PROSEDUR DAN STANDAR MUTU ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK (AUN)

Presentasi berjudul: "PROSEDUR DAN STANDAR MUTU ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK (AUN)"— Transcript presentasi:

1 PROSEDUR DAN STANDAR MUTU ASEAN UNIVERSITY NETWORK (AUN)
J. PRAMANA GENTUR SUTAPA KANTOR JAMINAN MUTU UNIVERSITAS GADJAH MADA 2018

2 SUMBER MATERI DAN INSPIRASI
AUN DOCUMENT AUN QA ASSESSMENT IN VIETNAM AUN QA ASSESSMENT IN UGM AUN QA ASSESSMENT IN UI J. Pramana Gentur Sutapa

3 BEBERAPA ALASAN MENGIKUTI AUN ASSESMENT
AUN Bukan akreditasi; tetapi sertifikasi berupa assesment process; untuk mendapatkan feedback posisi Prodi terhadap Standar AUN. AUN – QA disusun mengacu ke standar akreditasi Internasional, disusun oleh pakar-pakar QA ASEAN dimotori oleh NUS Bertujuan untuk meningkatkan/menyamakan kualitas standar Universitas di ASEAN Untuk kemudahan proses creadit earning/credit transfer Anggota AUN dan Prodi yang telah di-asses AUN; mahasiswanya bisa mengikuti program kredit transfer dengan universitas2 anggota AUN Jembatan untuk menuju ke level internasional Kerjasama AUN dikembangkan ke Jepang, China, EU Kesadaran mutu

4 AUN-QA Training Course 2011
AUN believes that a successful regional higher education development cannot be acquired without simultaneous and collective development. As such, AUN is highly determined to expand the AUN-Quality Assurance to non-AUN member universities and institutions. ASEAN University Network – Quality Assurance (AUN-QA) System was initiated since Since its inception, the AUN-QA System has been put into practice within the leading AUN Member Universities. Today, the System has developed and thrived to become a robust quality assurance system. With sophisticated and well-trained human resources, the AUN-QA is gaining international recognition in higher education institutions region-wide. ASEAN University Network strongly believes that a successful regional higher education development cannot be acquired without simultaneous and collective development. As such, AUN is highly determined to expand the AUN-Quality Assurance to non-AUN member universities and institutions. In general, the participants were satisfied with the “Very Good” rating for the overall arrangements, including the length, programme, contents & documents, facilities and meals of the training.

5 STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT MATURE EFFORT ORGANIZED EFFORT INFORMAL EFFORT
NO EFFORT

6 1 2 3 STRATEGIC PLAN(S) QUALITY ASSURANCE Desired End Point Position
PATHS WHICH REPRESENT THE STRATEGIC PLAN OPTIONS Desired End Point Position 1 2 GAP 3 Current Position TIME 17/04/2019 J.P GENTUR SUTAPA

7 AUN Quality Assurance: Development (I) . (Source : Nantana, 2012)
Since 2000, the series of workshop were convened and developed …

8 AUN Quality Assurance: Development (II) . (Source : Nantana, 2012)
Since 2001, the series of workshop were convened and developed … Currently, 32 undergraduate programmes were assessed by AUN Assessors

9 ASSESSMENT IS DONE BY COLLECTING AND MEASURING OR ANALYZING DATA
FORMATIVE REFLECTIVE J.P. GENTUR SUTAPA

10 IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE DEVELOPMENT MODELS
AUN-QA Models Strategic (QA at Institutional Level) Systemic (Internal QA System) Tactical (QA at Programme Level)

11

12 QUALITY QUALITY OF INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM
QUALITY OF PROGRAM

13 AUN QA CRITERIA FOR INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE
POLICY AND PROCEDURE OF IQA MONITORING SYSTEM PERIODIC RIEVEW OF THE CORE ACTIVITIES Q A OF THE STUDENT ASSESMENT QA OF THE STAFF QA OF THE FACILITIES QA OF THE STUDENT SUPPORT SELF ASSESMENT INTERNAL AUDIT INFORMATION SYSTEM PUBLIC INFORMATION QUALITY HANDBOOK

14 QUALITY OF THE PROGRAM

15

16

17 AUN-QA criterias for programme level
1. Expected learning outcomes 2. Programme specification 3. Programme structure and content 4. Teaching and learning strategy 5. Student assessment 6. Academic staff quality 7. Support staff quality 8. Student quality 9. Student advice and support 10. Facilities and infrastructure 11. Quality assurance of teaching and learning process 12. Staff development activities 13. Stakeholders feedback 14. Output 15. Stakeholders satisfaction

18 Reference 2015

19 Sumber: AUN 2016

20 Structure of each criteria (in the manual)
AUN –QA standard: requirements for each criteria to meet the AUN-standard Checklist: assesment/evaluation points Explanation of criteria Diagnostic questions: list of questions that help the team to develop the AUN-SAR and the assessor to find the evidence in meeting w. the criteria Sources of Evidence

21 Structure of the AUN QA Criteria
Sources of Evidences Diagnostic Questions Explanation Checklist Definition of Criteria Titi Savitri Prihatiningsih-BPK FK UGM

22 GRADING 1= NOTHING, no ducument, no plans , no evidence present
2= THIS SUBJECT is in planning stage 3= document available but no clear evidence that they are used 4=document available and evidence that they are used 5=clear evidence on the efficiency of the aspects 6= example of good practices 7= Word class / excellent

23 Assesment of the quality of a programme
1= absolutely inadequate , immediete improvement must be made 2= inadequate , improvement necessery 3= in adequate , bu will minor improvement will make it adequate 4= adequate as expected 5= better than adequate 6= example of good practices 7= Word class / excellent

24 SAR FOR PROGRAMM LEVEL Part 1: Introduction Content page Executive summary Organisation of the self-assessment Brief description of the university, faculty and department Part 2: AUN-QA Criteria Requirements Write-up on how the university, faculty or department addresses the requirements of the AUN-QA criteria (use checklist as a reference) Part 3: Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis Summary of strengths Summary of Weaknesses Completed checklist Improvement plan Part 4: Appendices Glossary Supporting documents and evidences

25 Explanation of SAR Contents

26 SAR Contents

27 AUN-QA Criterion 3 – Checklist
Programme Structure and Content 3.1 The programme content shows a good balance between generic and specialised skills and Knowledge 3.2 The programme reflects the vision and mission of the university 3.3 The contribution made by each course to achieving the learning outcomes is clear 3.4 The programme is coherent and all subjects and courses have been integrated 3.5 The programme shows breadth and depth 3.6 The programme clearly shows the basic courses, intermediate courses, specialised courses and the final project, thesis or dissertation 3.7 The programme content is up-to-date

28

29 Sources of Evidence Programme and module specification
Programme and module specification Course brochure and prospectus or bulletin Skills matrix Stakeholders’ input University and faculty websites Communication media and plans to stakeholders Curriculum review minutes and documents Accreditation and benchmarking reports

30 Diagnostic questions Do the contents reflect the mission and vision of the university? Do the contents of the undergraduate programme reflect the expected outcomes and can they be considered capable of achieving the expected outcomes? Are the courses in the programme clearly related? Is the programme coherent? Has a proper balance been struck between specific and general courses? Is the programme content up-to-date?

31 Why was this programme structure chosen?
Has the educational programme been changed structurally over recent years? If so, why? Do the courses demonstrate growing complexity over the years? Were any requirements specified on the internal coherence of the courses? Who set these requirements? Does the first year of the programme provide sufficient insight into the remaining parts of the programme? Is the connection between basic programme and specialisation correct?

32 SEARCHING OF STRENGTH AND AREAS OF IMPROVMENT
Is the organisation of the various specialised courses satisfactory? Is the relation between basic courses, intermediate courses and specialised courses in the compulsory programme and the optional sections satisfactory? Are bottlenecks experienced within the Programme? What organisational form does the university use (term, semester, modular, problem oriented)? What do those involved think of this? SEARCHING OF STRENGTH AND AREAS OF IMPROVMENT

33 Criteria 1:Expected Learning Outcome (ELO)
Vison, mission Programs Profile ELO at Study Programs level (General) ELO at courses Level (intermediate-detail) ELO of each topics/meeting (very detail)

34 Bloom’s Taxonomy (Revised)
QA at Programme Level

35 3. Programme Structure and Content
Criteria/standard:

36 b. Checklist

37 c. Structured- Curricullum
Course LO Staff quality & infrasructures Student assessmnet methods Teaching methods ELO at Program level

38 BEBERAPA TIPS Selalu tampilkan siklus PDCA dalam setiap kriteria
Apa adanya, tidak ada yang perlu ditutup-tutupi; karena berdasarkan evidence dan visitasi/klarifikasi akan terbaca Meskipun Prodi belum mengikuti standar AUN secara keseluruhan, sebutkan di SAR bahwa setelah membaca kriteria AUN, dalam masa penulisan SAR, Prodi melakukan perbaikan-perbaikan; hal ini akan menjadi pertimbangan penilaian bagi Asesor Tampilkan data dalam bentuk grafik/ table sebanyak mungkin

39 PDCA DAN PRAKTEK KEIZEN
MENGANALISIS SETIAP BAGIAN PROSES SAMPAI DETAIL BAGAIMANA SETIAP BAGIAN PROSES DAPAT DITINGKATKAN MELIHAT BAGAIMANA KARYAWAN, PERALATAN, DAN BAHAN DAPAT DITINGKATKAN MELIHAT CARA MENGHEMAT WAKTU DAN MENGURANGI LIMBAH ( Khususnya Bidang Eksata) 17/04/2019 J.P GENTUR SUTAPA

40 Analysis of Programme Assessment
By Zhou Qi, et al., 2011 (NUS)

41 TANTANGAN DALAM INSTITUSI YANG HARUS DISELESAIKAN DENGAN BAIK

42 APA YANG PERLU DILAKUKAN
SOSIALISASI KE SEGENAP SIVITAS AKADEMIKA PENDAMPINGAN ( Oleh UJM) SIMULASI

43 PURPOSE OF PROGRAM EVALUATION IS NOT TO PROVE BUT TO IMPROVE
THE MOST IMPORTANT PURPOSE OF PROGRAM EVALUATION IS NOT TO PROVE BUT TO IMPROVE (Cited from Daniel L. Stufflebeam)

44 TERIMAKASIH 17/04/2019 J.P GENTUR SUTAPA