National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment

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 response—Action 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 study—distribute detailed work across a number of sub-committees (subject to coordination and oversight by steering committee and leaders). • For program self studies—Must 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 study—individual 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 Commission’s KPIs are not intended to cover everything. (Note: At this stage it is possible that data may not be available for some of the Commission’s 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 involvement—eg. 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.