1 / 12

Accrediting Doctoral Programs into the 21 st Century

Accrediting Doctoral Programs into the 21 st Century. Dr. Luis G. Pedraja Executive Associate Director MSCHE Tbilisi State University 25-26 June 2005. Assessing Challenges and Strategies for Quality Assurance in Graduate Programs. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW. Background: What is Accreditation?

conan-dickerson
Download Presentation

Accrediting Doctoral Programs into the 21 st Century

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Accrediting Doctoral Programs into the 21st Century Dr. Luis G. Pedraja Executive Associate Director MSCHE Tbilisi State University 25-26 June 2005 Assessing Challenges and Strategies for Quality Assurance in Graduate Programs

  2. PRESENTATION OVERVIEW • Background: What is Accreditation? • The Bologna Process: Implications • Accreditation Criteria • General & Specific Considerations • Assessment Considerations • Challenges & Opportunities • Conclusion & Questions

  3. Background: What is Accreditation? • Quality Assurance & Enhancement • Sustains and strengthens quality and integrity • Seeks a commitment to excellence & improvement • Promotes public confidence • Self-Regulation & Peer Review • Voluntary and/or Government Mandated

  4. The Bologna Process: Implications • Berlin Communiqué: Doctoral Degree as Third Cycle (Level) • Access to Doctoral Studies: Masters Level/ Second Cycle & Specific Access Requirements • Salzburg (2005): Ten Principles • Duration of Degree: 2-3 Years • Assessment; Transparency; Research Sources: “A framework for Qualification for the European Higher Education Area”; Bergen Communiqué.

  5. Accreditation Criteria • Appropriate to institution’s mission and context • Focused study & relevant independent research • Specialized nature & program coherence • Mastery of increasingly difficult subject matter • Differentiates between degree levels • Curricula provide for development of research and independent thinking skills at advanced level • Faculty with appropriate credentials • Assessment of student learning outcomes & improvements made based on assessment Source: Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education (MSCHE)

  6. General & Specific Considerations • Does It Fit the Institution’s Mission & Context? • Institutional commitment to the field & program • Adequate Funding & Support • Are There Adequate Resources? • Access to information (libraries; Internet; etc.) • Research capabilities (equipment, funds, etc.) • Qualified faculty (Ph.D.s; field of specialization; experience) • What Are the Program Goals? • Develop researchers, scholars, teachers, peers, and/or independent thinkers

  7. General & Specific Considerations • What Are Some Desired Skills? • comprehensive knowledge base of subject & applicable research methodology/techniques • able to contribute to field through research, publications & development of new skills or processes • ability to effectively communicate subject matter to specialist/non-specialist and instruct others • Skilled in critical thinking, analysis, evaluation, problem solving, self-reflection, and independent thinking Adapted from Jenny Moon, “Linking Levels, Learning Outcomes and Assessment,” Exeter University.

  8. Assessment Considerations • Depend on Goals and Desired Skills/Outcomes • Direct & Indirect Measures (Do they reflect desired outcomes?): • Comprehensive exams, dissertation/ thesis • Presentations, symposia, and/or dissertation defense • Supervised teaching & research • Benchmarks and data comparison with others • Marketability of students (Are they being hired?) • Long term: promotions & contributions to field by graduates • Indirect Measures: evaluations, focus groups, etc.

  9. Challenges & Opportunities • Adequate Peer Review: • Not enough qualified peers at doctoral level for effective review in some areas of study and geographical regions • Availability of reviewers • Cost and travel concerns • Cultural & Political Considerations: • Language and cultural differences • Academic freedom & censorship • Political instability & government support

  10. Challenges & Opportunities • Resources & Comparability: • Available resources can vary between regions, institutions, and programs • Intensity and rigor of program are difficult to assess • Pedagogical Training: • Doctoral students need training in pedagogy & supervised teaching opportunity to be effective instructors (often absent in programs) • Globalization: • Market demands & ease of communication

  11. Conclusions • Does one model fit all? • Differences between academic & professional degrees • Need to account for differences between disciplines (technical, scientific, social sciences, humanities, etc) • Importance of cultural contexts (cultural differences can contribute new insights, perspectives, etc) • Non-traditional models should not be dismissed • Continued dialogue enriches the process & assures success

  12. Resources • Resources Available on Internet: • Middle States Commission on Higher Education Publications (U.S.A.): www.msche.org • Bologna Process: • www.bologna-bergen2005.no/ • www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/index.htm • Contact Information: • Dr. Luis G. Pedraja: lpedraja@msche.org

More Related