National Commission for Academic Accreditation

1
National Commission for Academic Accreditation
Assessment

• Developmental Reviews at King Saud University and
  King Faisal University

2
Section 1

• Purposes, Scope and Timelines

3
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.

4
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.

5
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.

6
Standards

• 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

7
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.

8
Programs
9
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.

10
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 responseAction planned in response
to report
Report on External Review (Drafted checked,
finalized).
Follow up report from institution on action taken
11
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.

12
Section 2

• Organizational Arrangements

13
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.

14
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 studydistribute detailed
  work across a number of sub-committees (subject
  to coordination and oversight by steering
  committee and leaders).
• For program self studiesMust have one main
  committee. Desirable to have sub committees, but
  what is appropriate will depend on circumstances.

15
Administration and Organization

• Timelines are critical. Start early.
• For each self studyindividual 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.

16
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.)

17
Evidence

• Evidence provided should include the KPIs defined
  by the Commission, and any other evidence
  considered appropriate by the institution. (and
  program). The Commissions KPIs are not intended
  to cover everything.
• (Note At this stage it is possible that data
  may not be available for some of the Commissions
  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.

18
Administration and Organization

• Procedures should allow for widespread
  involvementeg. Invite input from faculty,
  students, other stakeholders.

19
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

20
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.

21
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.

22

• 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.)

23
Section 3

• Issues and Relationships

24
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.

25
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.

26
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.

27

• 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.

28
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.

29
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.