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. Vision, Mission, Educational Goals and Learning Outcomes2. Curriculum Design and Delivery3. Assessment of Students 4. Student Selection and Support Services5. Academic Staff6. Educational Resources7. Programme Monitoring and Review8. Leadership, Governance, and Administration9. 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)

Panel’s Collective Findings MQA-01/MQA-02 and the evidence gathered during audit show the above mentioned  is clear, connected and compelling

 MQA-01/MQA-02 and the evidence gathered during audit show the above mentioned  is stated showing the linkages between these elements.

 MQA-01/MQA-02 and the evidence gathered during audit show the above mentioned  is stated and can be understood.

 MQA-01/MQA-02 and the evidence gathered during audit show the above mentioned  to be present but disorganised and confused.

Nothing in the MQA-01/MQA-02 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

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 3Level 2 Less Than Satisfactory – Achievement of at least 70% of benchmarked  standards  at  Attainment  Level  3  in  each  of  the  9 areasLevel 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

LEVELSBenchmarked

At AL 3 (%)

Enhanced

At AL 3 (%)

FIVE Excellent 100 100

FOUR Good 100 50

THREE Satisfactory 100 -

TWO Less Than Satisfactory 70 -

ONE Unsatisfactory < 70 -

No. Name of Item Source of Information

Checked by

Remarks

List of Records Obtained and Verified for Provisional or Full Accreditation

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY AREAArea

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)

NO. AREA CRITERIA ATTAINMENT LEVEL

BENCHMARKED STANDARDS

ENHANCED STANDARDS

2 Curriculum Design and

Delivery

2.1 Curriculum Design and Teaching-Learning Methods

/3 /2

2.2Programme Design and Teaching and Learning Methods

/6 /4

2.3Curriculum Content and Structure

/3 /1

2.4 Management of the Programmes

/6 /3

2.5 Linkages with External Stakeholders

/1 /2

Total /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