OVPAA QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

OVPAA Report Form 16.0

End of Term Report (Feb 2011-Feb 2017)

OVPAA In-house Programs

OVPAA (CHED-UP Master Class Video Project); of 15 Version 4; 2017 Jan 31

1. Office: OVPAA

2. Program: QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

3. Official involved: ALYSSA PELEO-ALAMPAY, Ph.D., AVPAA (Curriculum)

4. Staff involved: Rosette Odulio Untalan

5. Program Development Associate(s): N/A

6. Special Committee(s): QA AD HOC COMMITTEE

Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay, Asst. Vice President for Academic Affairs, Chair Dr. Rhodora Azanza, Asst. Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Nina Cadiz, UP Los Baños Dr. Monet Loquias, UP Manila Dr. Aura Matias, UP Diliman Dr. Philip Padilla, UP Visayas Dr. Irene Villasenor, UP Diliman

UP SYSTEM QA COMMITTEE (see ANNEX D)

7. Office Location: 3rd Floor, Quezon Hall, UP Diliman

8. Period Covered by this Report: 2015 - present

9. Brief background, history (antecedents)

An internal assessment instrument was first developed in the University of the Philippines System

during the term of President Francisco Nemenzo in 2000. This was called the Academic Assessment

System (AAS), which was a common standard for evaluating degree-granting units. This instrument

has been renamed and redeveloped as the Internal Academic Assessment and Development

System (iAADS) in 2011, during President Alfredo Pascual’s (PAEP) term. The iAADS has an online

format for ease of submission and archiving.

During the term of PAEP, the need for a quality assurance system was embedded in the UP

Strategic Plan of 2011-2017 (ANNEX A: THE UP STRATEGIC PLAN 2011-2017). The UP System

started engaging more in the ASEAN University Network Quality Assurance (AUN-QA) of which UP

is a member university. UP was represented in all of the Chief Quality Officers’ Meetings of the

AUN. During PAEP’s term, the University supported the AUN-QA Program Assessments of five

academic degree programs in UP Diliman (B.S. Civil Engineering and B.S. Statistics) and UP Los





Baños (B.S. Biology, B.S. Development Communication and B.S. Agricultural and Biosystems

Engineering). There are two more programs from UPLB (B.S. Agriculture and B.S. Forestry that

underwent AUN-QA assessment in January 2017. Assessments of 4 programs of UPD and 1 of UPM

are also in the pipeline. A total of 12 faculty members were sent out for AUN-QA Tier 1 and Tier 2

assessor training as well as 2 for ASEAN-QA training. PAEP also appointed an AdHoc Committee on

Quality Assurance in 2015 to propose steps towards the formalization of QA structure in the UP

System.

10. About this program: max 200 words

A. Concept and Rationale:

In order to maintain and improve the quality of education, the institution of higher learning

needs to have a quality assurance system. Once this is in place, the institution and its

individuals can use quality practices to further enhance the quality of student learning as well

as its credibility and prestige and even influence. This can lead to stronger stakeholder support

for the university. The focus on quality and quality assurance can result to more systematic

processes that can result to more systematic processes, division of tasks and internal

transparency of processes that can redound to an increase in motivation, morale and

productivity of the staff and faculty.

A quality assurance system in the university emphasizes self-evaluation so that each academic

program is cognizant of its strengths and areas for improvement that can be used for strategic

planning and opportunity mapping. Self-evaluation through internal and external assessment

allows the programs and the university to cope with the changing climate of higher education

and to keep abreast with challenges of relevance especially for UP, the national university.

Quality assurance can be a means by which a university, strongly supported by public funds, can

ensure the continuous improvement of the student experience and show accountability to the

state and the people (Niedermeier, 2015).

B. BOR-approvals, if any (attach copy from UP Gazette as Annex): BOR meeting and date

C. Link in the OVPAA website– no link

11. Funding Special Projects – Quality Assurance

12. Guidelines

13. Forms: N/A

14. Accomplishments 1: (ANNEX B: ACTIVITIES OF THE COMMITTEE)





15. Accomplishments 2: Progress/Outputs: (ANNEX C: RECOMMENDATIONS and ANNEX D: CONSTITUTION OF UP SYSTEM QA COMMITTEE)

16. Evaluation / Monitoring Feedback:

17. Flowchart (Swimlane format)

18. Charts, if any: Use bar graph for trends and pie charts for distribution. N/A

19. Events hosted:

20. OVPAA Web link: no link

21. Pictures with captions: (ANNEX E: PHOTOS)

22. Prepared by: Name:Rosette Odulio Untalan Designation: Program Assistant





ANNEX A

THE U.P. STRATEGIC PLAN 2011-2017 (excerpt)

The UP Strategic Plan 2011-2017 is the product of a series of workshops and consultations that set the stepping stones in the University’s path to becoming a great university. Although UP plays a leading role as a higher education institution (HEI) and continues to produce excellent graduates and experts, recent international surveys showed the ranking of UP lagging behind leading HEIs in other countries. To address this situation, UP needs to compete with universities in the international arena by further enhancing its academic programs and operational performance. As UP President Alfredo Pascual said in his investiture speech, “We know that UP can no longer ignore internationalization. We need to find our niche in the world and must improve our international ranking among the world’s universities. We need to embrace accreditation and international benchmarking. We must undertake our own internal academic assessment, and subject our programs to external review by recognized national and international assessment agencies.” Thus, one of the goals of President Pascual’s administration to achieve academic excellence is to provide stronger, more relevant, balanced and internationally benchmarked academic programs. A strategic initiative for this goal is to formalize system-wide quality assurance which aims to raise UP’s international quality standing as a renowned & globally competitive university. The following are the proposed programs and projects to formalize the system-wide quality assurance.

1. Review internal assessment instruments in preparation for system-wide institutional & curricular reforms.

2. Review CHED & leading international accreditation instruments to facilitate UP’s compliance. 3. Prepare accurate data as a tool for assessment & for international ranking. 4. Pursue accreditation for selected programs & centers of excellence. 5. Benchmark with ASEAN, US & European universities to maintain prominence & leadership in the

country & the region. 6. Establish & implement an integrated approach to enhancement of academic programs that is at

par with the best universities in the world.





ANNEX B

ACTIVITIES OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON QUALITY ASSURANCE

A. Committee Meetings Committee meetings were held on the following dates to study and meet the tasks given by the President. The Committee strategized on the best way to introduce quality assurance to the members of the faculty especially the academic administrators.

22 June 2015 22 July 2015 28 August 2015 24 September 2015 23 October 2015 03 December 2015 27 January 2016 15 February 2016 11 March 2016 25 May 2016 8 September 2016

B. Consultative Fora and Orientations in the Different CUs

Date Constituent University Facilitated by

26 October 2015 UP Visayas Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Irene Villaseñor

09 November 2015 UP Diliman Management and Economics Science and Technology

Dr. Aura Matias Dr. Philip Ian Padilla Dr. Irene Villaseñor

10 November 2015 UP Diliman Social Science and Philosophy Arts and Humanities

Dr. Philip Ian Padilla Dr. Irene Villaseñor

11 November 2015 UP Cebu Dr. Monet Loquias Dr. Irene Villaseñor

18-19 November 2015 UPV Tacloban College Dr. Philip Ian Padilla

23 November 2015 UP Manila

Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Monet Loquias Dr. Philip Ian Padilla Dr. Irene Villaseñor

25 November 2015 UP Mindanao Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Nina Cadiz Dr. Irene Villaseñor

27 November 2015 UP Baguio Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Philip Ian Padilla Dr. Irene Villaseñor

08 December 2015 College of Education, UP Diliman Dr. Philip Ian Padilla

10 December 2015 UP Los Baños

Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Nina Cadiz Dr. Aura Matias Dr. Irene Villaseñor

15 January 2016 Institute of Biology, College of Science, UP Diliman

Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay

03 February 2016 UP Open University Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay Dr. Aura Matias





Dr. Philip Ian Padilla Dr. Irene Villaseñor

C. Training Workshops Related to QA (2015-2016)

27-30 January 2015 AUN-QA Tier 1 Assessor Training Workshop

attended by the AdHoc Committee members:

Dr. Aura Matias

Dr. Irene Villaseñor

Dr. Nina Cadiz

Dr. Philip Ian Padilla

Dr. Monet Loquias

Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay

01-04 December 2015 AUN-QA Tier 1 Assessor Training Workshop

attended by Dr. Melflor A. Atienza, UP Manila

Dr. Teodora D. Balangcod, UP Baguio

Dr. Harold M. Monteclaro, UP Visayas

Dr. Aurelia Luzviminda V. Gomez, UP Mindanao

Dr. Serlie B. Jamias, UP Los Baños

21-27 January 2016 AUN-QA Tier 2 Assessor Training Workshop

attended by the AdHoc Committee members

January 2015-March 2016 Training on Internal Quality Assurance (TRAIN IQA) in

Southeast Asia

Attended by Dr. Alyssa Peleo-Alampay





ANNEX C

RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Framework

Quality assurance can be described as the systematic, structured and continuous attention to quality in terms of maintaining and improving quality (AUN-QA Manual for the implementation of the Guidelines, p.20). The UNESCO Regional Report of Asia and the Pacific defines quality assurance in higher education as the systematic management and assessment procedures to monitor performance of the higher education institutions (The Regional Report of Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, 2003b).

President Alfredo E. Pascual’s Strategic Vision included Quality Assurance as one of the priorities explicitly stated in the strategic plan. The rationale behind this is the need for the University to respond to the demand for greater accountability and efficiency with regards to the utilization of public funds considering the finite human and institutional resources. There are increasing requirements of various stakeholders for quality education and training.

Establishing a quality assurance system is a guarantee to various stakeholders, students and employers that undergraduate and post graduate programs are relevant and responsive to the developmental, social, intellectual and economic needs of contemporary societies. It will ensure continuing review of curricula and how these are being implemented, identify current weaknesses and strengths and plan for improvement. Quality assurance is also linked to professional mobility, and a growing number of regional and international integration process.

The proposed QA System includes three components as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Quality Assurance Framework





Internal Quality Assurance pertains to the institutional policies and mechanisms to

ensure that it is fulfilling its own purposes, as well as the standards that apply to higher education in general, or to the profession or discipline in particular. On the other hand, External Quality Assurance is an external body, possibly a QA agency, which assesses the operation of the institution or its programs, to determine whether it is meeting the agreed standards. Educational QA systems may be an accreditation, assessment or audit.

The internal quality assurance instrument will be the iAADS which measures

performance at the academic unit level. Units should also undergo self-assessment of their academic programs using higher education QA frameworks with external reviewers (e.g., AUN-QA, PAASCU, professional accreditation such as ABET/ACBET for Engineering programs based on the Washington Accord, Seoul Accord for IT, Canberra Accord for Architecture, etc.). The latter external assessment constitutes the “plus” in the proposed iAADS+ of the Committee. B. Structure

1.Creation of a QA Committee/Office/Structure

To develop, implement, sustain and improve the level of quality education in the university, the University needs to install a quality assurance system. It is the responsibility of the entire system from top management down to the level of program level. Hence, there is a need to create a QA office and designate QA officers throughout the University’s organization hierarchy. The proposed organizational structure for the QA System is shown in Figure 2.

Figure ____. Proposed QA Structure

The UP System QA Office will be responsible for the overall Quality Assurance of the University. It shall guard the management of goals at all levels and ensure that key users implement and modify processes, procedures and standards. It shall be lead by the UP System QA Officer.





The functions of the QA Office are as follows: 1. Quality Assurance

a. Promotion and Training b. Compliance Monitoring and Control c. Policy recommendations

2. Internal Assessment (iAADS+) a. Systems and Process Review b. Performance Measurement

3. Information Systems Development (eUP) a. Database Management b. Documentation c. Decision-Support Systems

2. Mainstreaming of QA in UP’s Academic Programs Higher education in the ASEAN region and globally is undergoing rapid change. To keep abreast with the various changes in the educational system in the region, quality assurance assessment of degree programs (both undergraduate and graduate) in the University of the Philippines must be a continuing process designed to focus on learning outcomes and lifelong learning. Quality assurance assessment, using the iAADS+, should continue to be the foundation of UP’s curriculum assessment that provides further support to enhance program goals. For program assessment to be successful, it must be an ongoing and continuous process. Each academic unit must look at its programs and its learning outcomes regularly and determine if there are better ways to measure student learning and other program outcomes. The quality assessment instrument should be continuously reviewed and improved to be successful. Critical to this are the assessment of policies and practices. The administrators, starting from the highest position in the UP System, the President, followed by the Vice President for Academic Affairs, Chancellors, Vice Chancellors of Academic Affairs to the Deans and Heads of Units should ensure the quality of the CUs degree programs in search for synergies to support the improvement of quality in education. It is high time that each CU reinforce the use of the One UP Quality Assessment Instrument to ensure excellence in UP’s educational system. The QA Officers will implement the quality assurance system in the University under the leadership of the President (for the System) or the Chancellor (for the CU). The quality assurance instruments (the iAADS+) should be seen as tools necessary for strategic planning at all levels of management of the university but more importantly as important inputs into improvement of teaching and learning, production of creative work and research and public service. It will be the duty of the Quality Officers to inform the faculty and the other stakeholders (students, alumni, employers, and the community) of the value of their inputs into the QA process of the University.

A. Implementation Plan





The following steps are proposed towards the establishment of the UP Quality Assurance System: 1. Creation of QA Office and appointment of QA Officers at all levels

Creation of a new office under the Office of the President headed by a QA officer (Director level).

Each CU should establish its own QA Committee under the Office of the Chancellor with a specific line-item budget for personnel, MOOE, and also tasked to increase QA training of more faculty and staff

2. The QA Office shall set QA goals for the short-term (3 years), medium-term (6 years)

and long-term (10 years). 3. Conduct QA Capacity building workshops per CU. Each CU should widen their pool of

QA trained faculty and staff. 4. Enforce strict compliance to iAADS submission as a basis for unit’s strategic planning,

fund allocation, item requests, faculty development prioritization, benchmarking. Each department, unit, or college should be required to complete iAADs assessment

every three years with the actions points reviewed annually. The iAADS is the minimum requirement for quality assurance of academic units. The units should go for self-evaluation of their academic programs leading to external assessment or accreditation using the AUN-QA criteria, PAASCU or professional accreditation, completing the iAADS+.

The submission of the iAADS+ should be part of the functions of Program Coordinators/Chairs/Directors. The Deans should also be aware of the relative activity levels of the programs/departments/institutes in the College with regard to the core academic functions of teaching, research, and extension through the iAADS.

An internal quality assessment index (iQA index): Excellent 90; Very Satisfactory

80; Satisfactory 60; Unsatisfactory 60 can be assigned to iAADS scores to give the academic unit a better idea of the condition and performance of their academic unit.

iAADs scores would be the basis for the units’ strategic planning, fund allocation for equipment, item requests, faculty study leave prioritizations, benchmarking within the CU, the System, and with comparable universities in ASEAN, Asia, Europe and the US and curricular program institution and revisions.

5. Each CU is encouraged to undergo external assessment and accreditation of their niche

programs (iAADS+). 6. Integrate information systems requirements with eUP. It is also proposed that the

iAADS be reconfigured to include program level QA criteria that can be used for self-assessment reports for AUN-QA, PAASCU, professional accreditation, etc.

7. System Development

The Committee proposes that the iAADS platform be linked with the eUP platform. This will allow the automatic querying of answers to iAADS items from the eUP system (e.g., faculty and student statistics). This feature can be extended for use in external assessment and accreditation reporting. The helpdesk to answer questions and concerns about the iAADS can be integrated and expanded into the eUP system as well.





8. Policies and Guidelines

Each department, unit, or college should be required to complete iAADs assessment every three years with the actions points reviewed annually,

iAADs scores would be the basis for the units’ strategic planning, fund allocation for equipment, item requests, faculty study leave prioritizations, benchmarking within the CU, the System, and with comparable universities in ASEAN, Asia, Europe and the US and curricular program institution and revisions,

Each CU should establish its own QA Committee under the Office of the Chancellor with a specific line-item budget for personnel, MOOE, and also tasked to increase QA training of more faculty and staff,

Each CU should widen their pool of QA trained faculty and staff,

Each CU is encouraged to undergo external assessment and accreditation of their niche programs.

9. Areas for Further Study

Absence of in-house instrument for individual academic programs.

Absence of instrument for non-degree granting research units (UP Manila NIH, UPLB and UPV NIMBB, Sentro ng Wikang Filipino, etc).

Specific requirements of individual colleges cannot be captured in iAADS; e.g., retention GWAs, UPOU low on time graduation rates, etc.

Absence of instrument for international benchmarking

10. Proposed Budget The Committee proposes that the QA budget for the CUs be taken from the Academic Program Initiative funds. At the System level, budgetary considerations include: Personnel Services

1. System QA Officer: (Director level) 2. System QA Staff (SG 14 or 15); at least one

MOOE 1. Office supplies 2. Transportation 3. Trainings/workshops/meetings 4. Travel/Attendance to international meetings 5. Development of information materials 6. Meals for meetings 7. IT Services for integration of iAADS into eUP

Equipment 1. One (1) Desktop computer 2. Two (2) Laptop computers 3. Printer/scanner 4. Furniture: desks, meeting table and chairs





5. LCD projector 6. Phones

ANNEX D





ANNEX E

PHOTOGRAPHS

Photos below were taken during the UPLB QA Forum, 10 December 2017.

OVPAA QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)

Documents

Transcript of OVPAA QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)