• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Demonstrate the ability to perform work effectively in multidisciplinary teams

Dalam dokumen T3_Annual Program Report_10_6_2017 (Halaman 39-53)

3. Passing Rates

4.2 Demonstrate the ability to perform work effectively in multidisciplinary teams

NQF Learning Domain Communication, Information Technology, Numerical

KPI Target Benchmark 90%

KPI Actual Benchmark 81%

Last year’s Benchmark (Internal Benchmarks) 80%

New Target Benchmark 85%

Analysis: (List strengths and recommendations)

This learning outcome has not achieved the current target benchmark. A new target benchmark is lowered to be 85% for this outcome.

Page 39 4. Orientation programs for new teaching staff

Orientation programs provided? Yes No If offered how many participated?

a. Brief Description

The orientation week aims to introduce the new faculty members with university regulations and rules.

A booklet of these regulations contains the following:

• Guide to EDUGATE system

• Guide to Blackboard

• Workshop on Course file and Method of assessment for new teaching staff

• Uniform Rules for Scientific Research

• The rules of the faculty members

b. List recommendations for improvement by teaching staff.

For improvement of orientation week process, the faculty members recommend the following:

• The orientation booklet contents should be in the English language as some materials were downloaded from the university website are the Arabic language.

c. If orientation programs were not provided, give reasons.

√ 2

Page 40 5. Professional Development Activities for Faculty, Teaching and Other Staff

a. Activities Provided

How many Participated Teaching

Staff

Other Staff

Training courses in academic guidance

5

Training courses in quality

4

Training courses in Blackboard- and Collaborate learning

3

Site visits to the field 5

b. Summary analysis on usefulness of activities based on participant’s evaluations or other evaluation methods.

• Site visits were conducted by teaching staff to help students understood Civil Engineering problems.

• Some students participated in gathering data and information for some funded projects, they worked under the supervision of teaching staff members.

• The culture of quality assurance among the staff has been wildly increased upon their participation in the training course provided by the Quality Assurance and Developing Skills in the Jouf University.

Page 41 H. Independent Opinion on Quality of the Program (e.g. head of another similar department/program offering comment on evidence received and conclusions reached).

1. Matters Raised by Evaluator Giving Opinion Comments by Program Coordinator Strengths:

• Advisory committee has been formed from the Civil Engineering community will

improve the process of reviewing the program.

• Mission is aligned with college and

university missions. Objectives and goals are mapped to program learning outcomes.

• Program learning outcomes are consistent with the Civil Engineering (CE) profession.

• Four domains are considered which is realistic for the CE programs.

• The mentioned teaching strategies and the assessment methods are the most common approaches in CE programs.

• The attainment of PLO can be measured from suggested teaching strategies and assessment methods.

• Academic counselling to monitor the students’ performances are available online.

In the case of student appeals, a clear process can be followed.

• Direct assessment of PLOs through the CLOs and indirect assessment through student surveys are suitable to quantify the overall assessment of the program.

Recommendations:

• The outcomes of the courses were mapped to program learning outcomes. Only CE

courses should appear in the matrix. It is better to see the three levels (I, P, A) of program outcomes covered in the CE courses.

• Some teaching areas that include complex numbers and programming have to be emphasized in some courses.

• Textbooks in course files have to be updated (latest version not more than 5 years).

• In the next academic year, we will make sure that Program matrix will cover the engineering

programs only by the three levels (I, P, & A) and we will also correct this for this year program a matrix as well.

• In the next academic year, we will make sure that the complex numbers and programming to be emphasized in some courses.

• Textbook in the course files will be updated

Page 42 2. Implications for Planning for the Program

• Course specification will be updated and approved by the department council.

• Mapping of Course learning outcomes to the Program learning outcomes will be reviewed

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 43 Program KPI and Assessment Table

KPI # KPI

KPI Target Benchmark

KPI Actual Benchmark

KPI Internal Benchmark

KPI External Benchmark

KPI Analysis

KPI New Target Benchma

rk KPI-P-

01

Percentage of achieved indicators of the program operational plan objectives (Percentage of performance indicators of the operational plan objectives of the program that achieved the targeted annual level to the total number of indicators targeted for these objectives in the same year)

--- --- --- In progress ---

KPI-P- 02

Students' Evaluation of quality of learning experience in the program

(Average of overall rating of final year students for the quality of learning experience in the program on a five-point scale in an annual survey)

4.15 4.04 4.13 In progress

The questionnaire results show that actual KPI is 4.04, which means that the grade of satisfaction is

"High". But the actual KPI did not achieve the target KPI. The new target KPI will be (4.15) for the next academic year.

4.15

KPI-P- 03

Students' evaluation of the quality of the courses

(Average students overall rating for the quality of courses on a five-point scale in an annual survey)

4.2 4.11 4.14 In progress

The questionnaire results show that actual KPI is 4.11, which means that the grade of satisfaction is

"High". But the actual KPI did not achieve the target KPI. The new target KPI is

4.2

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 44 proposed (4.2) for the next academic year.

KPI-P- 04

Completion rate

(Proportion of undergraduate students who completed the program in minimum time in each cohort)

70% 39% 66% In progress

It was recommended to activate the academic guidance, to find out the reasons of delay in study and try to find solutions

70%

KPI-P- 05

First-year students retention rate

(Percentage of first-year undergraduate students who continue at the program the next year to the total number of first- year students in the same year)

35% 92.5% 32% In progress

The actual KPI achieves the target KPI. The new target KPI is proposed (96%) for the next academic year.

96%

KPI-P- 06

Students' performance in the professional and/or national examinations

(Percentage of students or graduates who were successful in the professional and / or national examinations, or their score average and median (if any)

--- --- --- In progress --- ---

KPI-P- 07

Graduates’ employability and enrolment in postgraduate programs

(Percentage of graduates from the program who within a year of graduation were:

a. employed

b. enrolled in postgraduate programs during the first year of their graduation to the total

30% 26% --- In progress

It is recommended to held more discussions with employers to improve weak points in our graduate. In addition, still there are no enrollment in postgraduate programs as it is not activated yet.

30%

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 45 number of graduates in the same

year)

KPI-P- 08

Average number of students in the class

(Average number of students per class in each teaching

session/activity: lecture, small group, tutorial, laboratory or clinical session)

15 12.60 18 In progress

The current student average number is

acceptable. The new target KPI is proposed (4.6) for the next academic year.

12

KPI-P-

09 Employers' evaluation of the program graduates proficiency (Average of overall rating of employers for the proficiency of the program graduates on a five- point scale in an annual survey)

4.5 4.5 4.1 In progress

The questionnaire results show that actual KPI is 4.5, which means that the grade of satisfaction is

"High". The actual KPI achieves the target KPI.

The new target KPI is proposed (4.6) for the next academic year.

4.6

KPI-P-

10 Students' satisfaction with the offered services

(Average of students’ satisfaction rate with the various services offered by the program

(restaurants, transportation, sports facilities, academic advising, ...) on a five-point scale in an annual survey)

4.1 4.1 4.02 In progress

The questionnaire results show that actual KPI is 4.1, which means that the grade of satisfaction is

"High". The actual KPI achieves the target KPI.

The new target KPI is proposed (4.2) for the next academic year.

4.2

KPI-P- 11

Ratio of students to teaching staff

(Ratio of the total number of students to the total number of full-time and full-time equivalent

10:1 12:1 12:1 In progress

The current ratio is not acceptable and a

recommendation will be made to the Contracting Committee to hire new

10:1

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 46

teaching staff in the program) teaching staff.

KPI-P- 12

Percentage of teaching staff distribution

(Percentage of teaching staff distribution based on:

c. Academic Ranking):

Associate prof.

Assistant prof.

20%

80%

0%

100%

0%

100% In progress

It is recommended to hire Associate professors

20%

80%

KPI-P- 13

Proportion of teaching staff leaving the program

(Proportion of teaching staff leaving the program annually for reasons other than age retirement to the total number of teaching staff.)

5% 0% 23% In progress

Renewal of the college staff is done annually based on academic evaluation

0%

KPI-P- 14

Percentage of publications of faculty members

(Percentage of full-time faculty members who published at least one research during the year to total faculty members in the program)

50% 72.7% 46% In progress

The actual KPI achieves the target KPI. The new target KPI is proposed (74%) for the next academic year.

74%

KPI-P- 15

Rate of published research per faculty member

(The average number of refereed and/or published research per each faculty member during the year (total number of refereed and/or published research to the total number of full-time or equivalent faculty members during the year)

0.90 1.27 0.85 In progress

The actual KPI achieves the target KPI. The new target KPI is proposed (1.30) for the next academic year.

1.30

KPI-P- 16

Citations rate in refereed

journals per faculty member 10 12.64 8.54 In progress The actual KPI achieves

the target KPI. The new 14.0

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 47 (The average number of citations

in refereed journals from published research per faculty member in the program (total number of citations in refereed journals from published research for full-time or equivalent faculty members to the total research published)

target KPI is proposed (14.0) for the next academic year.

KPI-P- 17

Satisfaction of beneficiaries with the learning resources

(Average of beneficiaries’

satisfaction rate with the adequacy and diversity of learning resources (references, journals, databases…

etc.) on a five-point scale in an annual survey.)

4.1 4.15 4.06 In progress

The questionnaire results show that actual KPI is 4.13, which means that the grade of satisfaction is

"High". The actual KPI achieves the target KPI.

The new target KPI is proposed (4.2) for the next academic year.

4.2

Whole Program Analysis of KPIs and Benchmarks: (list strengths and recommendations) Strengths:

▪ Scientific publications are increased compared to the previous year.

▪ Proportion of teaching staff leaving the program is zero.

▪ Student satisfaction with learning resources and services is good.

Recommendations

▪ Completion rate is low, so academic guidance should put an effective plan to study this point.

▪ Average number of students in the class should be decreased by scheduling committee.

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 48 NOTE The following definitions are provided to guide the completion of the above table for Program KPI and Assessment.

KPI refers to the key performance indicators the program used in its SSRP. This includes both the NCAAA suggested KPIs chose and all additional KPIs determined by the program (including 50% of the NCAAA suggested KPIs and all others).

Target Benchmark refers to the anticipated or desired outcome (goal or aim) for each KPI.

Actual Benchmark refers to the actual outcome determined when the KPI is measured or calculated.

Internal Benchmarks refer to comparable benchmarks (actual findings) from inside the program (like data results from previous years or data results from other departments within the same college).

External Benchmarks refer to comparable benchmarks (actual findings) from similar programs that are outside the program (like from similar programs that are national or international).

KPI Analysis refers to a comparison and contrast of the benchmarks to determine strengths and recommendations for improvement.

New Target Benchmark refers to the establishment of a new anticipated or desired outcome for the KPI that is based on the KPI analysis.

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 49 Program Action Plan Table

Directions: Based on the “Analysis of KPIs and Benchmarks” provided in the above Program KPI and Assessment Table, list the recommendations identified and proceed to establish a continuous improvement action plan.

No. Recommendations Actions Assessment Mechanism

or Criteria

Responsible Person

Start Date

Completion Date 1

The recruitment of new teaching staff for the new academic year

Advertising in different web site pages for an available academic position

Graduated from high ranked university

University

Dec 2020 Sept 2021

2

Reviewing the program learning outcome, the teaching strategy and the assessment methods

Reviewing the program learning outcomes, the teaching strategy and the assessment methods

Quality committee and department

August.

2020 Sept. 2020

3

It is recommended to publish research papers from the outcomes of graduation projects

Encouraging the project supervisor for publishing research papers from the outcomes of student graduation projects

Number of published papers in international journals and conferences

Project supervisor

Sept 2020 May 2021

4

It is recommended to select the graduation projects based on the community problems

All faculty are required to submit proposals for a graduation project at the beginning of each academic semester. Then the

department council decided which projects related to community problems

Stakeholders survey Project supervisor and department

Sept 2020 Jan 2021

5

Organizing workshop for the new faculty regarding the measurement of

New faulty of the Civil Engineering department will participate in the university workshops

Increasing the number of faculty members participated in the university workshops

The quality committee in the

CE program Sept 2020 Oct 2020

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 50

learning outcomes;

assessment methods and course portfolio

6

It is recommended to hold the first meeting of the advisory committee for the program

The college and department will invite the members of the program advisory committee for the first meeting

The feedback of the advisory committee on the annual program report

College and

Department Sept. 2020 Oct 2020 Action Plan Analysis (List the strengths and recommendations for improvement of the Program Action Plan).

The establishment of industrial advisory Committee for the program

Annual Program Report, Ramadan 1438H, June 2017. Page 51 I. Action Plan Progress Report

1. Progress on Implementation of Previous Year’s Action Plans

Actions Planned

Planned Completion

Date

Person

Responsible Completed If Not Complete, Give

Reasons Proposed action

a. Review of the program educational objectives (PEOs)

Sept. 2019 Department November 2019

b.Organizing some workshop for students to

improve their skills

Sept. 2019 Department

January 2020

c.Reviewing the program learning outcome,

the teaching strategy and the assessment methods

August. 2019 Quality committee and

department

Sept. 2019

d.The recruitment of new teaching staff for

the new academic year

Dec. 2018 University &

College Sept. 2019 e. Updating the program additional text

books for all courses August. 2019

Department and Central

library

Dec. 2019 f. Updating the program laboratories

August. 2017

Laboratories committee

and department

Dec. 2019 g. The civil curriculum is not covering an

additional area of basic science. It is recommended to one more course to cover this area.

December 2019

Department and college

council

January 2020 h. Establishment of industrial advisory

Committee for the program Sept. 2019 College and

Department June 2020

Dalam dokumen T3_Annual Program Report_10_6_2017 (Halaman 39-53)

Dokumen terkait