Accreditation and Quality Assurance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Accreditation and Quality Assurance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Roundtable Meeting- Bahrain 27-29 October, 2013

Professor Abdullah A. Almusallam Secretary General, NCAAA

• The Saudi Arabian Context
• The NCAAA
• Objectives
• Main Functions
• Principles Underlying the System
• Development Strategy
• Phased QA Implementation
• Procedures, Standards, Materials
• Transition to the new system
• Accreditation Process

Overview

Saudi Arabian Context

• HE providers are Responsible to Several different

ministries

• MOHE
• Technical & Vocational Training Corporation

(TVTC)

• Royal Commission for Jubail and Yanbu (RCJY)
• Etc.
• Rapid growth over the past 7 years
• 8 to 25 public universities
• 5 to 29 private universities and colleges
• 136,723 to 240,470 new enrolments in all Higher

Education Sectors Saudi Arabian Context

Higher Education

• Structural changes
• merger of 102 girls colleges,18 teachers colleges and 50

health colleges and institutes into universities

• Limited and varied experience with QA processes
• Traditional emphasis on rote memory
• Shortages of experienced and qualified faculty
• Expatriate teaching staff from many countries
• broad experience base but diverse QA backgrounds

Saudi Arabian Context

Higher Education

INSTITUNSTION 2003 2010 GROWTH

PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES

8 24 200%

COLLEGES IN PUBLIC UNIV

199 445 124%

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

1 8 700%

PRIVATE COLLEGES

4 21 425%

MEDICAL COLLEGES

7 22 214%

DENTAL COLLEGES

3 17 467%

PHARMACEUTICAL COLLEGES

3 17 467%

HEALTH AND APPLIED MEDICAL SCIENCES

16 56 250%

NURSING

13 100%

ENGINEERING

7 33 371%

SCIENCE

7 38 443%

COMPUTER

3 23 666%

UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS

3 12 300%

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

20 45 164% TOTAL

281 744 165%

*Unpublished National Higher Education Record

Higher Education Profile* Saudi Arabia

Enrollment Growth 2003 – 2010

Unpublished National Higher Education Record

100 200 300 400 500

PUBLIC PRIVATE

2003 2010

UNIVERSITIES COLLEGES

Unpublished National Higher Education Record

UNIVERSITY/COLLEGE GROWTH 2003 - 2010

PROFESSIONAL COLLEGE GROWTH

Unpublished National Higher Education Record

Professional College Growth 2003 – 2010

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Unpublished National Higher Education Record

Community College Growth 2003 – 2010

National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment (NCAAA)

• The Government of SA has recognized the need

to provide a national mechanism to ensure that educational standards are – Equivalent to high international standards. – Consistent throughout the country. – Appropriate for academic, professional and vocational skill requirements, – Appropriate to the particular requirements of Saudi Arabian culture and economic development.

Objectives

• Independent body responsible to the Council of HE
• Responsible for supporting quality improvement,
• Responsible for accreditation of all postsecondary

education except military (public and private, HE and technical training)

• Accreditation of both institutions and programs
• Board of Directors drawn from government,

institutions, and industry

NCAAA

• Establish standards and processes for QA and

accreditation

• Planning, training and support for quality

improvement

• Accrediting institutions
• Accrediting programs
• Provisional accreditation of new institutions and

programs

• Linking and coordination with regional and

international agencies

MAIN FUNCTIONS

• 1. Q relates to all functions of institutions
• 2. Emphasis on Q improvement, not just meeting

minimum standards

• 3. Q assessments based on evidence and verified
• 4. Diversity encouraged
• 5. Stakeholder involvement
• 6. System designed for the KSA context
• 7. Responsibility for Q rests with institutions
• 8. Trust, support and cooperation are essential
• 9. Learning outcome standards consistent for all

institutions

• 10. Improvement requires leadership and widespread

involvement Principles Underlying the System for Accreditation and QA in the KSA

• Staged development over a five year

period.

• Our approach to QA is to draw on good

international practice but insist on developing our own system to meet our

• wn requirements.
• Strong opposition to copying any

particular international system. Development Strategy

• Inexperience in institutions and involvement of

people from many systems has required detailed explanations and standardized requirements for processes and reports

• Development has involved wide consultation

(local and international)

• Development has required extensive training,

trials, and developmental reviews. Development Strategy

Stages of Development

Stage One

Stage 1: Development of procedures, standards and materials. Stage 2: Transitioning to the new system Stage 3: Full Implementation:

Three overlapping stages

Stage 1: Development of procedures, standards and materials.

Stage One

• Key documents

– National Qualifications Framework – Standards for Institutions (and Self Evaluation Scales) – Standards for Programs (and Self Evaluation Scales) – Handbook (three parts) Overview of the system, Internal Processes, External Processes – KPIs, Student Surveys, – Draft Standards (Distance Education, Technical Training) – Draft Learning outcomes and specialized standards for Teacher Education, Engineering, Business, Dentistry, Nursing, Pharmacy, Medicine)

Stage 1: Development of procedures, standards and materials.

Standards

Stage One

In Saudi Arabia Eleven standards in five groups have been identified, relating to broad areas of activity in post secondary institutions.

Quality Standards

Standards

Institutions Programs

• Mission and Objectives
• Governance and Administration
• Management of QA and

Improvement

• Learning and Teaching
• Student Administration and

Support Services

• Learning Resources
• Facilities and Equipment
• Financial Planning and

Management

• Employment Processes
• Research
• Relationships With the

Community

• Mission and Objectives
• Program Administration
• Management of Program QA
• Learning and Teaching
• Student Administration and

Support Services

• Learning Resources
• Facilities and Equipment
• Financial Planning and

Management

• Employment Processes
• Research
• Relationships With the

Community

Levels of Detail in Statements of Standards

• These standards are described with several levels of

detail. – General statements describing expectations for each of the eleven standards. – Sub standards that explain what is expected in each area-for example processes for governance and administration include a number of different components including effective leadership, delegation of responsibility, and learning and teaching has many expectations that need to be considered. – In addition there are many detailed practices that are normally followed in good quality institutions.

Levels of Detail in Statements of Standards (Cont.)

Standard 1. Mission, Goals and Objectives

General statements of the mission: The mission of the institution must clearly and appropriately defines its principal purposes and priorities and be influential in guiding planning and action within the institution. Sub standards that explain what is expected in each area

Main components in this standard:

1.1 Appropriateness of the Mission 1.2 Usefulness of the Mission Statement 1.3 Development and Review of the Mission 1.4 Use Made of the Mission 1.5 Relationship Between Mission, Goals and Objectives

Levels of Detail in Statements of Standards (Cont.)

Standard 1. Mission, Goals and Objectives

Good practices that are normally followed in good Q institutions

1.3 Development and Review of the Mission

The mission statement must be developed through consultative processes and formally adopted and periodically reviewed.

To satisfy this requirement:

1.3.1 The mission should be defined in consultation with and with the support of major stakeholders in the institution and its community. 1.3.2 The mission should be formally approved by the governing body

• f the institution.

1.3.3 The mission should be periodically reviewed and reaffirmed or amended as appropriate in the light of changing circumstances. 1.3.4 Stakeholders should be kept informed about the mission and any changes in it.

Self-evaluation rating scales

Self Evaluation Scales

• In an experienced QA system most of these

practices are known and understood (and generally followed) In a new system with widely varying levels of understanding that cannot be assumed and the system must build in reminder and prompts.

• To address this issue an alternative presentation
• f the standards are presented as self evaluation

scales.

Stage One

• Institutions (or groups within them) indicate

whether these practices are followed, and if they are, how well they are done.

• The templates then call for

– an indication of priorities for improvement, – with space for comment by an independent person.

Form of Presentation of Standards

For Example

Is this true? Y/ No/ NA

 Faculty are available at sufficient scheduled times for consultation and advice to students  Adequate tutorial assistance is provided to ensure understanding and ability to apply learning  Systems are in place within each program for monitoring and coordinating student workload.  The progress of individual students is monitored and assistance and/or counselling provided to those facing difficulties.  Year to year progression rates and program completion rates are monitored, and analysed to identify any categories of students who may be having difficulty.  Progression and completion rates are evaluated by reference to appropriate benchmarks and action taken when problems are identified.

4.2 Educational Assistance for Students Standard 4. Learning and Teaching

How Well is it Done?

32

For Example

• Reference material to support individual and self directed study is

available and accessible.

• Adequate facilities are available for private study with access to

computer terminals and other necessary equipment.

Overall Assessment Comment____________________________________________

_____________________________________________ Priorities for improvement________________________ _____________________________________________ Independent opinion Comment______________________________________ _____________________________________________

Stage One

The scales are designed for five point ratings. Numbers 1 to 5 could be used, but a starring system is preferred—range of one to five stars.

• Improvement Required (1-2 Stars)

– One star--practice not followed, Q very poor – Two stars--practice sometimes followed, Q weak or not systematically assessed. Using the Rating Scales

Stage One

Acceptable Performance (3 Stars) –Three stars--practice usually followed, quality acceptable but substantial room for improvement.

Using Stars for Evaluations

Stage One

High Quality Performance ( 4 and 5 Stars)

• Four Stars
• The practice is followed consistently.
• Indicators of Q of performance are established

and suggest high Q but with still some room for improvement.

• Plans for this improvement have been developed

and are being implemented, and

• progress is regularly monitored and reported on.

Using Stars for Evaluations

Stage One

High Quality Performance (4 and 5 Stars)

• Five Stars: The practice is followed

consistently and at a very high standard, with

• Direct evidence or independent assessments

indicating superior Q in relation to other comparable institutions.

• Despite clear evidence of high standards of

performance plans for further improvement exist with realistic strategies and timelines established. Using Stars for Evaluations

Stage 2 Transition to the new system

Stage One

• Training and preparation,
• Training Programs (over 200 programs,

more than 11,000 participants)

• National symposiums and Conferences
• Descriptive brochures
• International visits
• Pilot reviews (two institutions and 6

programs)

• Developmental reviews

Stage 2: Transition to the new system

Pilot reviews

Stage One

The pilot project was planned to:

• Try out the proposed processes and materials

for self studies and external reviews in KSA institutions;

• Provide experience with the use of the

documents and processes;

• Identify practical issues and problems faced in

institutions, and ways of dealing with them;

Objectives of Pilot Project

Stage One

• Identify any additional explanatory materials

that may be needed to assist with general implementation;

• Help identify matters that need to be included

in the planned training processes relating to internal QA processes and external reviews;

• Trial the external review procedures and

templates, and identify any additional briefing material that may be required for international reviewers.

Objectives of Pilot Project

Developmental Reviews

Stage One

• Provide experience with the procedures for

accreditation of institutions and programs

• Identify matters that will need to be

addressed in preparation for actual accreditation assessments Developmental Reviews

Developmental Reviews

2010-2011

Institutional Reviews Program Reviews

Public

4 34

Private

1 5

Total

5 39

Developmental Reviews

2011-2013

Institutional Reviews Program Reviews

Public

8 51

Private Total

8 51

Developmental Reviews

Fields of Study

2010-2011 2011-2013

Health Professions

10 11

Arts/Sciences and Technology

15 17

Business Management

8 5

Liberal Arts/Language/Ed ucation

6 18 Total 39 51

Stage 3 Full Implementation

Implementation of Accreditation Processes

• Eligibility Review (Assessment of Eligibility

Compliance)

• Institution/Program Self-Study
• Onsite Visit and Report (External Review Panel
• f international peer experts)
• Due Process ( Check for factual

errors/observations)

Stage 3

Stage 3

Implementation of Accreditation Processes

• Response to Recommendations
• Accreditation Review Committee

(Consistency Check)

• Accreditation Decision
• Periodic Institutional/Program Reporting
• Re-accreditation on a seven year cycle,
• Periodic reviews of the system of QA and Accreditation

Accreditation Review Committee

The Charge to the Committee:

“Provide advice and comments on whether

the judgement of standards applied in making recommendation for accreditation are consistent with those of other comparable reviews” Accreditation Review Committee

Purpose of the Accreditation Review Committee

• To provide a consultative forum on the

reports of the external review panels referred to it by the SG.

• To provide the SG confidential advice and

comments on whether the judgment of standards applied in making recommendations for accreditation are consistent with those of other comparable reviews.

Accreditation Review Committee

Purpose of the Accreditation Review Committee

• To keep under review, consistency and

continuity with previous Committee reports to the SG.

• To consider and provide advice on
• ther matters referred to the

Committee by the SG.

Accreditation Review Committee

• 1. Mr. Peter Williams, Chair
• 2. Dr. Ian Allen
• 3. Dr. Steven Crow
• 4. Dr. David Wolf
• 5. Mr. Denis McGrath
• 6. Dr. Hamad M. H. Al-Sheikh
• 7. Professor M. A. Ghabban
• 8. Professor Talal A. Al Malki
• 9. Dr. Saeed M. Alamoudi

December 5, 2011

Members

Accreditation Review Committee

Accreditation Decision

Accreditation Decision

The NCAAA considers the

• recommendations of the external review

panel

• findings of the Accreditation Review

Committee, and

• response of the institution to the

recommendations and makes a decision on the accreditation status.

Recommendation on Accreditation

• Full Accreditation

institution or program has successfully demonstrated, through internal and external evaluation that it is in full or substantial compliance with all NCAAA Standards for Accreditation and Quality Assurance

• Conditional Accreditation

institution or program has successfully demonstrated that it substantially meets the eleven accreditation standards, but there are some weaknesses that the Review Panel believes are sufficiently serious to require correction before full accreditation is granted

• Denial of Accreditation.

institution or program is not in compliance with the NCAAA Standards for Accreditation and Quality Assurance. If accreditation is denied, reconsideration would normally not be accepted for at least two years

Accreditation Reviews

Accreditation Reviews

2010-2011 Cycle

Institutional Reviews Program Reviews

Public

2 1

Private

5 22

Total

7 23

Accreditation Reviews

2010-2011 Cycle

Health Professions

8

Arts/Sciences and Technology

5

Business Management

8

Liberal Arts/Language/Education

2 Total 23

Accreditation Reports

Institutions Programs

Public

2 1

Private

5 22

Total

7 23

Fields of Study

Health Professions

8

Arts/Sciences and Technology

5

Business Management

8

Liberal Arts Language Education

2

“One of our major objectives is to support the institutions and programs in achieving recognition for having met or exceeded international standards – in all areas of their activities, but most importantly, in the quality of student learning outcomes.”

Conclusion

Thank You !