1 / 20

SESSION 2 Evaluation Instrument for Assessment of programme accreditation

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)

lerato
Download Presentation

SESSION 2 Evaluation Instrument for Assessment of programme accreditation

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. SESSION 2Evaluation Instrument for Assessment of programme accreditation

  2. 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

  3. 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 Objectives of the SESSION

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. THE NINE AREAS OF EVALUATION BASED ON STANDARDS IN COPPA Vision, Mission, Educational Goals and Learning Outcomes Curriculum Design and Delivery Assessment of Students Student Selection and Support Services Academic Staff Educational Resources Programme Monitoring and Review Leadership, Governance, and Administration Continual Quality Improvement

  7. …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.

  8. …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 cannotbe followed by similaror higherratings of related enhanced standards. • The attainment levels (AL1 to AL5) for benchmark standards and the enhanced standards within an area of sub-area are connectedand therefore, must be consistent.

  9. EVALUATION INSTRUMENT (Example)

  10. EXCEL-based Scoring Instrument

  11. EXCEL-based Scoring Instrument

  12. Summary of Rating (Benchmarked)

  13. Summary of Rating (Enhanced)

  14. 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 3 Level 2 Less Than Satisfactory – Achievement of at least 70% of benchmarked standards at Attainment Level 3 in each of the 9 areas Level 1 Unsatisfactory – Achievement of less than 70% of benchmarked standards at attainment Level 3 in each of the 9 areas

  15. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DECISIONS OVERALL PROGRAMME PERFORMANCE

  16. List of Records Obtained and Verified for Provisional or Full Accreditation

  17. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY AREA

  18. SUMMARY OF ATTAINMENT LEVEL BY AREAS OF EVALUATION(e.g: Area 2)

  19. Note : Area 2 • Total number of benchmark standards – 19 • Total number of enhanced standards - 11 • Scores at benchmark standards at attainment level is based on number of standards achieved at Level 3 in each sub-area • 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.

  20. End of Session 2

More Related