one semester. The department shall submit the SAR to the QEC through the concerned Dean/HOD. The QEC reviews the SAR within one month to ensure that it is prepared according to the required format. The Vice Chancellor / Rector forms a program assessment team (AT) in consultation with the QEC recommendations within one month.

The AT comprises of 2-3 faculty members from within

or outside the

university. The AT must have at least one expert in the area of the assessed program. The QEC plans and schedules the AT visit period in coordination with the department that is offering the program. The AT conducts the assessment, submits a report and presents its findings in an exit meeting that shall be attended by the QEC, Dean and PT and faculty members. The QEC shall submit an executive summary on the AT findings to the Vice Chancellor / Rector. The Department shall prepare and submit an implementation plan to QEC based on the AT findings. The QEC shall follow up on the implementation plan to ensure departments are adhering to the implementation plan. The academic department shall inform the QEC each time a corrective action is implemented. QEC shall review the implementation plan once a semester to assess the progress of implementation.

10

QEC initiates Assessment one semester prior to the assessment through the dean

Department forms Performance Team that will be responsible for preparing Self Evaluation. QEC reviews the Documentation within one month

No

Is Self Assessment Report Complete

Yes
VC/Dean QEC forms Assessment Team in consultation with the dean based on the recommendation of QEC

QEC plans and fixes Assessment Team visit Assessment Team conducts assessment and presents its findings to QEC, Dean, Performance Team and Dept. Faculty QEC submits an executive summary to V.C. Department prepares implementation in Table A.2

Follow- up of the implementation plan by QEC

11

4. Organization of QEC:
QEC is to be headed by a Dean/ Director reporting directly to Vice Chancellor/Rector. He is to be the correspondent with the outside bodies.

Following is the hierarchy of QEC officials.

VICE CHANCELLOR

DIRECTOR QEC

DEPUTY Director

DATA Analysts

OFFICE ASSISTANT

NAIB QASID

4.1 Scope of QEC Work:

1. QEC is responsible for promoting public confidence that the quality and standards of the award of degrees are enhanced and safeguarded. 2. QEC is responsible for the review of quality standards and the quality of teaching and learning in each subject area. 3. QEC is responsible for the review of academic affiliations with other institutions in terms of effective management of standards and quality of programs. 4. QEC is responsible for defining clear and explicit standards as points of reference to the reviews to be carried out. It should also help the employees to know as to what they could expect from candidates.

12 5. QEC is responsible to develop qualifications framework by setting out the attributes and abilities that can be expected from the holder of a qualification, i.e. Bachelors, Bachelor with Honors, Masters, M. Phil., Doctoral. 6. QEC is responsible to develop program specifications. These are standard set of information clarifying what knowledge, understanding, skills and other attributes a student will have developed on successfully completing a specific program. 7. QEC is responsible to develop quality assurance processes and methods of evaluation to affirm that the quality of provision and the standard of awards are being maintained and to foster curriculum, subject and staff development, together with research and other scholarly activities. 8. QEC is responsible to ensure that the universitys quality assurance procedures are designed to fit in with the arrangements in place nationally for maintaining and improving the quality of Higher Education. 9. QEC is responsible to develop procedures for the following: Approval of new programs Annual monitoring and evaluation including program monitoring, faculty monitoring, and students perception. Departmental review Student feedback Employer feedback Quality assurance of Masters, M. Phil. And Ph. D. degree programs. Subject review Institutional assessment Program specifications Qualification framework

13

4.2 Job Description of QEC officials:

The first thing in establishing any department is to set job description of each official. Remember that it is a document that tells you what you are supposed to do under the title of your post.

Since it is a new induction in the university, job description should be given due care. Job descriptions should be written in brief and clear sentences. The basic structure for sentences in a job description should be "implied subject/verb/object/explanatory phrase." It is best to use action verbs like "types" and "files."

Following may assist individuals for preparing job description:

JOB DESCRIPTION Sample

Institution Name/ Department Name:

Position: Deputy Director

Reporting to: Director,QEC

RESPONSIBILITIES

Implementing the following Quality Assurance Measures in various institutions of DUHS:

1.

Self Assessment Report (SAR):

Monitoring the working of SAR at DMC,SMC, & DIMT Collecting updated reports on various stages of the SAR Submitting the SAR updates to the Director on monthly basis Reviewing the SAR of the above mentioned institutes Sending them feedback

14

2. Teachers Evaluation (TE): Conducting Teachers Evaluation activities at DMC, SMC, & DIMC Collecting data from the faculty for the Best Teachers Taking/giving follow up of improvements identified

Implementing the following Quality Enhancement Measures in various institutions of DUHS: 1. Teachers Portfolio (TP): Monitoring the submission of Teachers Portfolio comments Preparing feedback

Administrative Activities: Assisting the Director QEC in day to day work Verifying attendance record of QEC members Verifying the finance record weekly/monthly Supervising all QEC activities in Directors absence

Others As Assigned by the Competent Authorities of DUHS: Designing questionnaire for different QEC projects as directed by the Head

Reviewed By: Institutional Head / HOD

4.3 Recruitment for QEC and Equipment:

Following is recommended:

For Human Resource: 1. Draft a letter for recruitment with job specification and keep a follow up. 2. Acquire services of personnel from other departments. 3. Choose officials from awareness session who are willing.

15

For Equipment: 1. Prepare a requirement of equipment and submit to concerned department 2. When received, do collect copy of bills and specification. 3. Prepare audit report and get it approved from finance.

To Do Checklist
Mark YES or NO for each activity given below:

1. Do you have documented Vision Statement of your department? Yes/ No 2. Do you have documented Mission Statement of your department? Yes/ No 3. Do you have documented Objectives of your department?

Yes/ No 4. Do you have documented Organogram of your department?

Yes/ No 5. Do you have documented Job Descriptions of each official of your department? Yes/ No 6. Do you know how to prepare Budget/ Audit report of your department? Yes/ No 7. Have you Yes/ No 8. Do you have documented Notification of the establishment of your department? Yes/ No established Web Site of your department?

9. Are you aware of the programs/ functions of your department, QEC? Yes/ No 10. Are you aware of the programs which are being offered at your institute? Yes/ No

16

4.4 Action Plan of Quality Enhancement Cell ( Initial Plan):

Following is recommended: 1. Take appointment from Vice Chancellor and his team (Deans and Registrar) and prepare an awareness session for them. 2. Get approval for a follow up sessions in other department. 3. Meet with department heads and set a date for awareness session. 4. Prepare presentation accordingly and relevant material. 5. You must keep several copies of Self Assessment Critieria. 6. After delievery of presentation, choose a department as per context and get nomination for programme team.

4.5 Awareness Session:

It is a session that would decide the ultimate fate of QEC in your university. Prepare it well before time and if possible, get it reviewed with some colleagues.

17

5. What is a Program Team?

A group of officials Nominated by the Head of the Institute/ Department Responsible for the actual working of SAR A Contact group during the period of assessment

Desired Skills:
Self Motivated and willing to work for quality improvement Having good drafting and analytical skills With excellent command over written communication

5.1 Working with Program Teams:

Provision of Registration Form to the nominees Keeping the record of their contact details as given in the form Holding a meeting with PT to explain what they are expected to do

Sample Registration Form

Programme Team of (Name of Department/ Institute): _______________________

Name: _________________________ Position: _____________________________

Institution: __________________ Contact No: (Office) _______________________

Mobile No: __________________ Email Address:____________________________

Role in Program Team:

Chairman/ Member/ Facilitator

Besides his/her own Responsibilities, s/he will also be responsible for the following: To attend the SAR meetings as and when required To ensure that Self Assessment Mechanism is being implemented as per the given guidelines.

18 To prepare drafts of the SAR on the given dead line and send them to QEC for timely feedback. To keep the record of all the supporting documents addressing various standards of the SAR. To circulate all the applicable feedback forms to the target stakeholders and include the analysis of the same in the SAR. To communicate with the management on the effectiveness and suitability of the SA mechanism

Declaration of the PT Member: I am quite willing to be a part of this team and assure that I would do my best to play my role in the working of Programme Team.

________________________ (Signature of PT Member)

Date: ______________________

Approved by: __________________________________ (Head of the Department/Institute) Note: Completed form shall be sent to QEC

5.2 TOR of Program Team:

To attend the SAR meetings as and when required To ensure that Self Assessment Mechanism is being implemented as per the given guidelines. To collect and document all the information required to fulfill the prescribed standards under each criterion To provide justification for each standard if it is not APPLICABLE To prepare drafts of the SAR on the given dead line and send them to QEC for timely feedback. To keep the record of all the supporting documents addressing various standards of the SAR. To circulate all the applicable feedback forms to the target stakeholders and include the analysis of the same in the SAR.

19 To communicate with the management on the effectiveness and suitability of the SA mechanism To coordinate with other departments and faculty members as and when required for the completion of the SAR

5.3 Training of Program Team:

Program Team must be trained to do the job. They need a details discussion on the criteria of Self Assessment. If possible, keep two days training with a gap of 10 days. After first session, they would prepare some material and then they would discuss the same in the second session.

20

6. Awareness on Criteria given for Self Assessment:

There are eight (08) criteria given. Each criterion has an intent: A statement of requirements to be met.

Each criterion has several standards: They describe how the intents are minimally met

6.1 Criteria of SAR:

Following are the eight criteria in SAR.

1. Program Mission, Objectives and Outcomes ( 3 standards).

2. Curriculum Design and Organization(7).

3. Laboratories and Computing Facilities (2).

4. Student Support and Guidance (3)

5. Process Control ( 5 )

6. Faculty ( 2)

7. Institutional Facilities ( 2 )

8. Institutional Support ( 3)

21

Criterion 1: Program Mission, Objectives and Outcomes

Standard 1-1: The program must have documented measurable objectives that support college and institution mission statements.

Standard 1-2: The program must have documented outcomes for graduating students. It must be demonstrated that the outcomes support the program objectives and that graduating students are capable of performing these outcomes. Standard 1-3: The results programs assessment and the extent to which they are used to improve the program must be documented.

Standard 1-4: The department must assess its overall performance periodically using quantifiable measures.

CRITERION 2: CURRICULUM DESIGN AND ORGANIZATION.

Standard 2-1: The curriculum must be consistent and supports the programs documented objectives.

Standard 2-2: Theoretical background, problems analysis and solution design most be stressed within the programs core material.

Standard 2-3: The curriculum must satisfy the core requirements for the program, as specified by the respective accreditation body. Examples of such requirements are given in Table A.1, Appendix A.

Standard 2-4: The curriculum must satisfy the major requirements for the program as specified by the respective accreditation body. Examples of such requirements are given in Table A.1, Appendix A.

22 Standard 2-5: The curriculum must satisfy general education, arts and professional and other discipline requirements for the program, as specified by the respective accreditation body. Examples of such requirements are given in Table A.1, Appendix

Standard 2-6: Information technology component of the curriculum must be integrated throughout the program.

Standard 2-7: Oral and written communication skills of the student must be developed and applied in the program.

CRITERION FACILITIES.

3:

LABORATORIES

AND

COMPUTING

Standard 3-1: Laboratory manuals/documentation/instructions for experiments must be available and readily accessible to faculty and students.

Standard 3-2: There must be adequate support personnel for instruction and maintaining the laboratories.

Standard 3-3: The University computing infrastructure and facilities must be adequate to support programs objectives.

CRITERION 4: STUDENT SUPPORT AND ADVISING

Standard 4-1: Courses must be offered with sufficient frequency and number for students to complete the program in a timely manner.

Standard 4-2: Courses in the major must be structured to ensure effective interaction between students, faculty and teaching assistants.

Standard 4-3: Guidance on how to complete the program must be available to all students and access to qualified advising must be available to make course decisions and career choices.

23

CRITERION 5: PROCESS CONTROL

Standard 5-1: The process by which students are admitted to the program must be based on quantitative and qualitative criteria and clearly documented. This process must be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives.

Standard 5-2: The process by which students are registered in the program and monitoring of students progress to ensure timely completion of the program must be documented. This process must be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives.

Standard 5-3: The process of recruiting and retaining highly qualified faculty members must be in place and clearly documented. Also processes and procedures for faculty evaluation, promotion must be consistent with institution mission statement. These processes must be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting with its objectives.

Standard 5-4: The process and procedures used to ensure that teaching and delivery of course material to the students emphasizes active learning and that course learning outcomes are met. The process must be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives.

Standard 5-5: The process that ensures that graduated have completed the requirements of the program must be based on standards, effective and clearly documented procedures. This process must be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is meeting its objectives.

CRITERION 6: FACULTY
Standard 6-1: There must be enough full time faculty who are committed to the program to provide adequate coverage of the program areas/courses with continuity and stability. The interests and qualifications of all faculty members must be sufficient to teach all courses, plan, modify and update courses and curricula. All

24 faculty members must have a level of competence that would normally be obtained through graduate work in the discipline. The majority of the faculty must hold a Ph.D. in the discipline.

Standard 6-2: All faculty members must remain current in the discipline and sufficient time must be provided for scholarly activities and professional development. Also, effective programs for faculty development must be in place.

Standard 6-3: All faculty members should be motivated and have job satisfaction to excel in their profession.

CRITERION 7: INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES

Standard 7-1: The institution must have the infrastructure to support new trends in learning such as e-learning.

Standard 7-2: The library must possess an up-to-date technical collection relevant to the program and must be adequately staffed with professional personnel.

Standard 7-3: Class-rooms must be adequately equipped and offices must be adequate to enable faculty to carry out their responsibilities.

CRITERION 8: INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT

Standard 8-1: There must be sufficient support and financial resources to attract and retain high quality faculty and provide the means for them to maintain competence as teachers and scholars.

Standard 8-2: There must be an adequate number of high quality graduate students, research assistants and Ph.D. students.

Standard 8-3: Financial resources must be provided to acquire and maintain Library holdings, laboratories and computing facilities.

25

7. Feedback Forms:
There are following feedback forms available online as well.

1. Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire (To be filled by each Student at the time of Course Completion) 2. Faculty Course Review Report (To be filled by each teacher at the time of Course Completion)

3. Survey of Graduating Students

4. Research Student Progress Review Form

( To be filled out by Master/ M.Phil / Ph.D Research Students on six monthly basis)

5. Faculty Survey To be submitted on annual basis by each faculty member)

6. Survey of Department Offering PhD Programme.

7. Alumni Survey (To be filled by Alumni - after the completion of each academic year)

8. Employer Survey (To be filled in by Employer - after the completion of each academic year)

9.Teacher Evaluation Form (To be filled by the student)

7.1 Administration of Feedback Form:

The administration of all forms is with PT members but QEC may choose to implement some forms directly. The decision lies with the director QEC keeping the university context.

26

7.2 Analysis of Forms:

Percentile of responses would save time and if possible, online feedback would save a lot of time.

27

8. What is Assessment Team?

A group of three to four senior officials with one chairman of the Team. One of the members must be a Subject Specialist from within or outside university. Nomination should be proposed by the Director QEC to the Vice Chancellor who will finally approve. Team is Responsible for the evaluation of SAR

Desired Skills:
Senior Faculty and Dean as Chairman. Having some background of QEC working Having good drafting and analytical skills With excellent command over written communication

8.1 Working with Assessment Teams:

Provision of SAR framework to AT members Keeping the record of their contact details Holding a meeting with AT to explaining what they are expected to do

8.2 TOR of Assessment Team:

To attend the SAR briefing as and when required To review SAR report as per guidelines provided by QEC and mark areas for review further. To visit institute with other members and verify the contents of SAR. To attend meetings on the findings of visits and sharing of experiences To draft a report on the prescribed format on the findings of visits.

28

8.3 Training of Assessment Team:

Assessment Team must be trained to do the job. They need a details discussion on the criteria of Self Assessment. If possible, arrange group meetings and discuss report before visit. Director QEC must present their findings of initial assessment.

Final Words:
The SAR mechanism is initiated in a department. Programme team is formed and their training is conducted Fortnightly meetings are arranged with programme team to review progress. When SAR is submitted, initial review is done by QEC and then the report is sent to Assessment Team Assessment Team gives its findings and a rectification plan is prepared.

29

Different Tables that may be used during SAR preparation:

Objecti ves

How Measured

W hen Measured

Improvements Identified (Based on the Outcomes exami nation)

Improvements Made

1 2 3 4 5

App en dix C - Do - Do - Do - Do -

Table 4.1 P rogram obje ct ives ass essme nt

PROGRAM OJECTIVES 1

EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES 1 2 3 4

Table 4.2: Outcomes versus objectives

Category (Credit Hours) Semester Course Maths & Basic Sciences Core Courses Number Maths Basic Sci. Humanities & Social Sciences Technical Electives

Total
Minimum Requirements

Table 4.3: Curriculum course requirements

30

Courses or Group of Courses 1

PROGRAM OUTCOMES 1 2 3 4

Table 4.4: Courses versus program outcomes

AT findings 1 2 3

Corrective Action

Implementation Date

Responsible Body

Resources Needed

Chairman's Comments Name & Signature Deans Comments Name & Signature QEC Comments Name & Signature

Table A.2

Assessment Results Implementation Plan Summary