American University of Ras Al Khaimah · PDF fileThe American University of Ras Al Khaimah ......

Quality Assurance Manual

American University of

Ras Al Khaimah

Version 3.0

Quality Assurance Manual (v 3.0) of 100

Quality Assurance Manual—(v 3.0) of 100

Executive Summary

The American University of Ras Al Khaimah (AURAK) is committed to providing quality

educational programs that are based on best practices and that are in compliance with

national and international accreditation standards and criteria. AURAK achieves its mission

by continuously ensuring effectiveness of its academic and administrative processes. To this

end, AURAK

1. Specifies the outcomes of all programs, and units,

2. Evaluates the degree to which it achieves those outcomes, and

3. Uses the results of its assessments in planning and budgeting to sustain program

quality and drive continuous development and improvement.

This Quality Assurance Manual (QA Manual) describes the AURAK institutional quality

assurance/institutional effectiveness system that specifies what is to be assessed, who is

responsible, when the assessment will be done, how it is to be carried out, and how results

will be disseminated and used. The QA Manual describes the type of data / evidence to be

collected and analyzed to evaluate effectiveness, the assessment instruments to be used to

collect that data, the ways in which the results will be evaluated and incorporated in

institutional and program improvements, and how the implementation of these

improvements is monitored.

The QA Manual documents the institutional effectiveness (IE) system, which relates

assessment results to short-term and long-term planning and budgeting. The IE system

describes a cycle for all data gathering, and includes the assessment instruments and

methods of analysis. The processes involved in the IE system require full engagement and

participation of all faculty and staff, Administrators, Chairs, Deans, and the Institutional

Effectiveness Office in carrying out assessments, analysis of results and initiating and

monitoring actions to improve the effectiveness of programs and units.

The university is determined to implement the IE system in compliance with the Ministry’s

accreditation standards. The Institutional Effectiveness Office is responsible for the

periodic assessment and revision of the IE system and is supported by adequate staff and

resources to operate effectively.


Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

1. Quality Assurance and Institutional Effectiveness at AURAK ...................................................... 5

1.1 Organization of Institutional Effectiveness Office ........................................................................ 5

1.2 Responsibility of Institutional Effectiveness Office....................................................................... 6

1.3 Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness Office ............................................................................ 7

1.4 Strategic and Operational Planning .............................................................................................. 8

1.5 Overview of the Quality Assurance Manual ............................................................................. 10

2. Assessment & Continuous Improvement of Academic Program .............................................. 11

2.1 Assessment Instruments of an Academic Program .................................................................... 11

2.2 Assessment & Continuous Improvement Process of Academic Programs ............................... 19

3. Assessment & Continuous Improvement of Administrative Units and Services ........................ 32

3.1 Assessment Instruments of Administrative and Support Units .................................................. 32

3.2 Assessment & Continuous Improvement Process for Administrative Units ............................. 35

Appendix A ................................................................................................................................ 38

How to write Student Learning Outcomes ....................................................................................... 39

Course File Check List ..................................................................................................................... 42

Course Survey ................................................................................................................................... 44

Faculty Members Semester Report ............................................................................................. 46

Faculty Members Self-Evaluation ................................................................................................ 47

Laboratory Course Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 49

Classroom Observation Form ........................................................................................................... 51

Senior Exit Survey ............................................................................................................................. 53

Faculty Annual Plan and Evaluation Form ........................................................................................ 56

Course Assessment and Improvement Report (CAIR) ...................................................................... 60

Student Internship Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 65

Alumni Survey ................................................................................................................................... 79

Employer Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 82

Appendix B ................................................................................................................................ 84

Student Satisfaction Survey .............................................................................................................. 85

Faculty & Staff Satisfaction Survey ................................................................................................... 89

Staff Performance Appraisal ............................................................................................................. 93

AURAK Administrators’ Evaluation Report .................................................................................... 96

AURAK Board Self-Evaluation Questionnaire ................................................................................ 99


1. Quality Assurance and Institutional Effectiveness at AURAK

AURAK continuously assess its academic programs and administrative units and processes to

ensure achievements of its goals at all levels. The university is committed to a systemic

continuous improvement process that is both rigorous and incremental, and that allows for

evaluating each stage of program development and initiating changes toward improvement

of programs and administrative units on a continuous basis. The university has an Institutional

Effectiveness Office (IEO) that coordinates AURAK efforts in program and unit assessments

and continuous improvement.

The following principles represent AURAK policy for institutional effectiveness and

continuous improvement:

1. It is understood by all university employees that assessment is not a one-time activity; rather, it is continuously evolving, ongoing, and incremental.

2. The environment of the department/unit is receptive to change, and understands

that deficiencies are considered an opportunity for improvement.

3. Assessment procedures are well-communicated and understood among all

concerned staff in the university.

4. Through assessment, the department/unit seeks to improve its programs

and administrative services against their stated objectives and intended outcomes.

5. Results of the assessment process clearly affect the decision making process.

6. Learning experiences from the achieved results are documented, communicated

and used in improvement plans and processes.

7. Program and unit goals are assessed and evaluated periodically according to

approved procedure.

8. The support required from the university administration is apparent.

9. The link between the assessment for effectiveness and budget allocations is

clearly understood.

10. The Standards of the Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) related

to institutional effectiveness planning and evaluation are taken into consideration

1.1 Organization of Institutional Effectiveness Office

The Institutional Effectiveness Office is an independent unit that reports directly to the President. It is authorized to directly communicate with and collect information from all academic and administrative units of the University.

The IEO has a full time Director and an Associate Director, Program Analyst and Compliance


Officer. They are assisted by a full time administrative assistant. Sufficient fiscal resources

are also made available to the IEO to support its activities and responsibilities.

1.2 Responsibility of Institutional Effectiveness Office

The IEO collects and analyzes data and information for the institution and plays a central

role in the institutional licensure and accreditation processes in providing support to

academic programs undergoing accreditation. IEO serves as the liaison office with the

Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA) at the Ministry of Higher Education and

Scientific Research.

The IEO collects assessment data from all constituencies through:

Course and program assessment (forms and reports)

Internal and external assessments and surveys.

Annual reports of activities of units.

Statistical analyses of student performance.


The IEO integrates data and analysis and is responsible for:

• Producing and analyzing data and reports on students, faculty, staff, and alumni.

• Producing an AURAK annual report.

• Collecting and analyzing data for internal decision-making.

• Guiding the process of identifying educational and administrative outcomes.

• Coordinating assessment activities and annual reports.

• Analyzing the effectiveness in meeting stated outcomes and monitoring the use

the results to improve university programs, services, and facilities.

• Conducting regular and specialized institutional research projects and producing

periodic reports on the activities of the university units, programs, and services.

The IEO coordinates with all academic programs/units at the University. Each program/unit

performs a detailed evaluation of its effectiveness using a variety of assessment tools.

Results of these assessments are used to establish actions intended to improve the

program/unit. Program/unit assessment results and correlated action plans are forwarded

to the IEO on a yearly basis for analysis, thereby allowing for appropriate modifications in

institutional resources / budget allocations and needed services.

Other types of data collected to benchmark the institution, as a whole and as individual

programs and units, against local and international Universities to inform the continuous

improvement process include:

• Admissions statistics and trends, including students’ prior education and test

scores by program.

• Enrollment trends, by program, over each year in the program.

• Graduation trends, by program, gender, GPA, and nationality.

• Status of full- and part-time students, by program, gender, and nationality.

• Status of full- and part-time faculty, by program, rank, gender, and nationality.

• Teaching loads.

1.3 Evaluation of Institutional Effectiveness Office

The effective operation of the IEO is key to the success of overall institutional effectiveness

and quality assurance system. Therefore, it is imperative that the assessment and

continuous improvement processes that are implemented on other University units are also

applied to the IEO activities.


The performance of the IEO staff is annually assessed by the IEO Director, while the

performance of the Director himself is annually assessed by the President.

As in other administrative units, in June of every year, the IEO Director presents the unit

annual report to the President. This report represents a self-assessment of the fulfillment of

the IEO responsibilities. The success of the IEO unit is measured in terms of the evidence-

based effectiveness in operating the institutional effectiveness and continuous improvement

system. This report also allows for outlining the difficulties and concerns encountered

during the academic year, along with recommendations for improved performance. The

report should also identify the changes/follow up actions that are proposed as a result of the

findings of the assessment process.

The IEO annual report and assessment records are reviewed by the “Strategy & Planning

Committee” to ensure the proper implementation of the effectiveness assessment and

evaluation process and provide necessary guidance / recommendations. Recommendations

and agreed actions developed by the Committee are formally documented for

implementation. Progress reports on the implementation of recommended actions and

plans are presented to the Strategy and Planning Committee every three months.

Moreover, the Annual Report of the University is prepared by the IEO in coordination with

the President office. The annual reports of all programs and units feed into this report which

is presented to the Board of Governors. Comments/recommendations made by the Board of

Governors are documented and progress on the implementation of these recommendations

is communicated to the Board by the IEO through the President in every regular Board

meeting.

1.4 Strategic and Operational Planning

Planning at AURAK is coordinated through a Strategy and Planning Committee that is chaired

by the President and includes the Provost, VP Admin Affairs, IEO Director, Deans of

Schools, Dean of Student Affairs, and Heads of administrative units. This committee meets

at least four times a year to carry out the following responsibilities:

Conduct an annual review of AURAK vision, mission, and goals.

Develop an annual strategic assessment by:

o Reviewing significant changes in external and internal environments,

identifying new strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

o Communicating with internal and external stakeholders.

o Monitoring and evaluating progress in fulfilling strategic goals;


o Evaluating the suitability and relevance of the current strategic plan;

o Recommending any necessary changes in the strategic plan.

Provide the Board of Governors with an annual report assessing the progress of the

committee, including the results of its strategic assessment.

Investigate any particular strategic issues, relevant to the strategic plan, directed to

it by the President or the Board of Governors.

The Planning Policy requires an Institutional Strategic Plan that normally covers a five year

period and is updated frequently and Annual Action plans for each unit that are allied with

the budget and project short-term goals and objectives. Within the institutional mission and

vision, the strategic plan develops broad, longer-range institutional goals and the actions

necessary to achieve them based on both internal and external sources of evidence from

data, advisory groups, student and faculty experience, studies, the external community, and

other avenues. In developing the plan, all internal and external factors that generate

opportunities or constraints for AURAK are considered as are the data to assess AURAK’s

current strengths and weaknesses. The strategic planning process is inclusive, with a draft

plan generated by the Strategy and Planning Committee but then gathering widespread campus

discussion before the final version is presented for approval by the Board of Governors.

Within the framework provided by the strategic plan and in line with AURAK’s mission and

vision, a planning group within each unit led by the supervisor of that unit develops an action

plan and budget on an annual basis, incorporating the results of various assessments and

evaluations communicated and documented by the IEO in planning changes and improvements

for the coming year. The calendar for planning and budgeting is linked with the calendar for

evaluation for institutional effectiveness to form a continuous cycle of planning for

improvement. From the action plans and budget requests of individual units, the

University’s budget is built and goals are established against which to measure unit and

institutional effectiveness on an annual basis. At the end of each academic year, an Annual Report of the University is prepared by the IEO

in coordination with the President Office. The annual reports of all programs and units

feed into this report which is presented to the Board of Governors.

Comments/recommendations made by the Board of Governors should be communicated to

all concerned parties. In the same time frame, the budget is finalized by the University

administration and is presented to the Board for approval.

Progress reports on the implementation of recommended actions and plans are presented

to the Strategy and Planning Committee every three months and are documented by the

IEO. Progress reports are considered one of the important inputs for the process of review/

development of the Strategic Plan document. Therefore, all recommendations or


suggestions should be reasonable in nature and achievable within the context of the

institution.

1.5 Overview of the Quality Assurance Manual

In order to achieve its goals, the University has adopted a continuous and systematic

approach to practice institutional effectiveness. The assessment processes require that each

department / program maintain a record of its assessment activities and use the findings as

feedback for quality improvement. The Quality Assurance Manual documents how these

processes are carried out on a continuous cycle of assessment and quality improvement

activities, from planning to outcomes in compliance with the CAA of the Ministry of Higher

Education and Scientific Research in the U.A.E.

The QA Manual has been designed to inform and guide faculty and staff members

concerning the ways in which the IEO assesses academic programs and administrative units.

The sections of this QA Manual meet the requirements of section 2.5 of the Standards and

include all the items listed in stipulation 1B of the Standards. Section 1 includes the

organization, responsibilities, and evaluation of the IEO unit in addition to the strategic and

operational planning processes. The institutional effectiveness system is fully described in

section 2 for academic programs, and in section 3 for administrative units. Each section

specifies assessment instruments, assessment processes, entities responsible for each

assessment, how assessment results are disseminated and reviewed, how they are used for

continuous improvement, and how implementation is monitored. Appendix A includes

assessment instruments for academic programs while Appendix B includes assessment

instruments for administrative units.


2. Assessment & Continuous Improvement of Academic

Program

An outcome assessment in the context of institutional effectiveness is an activity or set of

activities that measure the degree to which a program is meeting its stated goals and

outcomes. Outcomes assessment requires evidence as the foundation to measure the

degree of achievement and to plan for improvement. Effectiveness is demonstrated through

improvements in quality, based upon the analysis of the assessment results. In order for the

university to maintain continuous quality improvement and maintain its accreditation

status, each academic program must demonstrate how well it is achieving its stated goals

and outcomes.

This section describes the AURAK institutional effectiveness system that specifies what is to

be assessed, who is responsible for the assessment, when the assessment will be done, how

it is to be carried out, and how results will be communicated and used. In particular, the first

part of this section describes the assessment instruments to be used to collect data at the

course and program levels, while the second part presents how the results will be evaluated

and incorporated in institutional and program improvements.

As will be clear from the contents of this section, AURAK has an IE system that produces an

analysis of the institution from multiple perspectives with participation of all constituencies.

The processes involved in the IE system require the full engagement and participation of all

faculty, department chairs, administrative directors, and IEO staff in carrying out

assessments, analyzing results, and initiating actions to continuously improve the

effectiveness and quality of programs.

2.1 Assessment Instruments of an Academic Program

Effective assessment is an essential part of the university’s endeavor to continuously

improve its academic programs. These assessment instruments are carried out using various

processes / surveys on two simultaneous tracks: internal and external. The combined results

are analyzed and considered to measure the effectiveness of the program in achieving its

desired goals and outcomes. The results / feedback of these assessments are used to

formulate improvement strategies of the program.

A summary of internal assessment instruments for an academic program, courses and

instructors, and student learning outcomes is provided in Table 2.1, where for each

assessment instrument, the table specifies:


Who is assessing (assessor who is actually completing the assessment), and what is

being assessed.

Who is responsible to organize and carry out the assessment process as well as

collect and analyze the collected data and present the data to decision makers for

actions and follow up (closing the loop). Equally important, also specified in the

table, are the timing and frequency of each assessment instrument.

What are the expected outcome and possible actions derived from each assessment

instrument.

The above three items are provided in the three columns of Table 2.1. Similarly, a summary

of external assessment instruments for the quality of an academic program, its outcomes

and graduates is provided in Table 2.2.

Each academic program is engaged in the process of program quality improvement and

carries out all assessments and reviews in a timely approach, as described in Tables 2.1 and

2.2. Some processes cannot be completed until a program graduates its first cohort or until

the graduates work for a reasonable period to survey the opinions of their employers.

However, other assessments can be carried out from the starting semester of a program.

AURAK involves stakeholders in the assessment and quality improvement process of its

academic programs:

1. Faculty members are involved in the evaluation of their assigned courses and in

initiating plan of actions for course and program improvements. Faculty members

also participate and play an active role in institutional committees concerned with

academic planning.

2. Students evaluate courses, the campus experience, and related service and

administrative units.

3. Each School has an Advisory Council (SAC) that includes representatives from the

industry, academia, government and the private sector, as appropriate. Advisory

Councils meet regularly to evaluate the program and provide helpful input that can

be incorporated in the planning and improvement processes.

4. Employers assess performance of AURAK interns (Internship evaluation) as well as

AURAK graduates (Employer evaluation) that become their employees.

5. Alumni evaluate the effectiveness of academic programs through the rating of their

perceived achievement level of the program outcomes.

6. External reviewers provide a neutral assessment and benchmarking of programs.

External reviewers may be renowned field experts in the program or the visiting

committee of the Commission for Academic Accreditation.


7. The annual report, which includes the progress of each academic program, is reviewed

by the Board of Governors, who also decides on program future plans and

recommendations.

Table 2.1- Internal Assessments Used for each Academic Program

I. Internal Assessments & Reviews

Assessment Instrument

Assessor / Assessed

Responsibility /

Timing or Frequency

Outcome /

Possible Actions

Course Evaluation

Students / Course, Instructor, and achievement of CSLO

Institutional Effectiveness Office /

End of semester (Every course)

Enhance delivery and educational environment & ensure achieving Course Learning Outcomes /

a) Revise delivery methods (including assessment, textbook, etc.)

b) Adjust time allocation to course subjects

c) Update course contents d) Measure contribution to program

SLO Faculty Member Semester Report and Self-Evaluation

Instructor / Own effectiveness in teaching and other activities

Chairs / Every semester

Review performance and provide guidance where needed /

Revise delivery, provide needed support, and guide development of faculty members

Laboratory Course Evaluation Students / Lab and instructor

Institutional Effectiveness Office / Every semester

Ensure labs are adequately equipped and properly staffed to provide students hands-on experimental (practice) learning /

a) Improve linkage with theory

b) Measure contribution to program SLO

Classroom Observation Observation Committee / Instructors

Provost, IEO, Deans / Once a year

Improve instructional effectiveness / Adjust style and class management


Senior Exit Survey Senior (Graduating) Students / Curriculum & faculty, labs & library, campus life and facilities

Institutional Effectiveness Office / Graduation semester

Measure students’ satisfaction with educational and campus experience, services & facilities /

a) Address areas of repeated concern b) Improve services & facilities

Faculty Annual Report / Self Evaluation

Full time faculty / All academic activities

Chairs & Deans / Annually

Ensure faculty progress and development /

a) Teaching and research development b) Recognition/ guidance

for improvement c) Guidance for promotion

and contract continuation

Table 2.2- External Assessments Used for each Academic Program

II. External Assessments & Reviews

Assessment Instrument Assessor / Assessed

Responsibility / Timing (or Frequency)

Outcome / Possible Actions

Internship Evaluation

Worksite Supervisor / Student intern performance

Chairs / End of internship- every student

Assess overall quality of program and student knowledge & skills / improve specific program deficiencies- assess knowledge and soft skills (experiences)

Alumni Survey Every AURAK alumni /

program and campus

experiences

Institutional Effectiveness Office, Student

Affairs /

Measure how well the academic program prepared the graduates to succeed in their careers /

a) Address areas of repeated concern / dissatisfaction

b) Contact / meet alumni to gain more insights

Employer Survey Employer / AURAK Graduates

Institutional Effectiveness Office Two years after graduation

Measure employer satisfaction with graduates performance / abilities

a) Address areas of repeated concern / dissatisfaction

b) Contact / meet employer to gain more insights


School Advisory Councils (SAC) SAC members / program

outcomes, graduate

skills, curriculum focus

areas, research and

Facilities

Deans / Once a year

SAC recommendations to ensure alignment of market expectations and graduates’ knowledge & skills (SLO) /

a) Curriculum revisions b) General Education review c) Opportunities for internships &

students employment

External Program Evaluator Academic

Consultant / All

aspects of a

program

Provost / At least once within

the 3- year cycle

Benchmark program quality and outcomes, guide progress towards success & accreditation /

a) Curriculum revisions b) Resources and facility review c) Recommendations for

improvements

UAE Accreditation Commission Recommendations / CAA/ Program and University

Provost, IEO, Deans / Before offering program &

after graduating first cohort

Compliance with CAA Standards for accreditation/ adopt recommendations and requested program improvements

Forms for assessment instruments in above two tables are provided, where needed,

sequentially in Appendix A.

2.1.1 Internal Assessments

AURAK utilizes a number of internal assessment instruments, which for the most part

provides direct evidence-based results, to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of its

programs, per Table 2.1. These measures include:

1. Student Evaluation of Course and Instructor (Every course / Every semester)

Near the conclusion of every semester, all students enrolled in each section of each

course are asked to complete an anonymous survey to evaluate the quality of

instruction, course delivery, course content, and level of achievement of course

student learning outcomes (CSLO).

The administration of the evaluation follows a prescribed process and the

instructor will not be present during the evaluation and the IEO director is

responsible to organize the schedule and collect the data. Analysis of the data must

compare the outcome for each section with the average outcome within the

program courses and within the university, so faculty members have a reference


point in reviewing and discussing the results and possible actions for

improvement.

A summary report of all evaluation results is prepared by the IEO Director. This

report is presented to the President and Provost who in turn forward it to Deans of

Schools along with recommended actions, if necessary. Individual results from all

courses taught by faculty members are communicated to faculty members

through their Deans and Chairs who discuss these results with faculty members on a

one-to-one basis. Chairs are responsible for documenting results of CSLO for the

purposes of using them in continuous improvement processes.

2. Faculty Member Semester Report (Every semester) The faculty member identifies any challenges facing the delivery of the assigned

courses and may request specific AURAK support to meet these challenges. This

form provides the faculty member with the opportunity to explain efforts, other

than teaching, made / work produced during the semester. The faculty member

semester report is reviewed by the Chair every semester and is included in the

course file for further analysis through the continuous improvement processes.

3. Faculty Member Self-Evaluation (Every semester)

At the conclusion of every semester, every faculty member reflects on his/her

own teaching and other faculty activities by completing a faculty member self-

evaluation form which is included in the instructor assessment for further analysis.

This exercise allows the faculty member to assess the degree of self-satisfaction

with the delivered courses, the achieved outcomes, the teaching strategies, and the

planned changes for continuous improvement process.

3. Laboratory Course Evaluation (Every lab course / Every semester)

Laboratory experiences can be part of a lecture course or a stand-alone course

consisting of lab sessions only. Lab courses are assessed using a form with questions

different from the typical lecture course. Assessing a lab course involves evaluating

the laboratory environment, the experiment set-up, lab supervision, safety

measures, in addition to the instructor’s pedagogy and quality of instruction. The

IEO director is responsible to organize the assessment process and data analysis.

Results are reviewed by the lab instructor and Chair and included in the course file

for further analysis through the continuous improvement processes.

4. Classroom Observation (Every instructor / Once a year)

Once a year, and for every faculty member, a class observation is conducted by an

observation committee consisting of the Provost, IEO Director, and concerned Dean

to evaluate the course delivery and effectiveness and make recommendations for

improvement. The committee monitors the students’ level of interest and

engagement, logical sequence of lecture materials, and pace that accommodates an

average student. Shortly after the class visit the committee summarizes the


observations in a short report that is shared with the visited instructor. The report

aims to advise the instructor of ways to improve delivery of the lecture, as needed,

in a collegial approach. Classroom observation occurs during the first semester for

all new faculty at AURAK.

5. Senior Exit Survey (Every graduating student at end of final semester)

Senior students in their final semester of study complete a senior exit survey

assessing the entire university experience, including the academic rigor of the

major, advising and support services, preparation and developmental courses in

general education, and campus climate and facilities. The survey also allows the

student to rate how well, in his/her opinion, the program SLO’s were achieved.

6. Faculty Annual Report / Self Evaluation (Every academic year)

A comprehensive activity report is prepared annually by every faculty member to

record all teaching, research, administrative and service activities performed during

the academic year. The self-evaluation report allows faculty members to provide

initiatives for their own improvements and development. At the end of the

annual report, the faculty member states the goals to be accomplished and

initiatives to be pursued in next academic year. The Chair and the Dean review

the report and meet with each faculty member to discuss the report and next year’s

plans as well as issues of relevance to the faculty performance.

2.1.2 External Assessments

AURAK utilizes a number of external assessment instruments, where feedback from external

sources supplements the internal assessments regarding the quality of the program and its

graduates. The external assessments are executed less often and are targeted towards

assessing the achievement of the overall program goals and outcomes. AURAK relies on the

external assessment summarized in Table 2.2, and explained sequentially below.

1. Internship Evaluation (at the completion of the internship)

The site supervisor evaluates the performance of the student at the completion

of the internship period. The evaluation is based on demonstrated skills, work

performance reflecting academic and technical preparation, and professional and

interpersonal skills observed during the internship period. Evaluators take into

considerations the proper expectations at the level of the student intern, who has

not yet completed his/her program. The results of these evaluations which are

conducted by the Chairs help in addressing specific areas of concern or deficiency,

and in providing a qualitative assessment of how effective the programs are.

2. Alumni Survey (Second year after graduation)


This assessment tool allows recent alumni to rank the importance of each

program goal and outcome to their current professional position, and evaluate

how well AURAK prepared them to achieve that program goal or outcome. In

cooperation with the Deanship of Student Affairs, The IEO conducts this survey

for alumni two years after graduation. The IEO analyzes survey results collectively

and for each program, and communicates these results on annual basis to Deans

and Chairs.

3. Employer Survey (Second year after graduation)

Employer surveys are conducted to assess the quality of program alumni in

meeting market needs. A survey is will be mailed from the IEO to the direct

supervisors of program alumni at their employment sites. The survey solicits the

supervisor’s evaluation of the alumni’s technical knowledge, and interpersonal

skills, which reflect on the overall quality of the academic program in preparing

graduates to meet market needs and the employer’s expectations. The IEO

conducts this survey at the same time frame of the alumni. The IEO analyzes

survey results collectively and for each program, and communicates these results

on annual basis to Deans and Chairs.

4. School Advisory Council (SAC) (Minimum one time a year) Each School has an officially recognized School Advisory Council made up of local,

regional and as possible international industry leaders related to the specialty

area of the program. Advisory Councils meet at least once a year and preferably

on a more regular basis. During these meetings, input is sought from SAC

members regarding industry and market trends, concentration areas, the views of

SAC members of the current program’s goals and outcomes, and opportunities to

expand in new programs and directions. The input of SAC plays a major role in

refining the program so that it serves local and regional needs as well as keeping

the program competitive within the UAE.

5. External Program Evaluator (Minimum once every three years)

AURAK invites prominent academic leaders in the program disciplines to consult

with and evaluate programs and provide recommendations for continuous

improvements and future planning. The external evaluator will be recommended

by the Dean and appointed by the Provost. The external evaluator will meet with

faculty members, students and alumni, examine program structure and courses

(contents and learning methods), examine course files and examples of a range of

student work, and submit a report based on the findings to the Provost and Dean.

The external evaluator will provide an objective evaluation of the program as well

as input on how well the program is aligned with the recent trends and

developments in the specialty areas.

6. UAE Commission for Academic Accreditation (CAA Program proposal,

accreditation)


The CAA reviews each academic program before it starts enrolling students, after

graduating first cohort for accreditation, and every five years for re-accreditation.

It is the responsibility of the Provost and the department chairs to prepare the

accreditation document, facilitate the CAA work, and translate the CAA

recommendations into an action plan intended to improve program quality and

student experience.

2.2 Assessment & Continuous Improvement Process of Academic Programs

This section of the QA Manual explains in detail the process of academic program

assessment and continuous improvement, following the cycle in Figure 2.1. It may be

possible that a program may modify or add one or more assessment instruments to ensure

effectiveness; however, the overall process should be maintained in order to have a

common methodology for the assessment and improvement cycle throughout the

university.


Internal & External

Assessments

Direct & Indirect

Assessment Results

Determine Outcomes

to Achieve Program

Goals

Input from All

AURAK

Constituencies:

Faculty

Students

Alumni

Employers

Advisory Councils

External

Evaluators

CAA

Assess Outcomes

Evaluate Goals Determine Indicators for

Achievement of Outcome

Determine how

Outcomes will be

Achieved

Determine how

Outcomes will be

Assessed

Figure 2.1- Program Continuous Improvement Cycle

2.2.1 Determine Outcomes to Achieve Program Goals

The continuous improvement cycle begins with planning the goals and the student

learning outcomes of the program. Program goals are broad statements that

describe the career and professional accomplishments the program’s graduates are

expected to achieve several years after graduation. Program goals are expanded into

detailed measurable statements called program Student Learning Outcomes.

Program SLOs are more focused statements that describe what students are

expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the

skills, knowledge, and attributes that students acquire through their successful

completion of the program. A matrix is typically developed to map the program SLOs

into the appropriate program goals as shown in Table 2.3.


Table 2.3- Sample Relationship Matrix between Program Goals and Student Learning

Outcomes

Student Learning

Outcomes (SLO)

Academic Program Goals

Program

Goal 1

Program

Goal 2

Program

Goal 3

Program

Goal 4

Program

Goal 5

SLO 1 X X X

SLO 2 X X X

SLO 3 X X X

SLO 4 X X X

SLO 5 X X X

SLO 6 X X X

SLO 7 X X X

Placing an “X” at the row-column intersection indicates the SLO contributes, in some ways, to the specific program goal.

2.2.2 Determine how Outcomes will be Achieved

The program structure must be consistent with the program goals and lead to the

achievement of SLO through program and general education courses, practicum,

internship, and capstone experience. A matrix (similar to the sample shown in Table

2.4) is developed to show the contribution of the courses to the program SLOs. Each

program SLO is supported by a number of program courses (at least four)

contributing to that particular SLO. Achievements of students in all program courses

allow assessment of the degree of achievement of program SLOs.

Table 2.4- Sample Relationship Matrix between Program Courses and Program SLOs

Program Courses

Student Learning Outcomes of the Program

SLO

1

SLO

2

SLO

3

SLO

4

SLO

5

SLO

6

SLO

7

ECON 103 X

ECON 104 X

ECON 310 X X X

ACCT 203 X

ACCT 301 X X

ACCT 311 X X X


OPMT 210 X

OPMT 301 X

OPMT 311 X X

FNAN 301 X X X

FNAN 311 X X X X

MGMT 301 X

MGMT 311 X X X

MIST 102 X X

MIST 301 X X X

MKTG 301 X X

BUSN 301 X X X

BUSN 302 X X

BUSN 498 X X X X X

Placing an “X” at the row-column intersection indicates the course contributes, in some ways, to the specific program SLO.

Each course must have its own measurable learning outcomes (CSLOs) that together

accumulate into the SLOs of the program. Course student learning outcomes (CSLOs)

are measurable statements that reflect what a student is expected to know and be

able to do upon successful completion of the course. A course typically has a number

of CSLOs that are well related to the course contents, as shown in sample course in

Table 2.5.

When developing and reviewing student learning outcomes, it is important that they

reflect a mix of Bloom’s six categories of learning outcomes: knowledge,

comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. An increased bias

toward the high end of the taxonomy is expected in advanced courses. A process for

writing and reviewing students learning outcomes is included in Appendix B.

All faculty members, especially newly appointed faculty, need to become mindful of

the different steps and processes followed in course assessment. They need to

ensure that course delivery proceeds according to the syllabus and covers all the

CSLOs adequately.


Table 2.5 – Sample Course Student Learning Outcomes

No.

Course Student Learning Outcome

CSLO 1

Demonstrate an understanding of the marketing communication function in

businesses

CSLO 2

Identify specific advantages and disadvantages of each marketing

communication tool, and how they can be combined in an effective,

integrated, program

CSLO 3

Use effectively the vocabulary and terminology related to the planning and

implementation of marketing communication programs

CSLO 4

Apply concepts from class in analyzing real-world marketing

communications and relay these analyses in writing

CSLO 5

Use group-related skills as related to the development of an integrated

communication program

The course materials should be organized to support the students in achieving the

CSLOs. Logically, each part of the course material is related to one or more of the

CSLOs. Time allocated to each CSLO depends on the materials to be covered in

support of that CSLO, example in Table 2.6, which helps the instructor maintain a

balance of time for achievement of the CSLOs. If a particular course CSLO consumes

an unusually long duration, the instructor might consider breaking the CSLO into two

outcomes. It should be noted that a particular CSLO may be covered in different,

non-sequential portions of the course. The total estimated time to address all CSLOs

may not exceed the duration of the course, which in turn corresponds to the

coverage of all of the course materials.

The instructor of a course should also plan how the achievement of each CSLO will

be assessed, as shown in last column of Table 2.6. Different skill sets require

different assessment techniques. For example, verbal communication skills could be

well assessed using presentations in front of the class (individually and in teams),

while theory and analytical methods might be assessed in quizzes and exams, while

design processes might require projects and written reports to evaluate the level of

students’ achievements.


Table 2.6– Sample CSLO Coverage and Assessment Technique Matrix

Course

Learning

Outcome

Textbook

Chapters

Allocated

Time

Assessment Techniques

CSLO 1

Ch. 1 and 2

2 weeks

Homework, Quizzes, and

Exams

CSLO 2

Ch. 2 and 6

3 weeks

Homework, Quizzes, and

Exams

CSLO 3

Ch. 3, 4, and 5

4 weeks

Homework, Term Paper

CSLO 4

Ch. 7 and 11

2 weeks

Term Paper, Exams

CSLO 5

Ch. 8, 9, and 10

3 weeks

Team Project

2.2.3 Determine how Outcomes will be assessed

Evidence-based Assessment of outcomes is carried out on two levels: Course level

and program level. In delivering each course, the instructor measures course

outcomes using students’ performance (evidence-based), and documents the results

in the course file. Accumulated results on the same course provide necessary data

for longitudinal review of the course, while accumulated assessment results from all

program courses, in a given cycle, lead to evaluate the overall achievement of

program outcomes.

Course level assessment

An evidence-based assessment system evaluates how well the students (on average)

achieve the planned course SLOs based on their scores in the different assessment

techniques, i.e., assignments, quizzes, exams, or projects. To acquire the necessary

evidence, assessment methods need to be planned carefully throughout the

semester to address the specific CSLOs. For example, specific homework

assignments and quizzes can be targeted at assessing the achievement of a specific

CSLO. Questions on more encompassing assessments such as examinations can be

targeted at specific CSLOs, or a question may assess more than one CSLOs.

To organize the generation of the end-of-semester results, a matrix (similar to the

one in Table 2.7) relating assessment items to the CSLOs is necessary. Each

assessment item is related to one or more CSLO, as indicated with an “X”. Obviously

the weight of an “X” in a final exam question dedicated to one CSLO is much more

than an “X” of a particular assignment.


Throughout the semester and upon grading each assessment component of the

course, the instructor replaces each “X” in Table 2.7 with the average achievement

score of all students on this item in the course. The overall achievement of each

CSLO is calculated by incorporating the weight (based on number of points out of

100 points for the course) of each contribution to the CSLO.

This assessment system requires grades to be tracked at the level of CSLO to allow

analysis at the end of the semester. For example, following Table 2.7, the grades of

each question on the final examination need to be recorded and averaged

separately. If an assessment item (such as a project in Table 2.7) is used to satisfy

multiple CSLOs, then it is necessary to break up the project grade into marks

proportionate to each CSLO contribution and record the average achievement on

each CSLO. Therefore, it is advisable that each specific part of an assessment item be

dedicated to the specific CSLO, as this greatly simplifies the tracking and analysis.

Table 2.7– Sample Relationship Matrix between Assessment Items & Course SLO

Assessment Course Student Learning Outcomes

Item Part CSLO 1 CSLO 2 CSLO 3 CSLO 4 CSLO 5

Homework 1 X

Homework 2 X X

Homework 3 X

Homework 4 X X

Quiz 1 X

Quiz 2 X X

Quiz 3 X

Quiz 4 X

Midterm Exam Question 1 X

Question 2 X

Question 3 X

Question 4 X X

Final Exam Question 1 X

Question 2 X

Question 3 X

Question 4 X

Project X X X

Term Paper X X

Overall Achievement of CSLO

78%

54%

81%

67%

73%


Program level assessment

Each course contributes to one or more program SLO, while a specific CSLO, or a

combination of CSLOs, may contribute to the program SLO. In order to assess the

achievement of a program SLO, a correlation between the course SLOs and the

program SLOs must be identified. For each course, a matrix, similar to the one in

Table 2.8, showing the correlation between the CSLOs and the program SLOs is

established.

This matrix aids the course instructors and department chair in assessing the

estimated achievement of the program SLOs. It also allows for remedies to be

identified and implemented in cases of shortcomings in achievement. A “Summary

Course Contribution to Program SLOs” at the bottom of the matrix combines the

contributions of the CSLOs into an overall course contribution to the program SLO.

At the end of the delivery of each course, the course instructor completes an

assessment report which produces the aggregation of CSLO assessment results from

the different assessment items, similar to the sample in Table 2.7.

Using the mapping matrix shown in Table 2.8, the course instructor relates the

students’ achievement of the CSLOs back to the program SLOs, resulting in a matrix

similar to the example in Table 2.9 that shows the contributions of CSLOs to program

SLOs. The results in the last line (Summary Course Contribution to Program SLOs) are

the simple average of the values in each column.

The last line of the matrix in Table 2.9 is the aggregation of the CSLO assessments

that must replace the X’s in Table 2.4 to help measure the achievement of program

SLOs.

Table 2.8 – Sample Mapping Matrix for Course SLO / Program SLO

Program Student Learning Outcomes

SLO 1

SLO 2

SLO 3

SLO 4

SLO 5

SLO 6

SLO 7

Co

urs

e S

tud

ent

Lear

nin

g O

utc

om

es

CSLO 1

X

X

CSLO 2

X

X

CSLO 3

X

CSLO 4

X

CSLO 5

X

X


Table 2.9 – Sample Contribution of Course SLOs to Program SLOs

Achievement

%


SLO 1

SLO 2

SLO 3

SLO 4

SLO 5

SLO 6

SLO 7

Co

urs

e S

tud

ent

Lear

nin

g O

utc

om

es

CSLO 1

78%

78%

78%

CSLO 2

54%

54%

54%

CSLO 3

81%

81%

CSLO 4

67%

67%

CSLO 5

73%

73%

73%

Summary Course Contribution

to Program SLOs

60%

78%

77%

68%

With each course instructor producing similar analysis, the matrix in Table 2.4 will be

fully populated with percentage contributions from each course to the program

SLOs. The results from the different courses are weighted by each course’s credit

hour contribution to the overall program and a weighted average for each SLO is

calculated. The summary line at the end of the matrix in Table 2.10 will serve as the

basis for corrective actions and improvement plans. The degree of achievement of

each program SLO, from Table 2.10, is used to replace the X’s in Table 2.3 and allows

measurement of the extent to which program goals are realized. This evaluation is

performed once all program courses are offered and results collected from all

assessment instruments. However, the department chair needs to gradually

accumulate assessment results and monitor what they indicate, until all assessment

results are collected to evaluate the achievement of program goals.

Table 2.10 – Sample Program Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes

Program Courses

Student Learning Outcomes of the Program

Credit

SLO

1

SLO

2

SLO

3

SLO

4

SLO

5

SLO

6

SLO

7

ECON 103 74% 3

ECON 104 76% 3

ECON 310 65% 73% 82% 3

ACCT 203 67% 3

ACCT 301 72% 79% 3


ACCT 311 78% 81% 74% 3

OPMT 210 76% 3

OPMT 301 81% 3

OPMT 311 74% 76% 3

FNAN 301 65% 84% 71% 3

FNAN 311 69% 77% 68% 71% 3

MGMT 301 73% 3

MGMT 311 59% 76% 75% 3

MIST 102 73% 77% 1

MIST 301 66% 82% 74% 3

MKTG 301 74% 67% 3

MKTG 312 84% 62% 59% 3

BUSN 301 73% 78% 68% 3

BUSN 302 63% 71% 3

BUSN 498 79% 62% 64% 67% 56% 3

Overall

Achievement of

72%

77%

70%

75%

72%

71%

67%

Incorporating results from assessment instruments

In addition to the aforementioned outcome-based (or evidence-based) assessment

results discussed in this section, results and recommendations collected from

different program constituencies through the assessment instruments presented in

the previous section are also used. All assessment results are filed in the master

program document and longitudinal reviews of accumulated results are produced

within relevant and appropriate time frame to provide solid evidence of ongoing

program effectiveness.

Results of the assessment of SLO achievement obtained from senior exit surveys and

alumni surveys are calculated using the following weights: Strongly Disagree=1,

Disagree=2, Average=3, Agree=4, and Strongly Agree=5. If for example a sample of

20 graduating students responded to SLO 1 with the following combination: 1

Disagree, 4 Average, 7 Agree, and 8 Strongly Agree, the overall score is calculated as

follows: 0(1) + 1(2) + 4(3) + 7(4) + 8(5) = 74 point / 20 students = 4.1 = 82% average

perceived achievement of SLO 1.


2.2.4 Determine Indicators for Achievement of Outcomes

The IE system sets indicators for achievement of outcomes at course-level and

program-level, so that assessment results can be considered satisfactory, requiring

monitoring over a specific period, or requiring actions to remedy deficiencies.

Performance indicators for achievement of CSLO and program SLOs are specified to

guide the review process. Typically, an achievement score of 70% is considered

acceptable, while a score between 60% and 70% requires investigation and

continued monitoring. A score below 60% is considered alarming and may require

immediate action(s) for improvement.

2.2.5 Assess Outcomes, Recommend & Implement Actions

Assessment of outcomes is carried out on three integrated quality assurance cycles:

1. Course level review cycle which is carried out at the end of every semester for

every course offered on that semester. It is conducted by the program faculty

members lead by the Chair.

2. Annual program level review cycle which is carried out in June for every program.

It is conducted by a Continuous Quality Improvement Committee (CQIC) that

includes the Dean, the Chair, a senior faculty member, and the IEO Director.

3. Comprehensive program level review cycle which is carried out every three years

for every program. It is led by the Provost and is conducted by the CQIC.

Course Review: (every semester)

Every semester, each instructor completes a course file for every course he is

teaching. A course file course should include the following:

Course Syllabus

Copies of teaching material

Completed assessment plan & mapping of CSLO and SLO (Tables 2.7 & 2.9)

Copies of assessment tools (Exams, assignments, etc.) with key

answers/rubrics, and grading scheme for each assessment tool


Examples of graded student performance for each assessment tool including:

best, average, and poor.

Faculty member self-evaluation report

A course file is submitted to the Chair at the end of the semester who reviews the

file for completeness using a check list form that is added to the file (Available in

Appendix A). Results of students evaluations as received from the IEO are also added

to the course file by the Chair.

A course review meeting is organized by the Chair to which all school faculty

members are invited. During this meeting, course files are examined along with

assessment results (student’s achievement of CSLO form, faculty member self-

evaluation form, and student’s evaluations). Based on this review, a course

assessment and improvement report (CAIR) is completed for every course. In this

report, the findings of the review are documented in terms of the consistency of

course information, the appropriateness of students’ assessment tools, the

achievement level of the CSLO. It also outlines any issues of concern, identifies any

required changes in course outcomes, content, delivery, assessment, or scope, and

ends up with recommendations for course improvements. Furthermore it identifies

if any changes are required on the program level, such as the change of pre-

requisites for example. This report represents the most important document in the

course assessment process as it summarizes the results of all course level

assessment tools discussed earlier and presents clear recommended actions.

An instructor is required to work on implementing recommended course changes on

the following semester and to document his efforts in his self-evaluation report. This

implementation is monitored and reviewed during the next cycle of course

assessment.

Annual Program Review: (every June)

As part of the Institutional Effectiveness process, programs undergo an annual

evaluation of student achievement their student learning outcomes (SLO) to guide

decision making and ensure programmatic improvements as outlined in the IE

Handbook.

Comprehensive Program Review: (every five years) Once every five years, a comprehensive program review is conducted based on

documented results of five annual program review reports and programmatic

expectations as outlined in the CAA standards. This process is lead by the provost and

is conducted by the appropriate school with active involvement of one or two

external evaluators. In addition to accumulated input through assessment


instruments, direct Input is sought from all program constituencies through open

house meeting(s).

During this review, program goals, outcomes, and curriculum are re-examined and

major changes can be recommended. These changes are approved by the Academic

Council of the University, and by the CAA as part of the program renewal process.


3. Assessment & Continuous Improvement of Administrative Units and

Services

The assessment of administrative units and services is an important element in the overall

assessment process and is linked to the University’s strategic planning and budgeting

process. The combined assessment results of academic programs and administrative

departments / units provide decision makers with critical knowledge about how well AURAK

is fulfilling its mission.

This section is devoted to the assessment instruments and processes for administrative and

support units. Some assessment instruments (such as senior exit survey) evaluate both

academic program and administrative units and services, and the results of such surveys

help assess how well administrative and academic support units are achieving their goals.

This section documents how these processes are carried out on a continuous basis in

compliance with the CAA of the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research.

3.1 Assessment Instruments of Administrative and Support Units

The university requires that each administrative unit maintain a record of its assessment

activities and track its progress in fulfilling its mission to achieve its goals. This process is

carried out on a continuous basis to evaluate the effectiveness of the each unit in

supporting the mission of the university. As data are collected each academic year, the

results are used to inform planning and budgeting. Data on usage of facilities and

satisfaction with services, like information technology, the library, counseling, health

services, the cafeteria, sports facilities, etc., are collected through annual surveys, and the

results are documented and shared with the university administration along with

recommendations to drive improvement.

A summary of AURAK’s assessment instruments for administrative and academic support

units is provided in Table 3.1, where for each assessment instrument the table specifies:

Who is completing the assessment, and what is being assessed.

Who is responsible to organize and carry out the assessment process as well as

collect and analyze the collected data and present the results to decision makers for

actions and follow up (closing the loop). Equally important, also specified in the

table, is the timing and frequency of each assessment instrument.

What is the expected outcome and possible actions derived from each assessment

instrument.


The above three items are provided in the three columns of Table 3.1. Each administrative

and academic support unit is engaged in the process of quality improvement leading to

institutional effectiveness, and all assessments are carried out in a timely manner, as

described in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 - Assessment Instruments for Administrative and Academic Support Units

Assessment Instrument

Assessor / Assessed

Responsibility /

Timing (or Frequency)

Outcome /

Possible Actions

Student Satisfaction Survey All Students / Admin & Support Services

Institutional Effectiveness Office / March (annually)

Measurement of satisfaction with provided services /

a) Enhance university services b) Provide additional services

Faculty/Staff Satisfaction Survey All Faculty Members & Staff / Admin & Support Services

Institutional Effectiveness Office / March (annually)

Measurement of satisfaction with provided services / a) Enhance quality and simplify

processes of university services b) Provide additional services

Employee Appraisal Director or Head of unit / All staff in the unit

Human Resource Department/ May (annually)

Employee performance measurement and development / a) Staff development and training to

improve performance

Director Evaluation Board of Governors, President, Provost, DVP Admin / Director leadership & performance

Institutional Effectiveness Office / June (annually)

Measurement of effectiveness and performance / a) Enhance leadership performance b) Decision-making process

Unit Self-evaluation Unit Staff / Administrative unit processes and services

Administrative Unit / Annually in Annual Report

Measurement of performance on goals/ a) Enhance effectiveness b) Identify needed budget resources c) Ensure compliance with Standards

Senior Exit Survey Graduating students / University experience, Admin & Support Services

Institutional Effectiveness Office /Alumni Office Graduating students (at end of each semester)

Measurement of satisfaction with provided services / a) Enhance university services b) Provide additional services


AURAK involves stakeholders in the assessment and quality improvement process of its

administrative and academic support units:

1. Faculty members are involved in the evaluation of the University facilities and

services, such as classroom, IT services, laboratories and library resources. Their

recommendations are essential for budgeting and improvement plans.

2. Administrative staff evaluate the performance of their units and review the

satisfaction of end users and then document their views and recommendations,

which if require budget resources, is documented in their annual report of the

unit.

3. Students evaluate all service and administrative units and are able to document

improvements over four years when they complete the senior exit survey.

Students also assess their satisfaction with campus life and experiences,

including housing, sports and recreations, bookstore, etc.

4. The Annual Report, including progress of each administrative unit, is reviewed by

the University administration, which also decides on future plans.

Forms for the assessment instruments in Table 3.1 are provided, where needed, in Appendix

B. The following is a brief description of each instrument. Student Satisfaction Survey: The Student Satisfaction Survey is administered in March of

every year to evaluate all the services offered at the university and gain students’ feedback

to improve services. The IEO conducts and analyzes the results of this survey, and

communicates the results of this survey to the President and the DVP Admin who in turn

forward it to the units’ heads along with recommended actions, if necessary.

Faculty & Staff Satisfaction Survey: The Faculty & Staff Satisfaction Survey is administered

in March of every year to gain feedback on all the services offered at the university. The

survey evaluates services offered by administrative and support units at the university and

collects suggestions to improve the unit services/facilities that affect the work environment.

The IEO conducts and analyzes the results of this survey, and communicates the results of

this survey to the President and the DVP Admin who in turn forward it to the units’ heads

along with recommended actions, if necessary.

Employee Appraisal Form: All non-academic staff are evaluated in May of every year on an

annual basis by the unit director in coordination with the Human Resource Department. This

form is used to collect data in order to evaluate the performance and level of achievement

of individual staff members within the unit. The goal of this evaluation is to help each staff

member focus on accomplishments to meet the expected level of achievement. The IEO

collectively analyzes the results of this evaluation and a summary report of the results of


evaluation is communicated to the President and DVP Admin, who in turn forward it to HR

along with recommended actions, if necessary.

Director Evaluation: The Director’s evaluation is administered by the IEO in June of every

year to evaluate University Directors including (President, DVP Admin, Provost, Deans and

Heads of Units). The evaluation is carried out by the direct supervisor of the Director

according to the organizational structure of the University. The President is evaluated by the

Board of Governors. The IEO analyzes the results of this evaluation and a summary report of

the results of evaluation is communicated to the Board of Governors through the President.

Unit Annual Report: The self-evaluation of each administrative unit is produced and

documented in the unit’s Annual Report to assess performance and identify areas for

improvement on an annual basis. Each unit engages in an annual SWOT analysis, as will be

explained later, to help in planning and budgeting. Senior Exit Survey: Senior students in their final semester of study complete a senior exit

survey assessing the entire university experience, including the academic rigor of the major,

advising and support services, preparation and developmental courses in general education,

and campus climate and facilities. The survey also allows the student to rate how well, in

his/her opinion, the program SLO’s were achieved.

3.2 Assessment & Continuous Improvement Process for Administrative Units

In June of every year, the Director of an administrative unit presents the unit annual report

to the President through the DVP Admin. This report assesses the achievement of the unit

goals and success in implementing its plans and includes relevant results of the assessment

instruments are also presented in the first section of this report. These results provide

evidence and form the basis for completing the unit’s annual strengths,

weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis at the end of each academic year.

This analysis encourages unit staff members to be introspective concerning activities for the

past year and analytical in planning activities and goals for the next year. It also gives the

unit a chance to identify the opportunities and threats it foresees both internally and

externally.

The annual report should also identify the changes/follow up actions that are proposed as a

result of the findings of the assessment process. In this section the unit demonstrates the

use of the previous evaluation cycle in making appropriate modifications in the resources,

initiatives and services, etc. This step is very important to close the loop and produce

feedback to improve the effectiveness of the department or unit.

By engaging in this process, units can better ascertain what resources they need to achieve

their goals. Resources can be human resources or operating and equipment resources. The


process elements of the SWOT analysis flow directly into the annual planning and budget

process.

In order to generate a full picture of the overall university performance and effectiveness,

assessment records are reviewed by the “Strategy & Planning Committee” to ensure the

proper implementation of the effectiveness assessment and evaluation process and provide

necessary guidance / recommendations. Recommendations and agreed actions developed

by the Committee are formally communicated to the concerned units for implementation.

At the end of each academic year, an Annual Report of the University is prepared by the IEO

in coordination with the President Office. The annual reports of all programs and units

feed into this report which is presented to the Board of Governors.

Comments/recommendations made by the Board of Governors should be communicated to

all concerned parties. In the same time frame, the budget is finalized by the University

administration and is presented to the Board for approval.

Progress reports on the implementation of recommended actions and plans are presented

to the Strategy and Planning Committee every three months and are documented by the

IEO. Progress reports are considered one of the important inputs for the process of review/

development of the Strategic Plan document. Therefore, all recommendations or

suggestions should be reasonable in nature and achievable within the context of the

institution.


Appendix A

Assessment Instruments for Academic Programs


How to write Student Learning Outcomes

Step 1

Start by having a faculty meeting and brainstorm about what a student would know, understand and be able to do…. By the end of the course. Make sure that this is tied to the course content and material.

Step 2 Ensure that the outcomes reflect a mix of Bloom’s six categories of learning outcomes: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. An increased bias toward the high end of the taxonomy is expected in advanced courses.

Step 3

Agree on a first draft of a list of outcomes, understanding that they will be revised several times before becoming firm (or definitive) and that they will change over time.

Step 4

List the student learning outcomes on the syllabus. Gather feedback from student at the end of the course about how well they perceive that student learning outcomes were addressed.

Step 5

Assess student learning by designing assignments specifically geared to measure achievement of each of the outcomes.

Step 6

In Light of this data, and during the course review at the end of each semester, revise the list of outcomes.

Step 7

Repeat the above steps and regularly and as needed to improve student learning.

How to write SLO Page 1 of 3 AURAK


ACTION Verb List – Suggested verbs to use in Each Level of Thinking Skills

Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Count Define Describe Draw Identify Labels List Match Name Outlines Point Quote Read Recall Recite Recognized Record Repeat Reproduces Selects State Write

Associate Compute Convert Defend Discuss Distinguish Estimate Explain Extend Extrapolate Generalize Give examples Infer Paraphrase Predict Rewrite Summarize

Add Apply Calculate Change Classify Complete Compute Demonstrate Discover Divide Examine Graph Interpolate Manipulate Modify Operate Prepare Produce Show Solve Subtract Translate Use

Analyze Arrange Breakdown Combine Design Detect Develop Diagram Differentiate Discriminate Illustrate Infer Outline Point out Relate Select Separate Subdivide Utilize

Categorize Combine Compile Compose Create Drive Design Devise Explain Generate Group Integrate Modify Order Organize Plan Prescribe Propose Rearrange Reconstruct Related Reorganize Revise Rewrite Summarize Transform Specify

Appraise Asses Compare Conclude Contrast Criticize Critique Determine Grade Interpret Judge Justify Measure Rank Rate Support Test



BLOOMS TAXONOMY

Learning outcomes Skills Demonstrate

Knowledge 1 Knowledge of dates, events, places 2 Knowledge of major ideas 3 Mastery of subject matter

Action Verbs List, define, tell, describe, identify, show, label, collect, examine, tabulate, quote, name, who, when, where, etc.

Comprehension 1 Grasp Meaning 2 Translate knowledge 3 Interpret facts, compare, contrast 4 Order, group, infer causes 5 Predict Consequences

Action Verbs Summarize, describe, interpret, contrast, predict, associate, distinguish, estimate, differentiate, discuss, extend

Application 1 Use methods, concepts, theories in new situations 2 Solve problems using required skills or knowledge

Action Verbs Apply, demonstrate, calculate, complete, illustrate, show, solve, examine, modify, relate, change, classify, experiment, discover seeing patterns

Analysis 1 Recognition of hidden meanings 2 Identification of components

Action Verbs Analyze, separate, order, explain, connect, classify, arrange divide, compare, select, explain, infer

Synthesis 1 Generalize from given facts 2 Relate knowledge from several areas 3 Predict, draw, conclusions

Action Verbs Combine, integrate, modify, substitute, plan, create, design, invent, what if? compose, formulate, prepare, generalize, rewrite

Evaluation 1 Compare and discriminate between ideas 2 Assess value of theories, presentations 3 Make choices based on reasoned arguments 4 Verify value of evidence 5 Recognize subjectivity

Action Verbs Assess, decide, rank, grade, test, measure, recommend, convince, select, judge, explain, discriminate, support, conclude, compare, summarize



American University of Ras Al Khaimah

ةـــعــماــجـال ةــيـــكـــيرــمألا سأر يــف ةــــمـــيــــخــلا

Course File Check List

School:

Department:

Course Title Course

Year and Semester Number of

students

No. of Quizzes No. of Homework

Assignments No. of Projects/Major

assignments

No. of Laboratory

Reports (if

applicable)

No. of

Examinations Others (Specify)

Course File Content Instructor Chair

1. Course Syllabus- Current Offering Course Syllabus- Previous Offering

2. Teaching materials 3. Assessment instruments

For each quiz: Copy of quiz, model answers and marking schemes For each Homework Assignment: Copy of Homework Assignment, model answer and marking schemes

For each Project/Major assignment: Copy of instructions/guidelines and marking schemes For each Laboratory Report: Copy of procedure, guidelines and marking schemes (if

not included in teaching materials for the laboratory

exercise)

For each Examination: Copy of examination, model answers and marking

schemes

Other:

4. Examples of student performance of graded responses to assessment instruments

For each quiz: One of the Best

One of the Average

One of the Lowest

For each Homework Assignment::


One of the Best

One of the Average

One of the Lowest

For each Project/Major assignment: One of the Best

One of the Average

One of the Lowest

For each Laboratory Report: One of the Best

One of the Average

One of the Lowest

For each Examination: One of the Best

One of the Average

One of the Lowest

Other assessments (if any) One of the Best One of the Average One of the Lowest

5. Instructor review of course presentation 6. Quantitative analysis of student performance (grade

distribution)

7, Student feedback on course evaluation

Name of instructor (s) Signature Date

Chair of Department


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS

OFFICE

Course Survey Please consider these statements thoughtfully, and complete the course survey. Indicate your level of agreement by marking the appropriate column.

STUDENT INFORMATION Your class level Fresh. Soph. Junior Senior Grad. Expected grade A B C D F

Your overall GPA 3.51-4.00 3.01-3.50 2.51-3.00 2.01-2.50 below 2

The amount of effort you put into the course Very High Moderate Low INSTRUCTOR EVALUATION Strongly

Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Not

Agree Disagree Applicable Quality of Teaching 1. Was prepared for class

2. Explained the material clearly

3. Corrects the assignments and returns them promptly

4. Comments and suggestions on the returned material were helpful Communication with Students 5. Encouraged student-teacher interaction

6. Encouraged questions and class participation

7. Encouraged all the students to participate

8.Treated the students impartially and with respect

9. Was available during office hours and electronically Course Delivery 10. Covered course content as outlined in the syllabus

11. Encouraged all students to be actively involved in material through discussions

12. Used different learning activities in the class

13. Provides examples to explain difficult points

14. Sticks to the subject matter during class COURSE EVALUATION

Organization and Planning 15. The course was well organized

16. The course description reflected the content of the course

17. Course requirements were clearly stated in the syllabus

18. The learning outcomes in the course were achieved

19. Grading criteria were clear


Learning Resources 20. The assignments helped me learn the material

21. Web materials and IT were integrated effectively in the course

22. Students were encouraged to access information independently

23. Additional learning materials other than the textbook (such as e-learning resources, articles, media) were used OVERALL RATING

Excellent Good OK Fair Poor

24.Overall rating of the course

25.Overall rating of the teaching COMMENTS

What aspects of the course and teaching helped you to learn?

What changes would you suggest the next time the course is taught?

Any other comment?

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Please rate the degree to which the learning outcomes of the course were achieved. For each outcome, rate your performance on a

scale of 5 to 1, with 5 implying very high achievement and 1 implying very low achievement.

5

4

3

2

1 CSLO1:

CSLO2:

CSLO3:

CSLO4:

CSLO5:

CSLO6:

CSLO7:

CSLO8:



Faculty Members Semester Report (Semester/Year)

Name: 1. Courses taught this semester and number of students Course: Course: Course: Course:

Number of students: Number of students: Number of students: Number of students:

2. Which course did you find the most rewarding to teach? Why?

Which was the least rewarding and why?

3. What were your major teaching challenges this semester?

4. What could the university do to provide more support for you in your teaching?

5. Besides teaching, what other contributions did you make to AURAK this past semester?

6. Use the reverse or an extra page to add anything else that you would like to be included in your self-evaluation.



Faculty Members Self-Evaluation (Semester/Year)

Section I

For each course you taught this semester, please respond to the following questions. Use extra sheets, if necessary.

A. Course Title:

1. Did you change anything in this course from the way in which you have previously taught it? Text? Teaching strategies? Use of media? If so, do you feel the change was successful?

2. What do you plan to change the next time you teach this course?

3. As you reflect on the course, what more might you do to provide students with a successful learning experience?

4. What were the primary teaching strategies you used this semester (e.g., lecture, discussion, small group work)? Which do you think were the most successful?

5. Which learning outcomes for your course were the most difficult for the students to achieve?

6. Which learning outcomes were the easiest for the students to meet?



Section II

For each course you taught this semester, List the abbreviated student learning outcomes from the course syllabus in the table below. For each outcome, rate student performance on a scale of 0 to 4 with 4 implying very high performance and 0 implying very low performance. Make comments as appropriate.

Student Learning Outcome Student

Performance

Assessment

Method used

Comments


The American University of Ras Al Khaimah (AURAK)

Laboratory Course Evaluation

Program :

Name of Lab Instructor :

Course Number : Section :

Course Title :

Semester : Fall Year : 2013

Kindly provide your evaluation for each statement below using the scale

SA=Strongly Agree A=Agree N=Neutral D=Disagree SD=Strongly Disagree

SA

A

N

D

SD

Lab Instructor

1. The Lab Instructor explains the lab material and experiment well

2. The Lab Instructor encourages students to ask questions

3. The Lab Instructor is enthusiastic about the subject

4. The Lab Instructor is always on time for sessions and office hours

5. The Lab Instructor maintains a professional conduct in the lab

6. The Lab Instructor is knowledgeable about the subject matter

7. The Lab Instructor understands the lab exercises/experiments very well

8. The Lab Instructor is knowledgeable in using the lab equipment and technologies

9. The overall performance of Lab Instructor is excellent

Course Resources (Materials and Lab Equipment/Tools)

10. The exercises/experiments in this lab are very well planned

11. The documentation (lab manual or experiment sheets) are clear

12. The Laboratory contains all necessary equipment and tools as well as operating instructions

13. The Laboratory contains all necessary safety measures and instructions

14. The Overall quality of this lab course is excellent

Page 1 of 2


15. What do you like most about this laboratory course?

16. What areas of improvement do you suggest for this laboratory course?

17. What do you suggest is needed to improve the quality of this laboratory setup / equipment?

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Please rate the degree to which the learning outcomes of the course were achieved. For

each outcome, rate your performance on a scale of 5 to 1, with 5 implying very high

achievement and 1 implying very low achievement.

5

4

3

2

1

CSLO1

CSLO2

CSLO3

CSLO4

CSLO5

Page 2 of 2



Classroom Observation Form

Name of Instructor:

Course:

Date & Time:

Organization- Comment on the extent to which the class is well organized with clear objectives,

transitions between topics, appropriate summaries, and links between previous and future classes

Variety and Pacing of Instruction- Comment on the extent to which the instructor employed a

variety of instructional strategies (e.g., lecturing, discussion, collaborative / problem-solving) and

paced the class for interest and accomplishment of the stated objectives. If relevant, comment on

the instructor’s use of instructional technology (including the board).

Presentation Skills- Comment on the instructor’s voice, tone, fluency, eye contact, rate of speech,

gestures, use of space.

Instructor / Student Rapport- Comment on the verbal interaction present in class, the extent to

which the instructor welcomed and appreciated student discussion and handled any potentially

disruptive or difficult interactions, the instructor’s openness to class suggestions, and his / her

interpersonal skills.

Classroom Observation Form Page 1 of 2 AURAK


Clarity- Comment on the extent to which the instructor uses examples, relates abstract concepts

to things with which the students are familiar, is clear with explanations or answers to student

questions, defines new terms or concepts.

Overall- Comment on what went well in this particular class. What teaching strengths were

observed.

Areas for Improvements- Comment on what did not go so well in this particular class. What

aspects of teaching need improvement?

Signatures:

Classroom Observation Form Page 2 of 2 AURAK



Senior Exit Survey

Student Name & ID (Optional)

Program / Major: CGPA:

Starting Semester at AURAK: Graduation Semester:

Career Plans Yes No Details

1. I am planning to pursue further education (graduate degree)

2. I have / am seeking an offer to start work after graduation

3. I am either pursuing work nor further education

4. Kindly provide your opinion on the quality of the experience you

had with the following services, during the presence at AURAK on

a scale of

1=Poor 2=Below Average 3=Average 4=Good 5=Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

a) Visiting the Library and using the Library services

b) Contacting the IT Helpdesk and getting needed support

c) Laboratory quality, equipment, and space

d) Attending seminars/workshops/lectures on campus

e) Student activities and events on and off campus

f) Interaction with the Registrar’s office

g) Using university sports facilities

h) Using university Wellness Center facilities

i) Getting help/advise from the Student Success Center

j) Interaction with the Career Service Office

k) Living on campus- Residence Halls

l) Overall satisfaction with campus life and university services

Provide your opinion on the following statements on the scale of

SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree

SA=Strongly Agree

SD

D

N

A

SA

5. The program courses I have taken helped develop my knowledge

and skills for the profession

6. I could apply what I learned in 1st and 2nd year courses to my 3rd and

4th year courses

Senior Exit Survey Page 1 of 3 AURAK


7. I felt the courses were integrated with the program objectives

8. I found the courses addressed my expectations of the program in

terms of the technical and theoretical knowledge I gained

9. The program instructors in general are helpful and motivate

students to learn and participate in class

10. In most courses I found that the course objectives were clear and

the course was organized well

11. In general I found the level of the courses and assessments to be

challenging

12. I had opportunities to use online technology for learning and

coursework

13. I had opportunities to work on individual and group assignments

and projects to practice my learning

14. I received the required support from my academic advisor when I

needed it or asked for it

15. I had opportunities to take part in University cultural events

16. I had opportunities to take part in the University’s sports events

17. I had opportunities to participate in student organizations

18. I had opportunities to develop my teamwork skills

19. I had opportunities to develop my time-management skills

20. I had opportunities to develop my leadership skills

21. Provide your level of agreement that the listed program student

learning outcomes (SLO) were effectively met during the course of

your program, on scale of

SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree

SA=Strongly Agree

SD

D

N

A

SA

a) [First Program SLO to be filled]

b) [Second Program SLO to be filled]

c) [Third Program SLO to be filled]

d) [Fourth Program SLO to be filled]

e) [Fifth Program SLO to be filled]

f) [Sixth Program SLO to be filled]

g) [Seventh Program SLO to be filled]

h) [Eighth Program SLO to be filled]

i) [Ninth Program SLO to be filled]

j) [Tenth Program SLO to be filled]

k) [Eleventh Program SLO to be filled]



Reflecting on your major / program, indicate how well it

prepared you for the next step in your career or education in

the areas listed below, using the following scale:

1 = Very Unprepared, 2 = Marginally Prepared, 3 = Neutral, 4 =

Adequately Prepared, 5 = Very Prepared

1

2

3

4

5

22. Economic, global, social and ethical context of work

23. Knowledge of contemporary issues related to your field

24. Effective written communication skills

25. Effective oral communications skills

26. Critical thinking skills

27. Skills relevant to your field

28. Use of professional software related to your field

29. Learning on your own

30. Prepared for a wide range of careers

31. Provide suggestions on how AURAK may improve student learning experience?

32. Describe the aspects of your program that were most satisfactory

33. Describe the aspects of your program that could use more improvement

34. Since the University’s reputation/status affects you and your career, are there any special things you feel

AURAK should highlight to make you more proud?




Faculty Annual Plan and Evaluation Form

1. Evaluation for : Annual Review

2. Covering the calendar year :

PART A

TO BE COMPLETED BY FACULTY MEMBER

Name :

Date :

Academic rank :

3. Describe your performance objectives during the evaluation period.

Teaching:

Effort Distribution:

Teaching :

( ) %

Research :

( ) %

Service :

( ) %

4. List significant contributions in past year.

a. List your significant contributions to teaching.

b. List your significant contributions to academic advisement.



c. List your significant contributions in research, scholarship or creative

activity.

d. List your significant contributions to the Campus.

e. List your significant contributions to your discipline or profession or

to the community-at-large.

5. Proposed performance objectives for the next evaluation period.

Effort Distribution:

Teaching : ( ) %

Research : ( ) %

Service : ( ) %



PART B

TO BE COMPLETED BY IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISOR

1. Professional performance:

a. Indicate your assessment of the faculty member's performance in

teaching, research and service

Teaching:

Research:

Service:

b. Response to the faculty member's performance objectives for the next

evaluation period?

Signature of Supervisor:

Date:



2. I have received these comments and ratings from my immediate supervisor. I

understand that I have the right to respond to these comments and ratings in

writing within five (5) working days after receipt of this document.

Signature of Faculty Member:

Date:

3. I should like to add:

Signature of Faculty Unit Member:

Date:

4. I have reviewed these comments and ratings. I should like to add:

Signature of Provost

Date:



Course Assessment and Improvement Report (CAIR)

Course Title Course Code Year and Semester Number of Students Course Instructor(s)

I. Course Information & Course syllabus:

Items to check

Yes / No Remarks

(comments / actions)

Is the course syllabus complete and clear? Are the pre-requisites correct? Is the course content appropriate for one semester? Does the course have enough design content/practice

(if appropriate) in it through assignments, tests,

projects, etc...?

Is there a significant overlap between this course and

other courses in the curriculum?

Is the course description same as the one that is

published online and in catalogue?


Items to check

Yes/ No Remarks

(comments/ actions)

Were the students evaluated on all what they

have been taught?

Was the number of home works, quizzes, exams,

projects, and lab experiments sufficient to reflect student performance?

Was the time allocated for exams and final exam

adequate?

Do student samples contain appropriate

comments from the instructor?

Generally, was the evaluation scheme

appropriate to measure course and program

II. Students’ Work Assessment

A) Collected Samples:

The student work samples reviewed included high, low, and average from the following

assignments: (C= Complete; IC= Incomplete; NA= Not applicable)

Item

Exams

Assignments

Quizzes

Projects Lab.

Exams

Lab. Assig.

Number Collected (C/ IC/ NA)

B) Appropriateness of students’ evaluation scheme

C) Level of Students’ Achievement


SLO 1

SLO 2

SLO 3

SLO 4

SLO 5

SLO 6

SLO 7

Co

urs

e S

tud

en

t

Lear

nin

g O

utc

om

es

CSLO 1

CSLO 2

CSLO 3

CSLO 4

CSLO 5

Summary Course

Contribution to

Program SLOs


III. Course Assessment Surveys Results

A) Course Assessment Surveys Results


SLO 1

SLO 2

SLO 3

SLO 4

SLO 5

SLO 6

SLO 7

Co

urs

e S

tud

en

t

Lear

nin

g O

utc

om

es

CSLO 1

CSLO 2

CSLO 3

CSLO 4

CSLO 5

Summary Course

Contribution to Program SLOs

B) List any serious concerns related to the course (if any) as appeared from Student Course

Assessment.

C) List any serious concerns related to the course (if any) as appeared from the Instructor Self

Evaluation.

D) Can we use instructor's comments for course improvement?


IV. Recommendations for Course Improvement

A) Assessment of the Implementation of Previous Recommendations:

To what extent recommendations from the previous course improvement recommendations were

implemented? (Satisfactory / Not Satisfactory)

If not satisfactory, give reasons:

B) Current Recommendations

1) Do the assessment results show that the course is addressing the outcomes assigned to it in its

course description? (Yes/No)

If NO, give reasons:

2) What new outcomes/objectives should be modified, give reasons?

3) Comment on various learning and assessment mechanisms.

Mechanism Increase

Emphasis Decrease

Emphasis Don't

Use

Remarks

Lectures

Assigned Reading

Assignments

Projects

Quizzes

Exams

Lab. Experiments

and assignments


Review Team Member Signature Date

Approved By:

Chair Signature Date

Handed over to:

Course Instructor Signature Date


Appendix 1

Student Internship Evaluation

CONFIRMATION OF ELIGIBILITY

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH P.O. Box: 10021

Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates Telephone No. +971-7-2210500

Fax No. +971-7-2210300

Please complete the following form and return it to your faculty advisor for approval.

Section A: Student Background Information

1. Name and Student ID number

Last Name First Name Middle Name

Student ID Number: Year:

2. Please indicate your academic program and concentration, lf any:

(Program) (Concentration)

3. Current local address:

Local Phone # (H): ( ) (W): ( )

Cell Phone #: ( ) AURAK e-mall


Section B: Student Resume

Attach a current resume to this form and send a soft copy to the CDO Director.


Section C: Initial Learning Objectives List learning objectives which describe what you want to learn from the internship

experience.

Section E: Disclosure of Information and release of academic information in order

to provide an appropriate placement Do you have any disability that may limit your ability to participate in certain types of work, or exposure you to risk of harm (e.g., lf you are allergic to dust, you should not be

assigned to a high-dust environment) or create risk of harm to others (e.g., you may be

subject to seizures and therefore should not be assigned to drive a motor vehicle)? If, yes

please explain your learning restrictions below. This information is confidential and will

not be shared with any employer.

SIGNATURES

1 1 20

Intern Submitted

1 1 20

Academic Advisor Date Approved

1 1 20

School's Internship Coordinator Date Approved

1 120

Director, Career Development Office Date Approved


Appendix 2

INTERNSHIP PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH P.O. Box: 10021

Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates

Telephone No. +971-7-2210500 Fax No. +971-7-2210300

Name of Intern:

Name of Employer:

Name of Faculty Internship advisor:

Period Covered by Evaluation: From: 1 1 20 to 1 1 20 .

This form need to be completed by the onsite supervisor at the completion of the internship

period. The results should be shared with intern and then returned to the faculty internship advisor

by fax at (+971) 7-2210300 or by email to the faculty internship advisor AURAK email address.

The evaluation form should be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the intern and

also to assess the overall experience of the intern at the employer site. Supervisors are asked to

base their judgment on the entire internship period rather than focusing on isolated incidents.

Section A: Intern's General Performance

Please check (√) the appropriate box.

Performance Category1 Criteria Un

sati

sfac

tory

B

elo

w A

ver

age

Av

erag

e A

bo

ve

Av

erag

e E

xce

llen

t N

ot

App

lica

ble

1. Professional Behavior: Professional appearance (e.g. neatness, appropriate dress)

Seeks responsibility

Demonstrate initiative

Accepts direction and constructive criticism

Ability to work independently

Motivation (e.g. enthusiasm, attitude towards duties)

Resourcefulness (e.g. use of resources, varied approaches,

ideas)

Offers opinions and suggestions

2. Professional Relations:

Rapport with staff (e.g. co-workers, volunteers)

Interaction with public (i.e. clients, participants, patients)


3. Professional Performance:

Planning and organizing work schedule (e.g. time management)

Task accomplishment

Written communication

Quantity of work

Quality of work

4. Professional Knowledge and skills:

Understanding of agency's goals and operations

Knowledge of field

Technical skills in the field

Overall Rating of Intern's Performance for your Agency:

Section B: Written Evaluation of Intern's Performance For each of the criteria below, briefly comment on the intern's abilities, strengths and Weaknesses in the space provided.

1. Knowledge and technical skills in the field (e.g., requisite, current knowledge and skill of

profession)

2. Leadership (e.g., installs confidence in others, organization, group spirit and cooperation,

maintains an attitude of objectivity and fairness, good communication skills)

3. Public Relations (e.g., with supervisors, co-workers and publlc1cllents: courtesy, insight,

respect, tact)

4. What is your overall view of the intern's experience in your organization?


5. Additional Comments

SIGNATURES*

1 1 20

Intern Date

1 1 20

Supervisor Date

Please return to the Faculty Internship advisor upon completion. Thank you.

1 1 20

Faculty Internship advisor Date Reviewed

*Signing this form indicates the supervisor and intern have reviewed and discussed the evaluation. It does not

necessarily indicate the intern's agreement with the content. Supervisors may use employer's performance assessment

forms or append additional comments about the intern's performance.


Appendix 3

INTERNSHIP SITE Contact Information

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH P.O. Box 10021

Ras Al Khalmah, United Arab Emirates

Tel. No. +971-7-2210500

Fax No. +971-7-2210300

Section A: Student Information during Internship

What is your malling address and phone number during your internship?

Local Phone # (H):

( )

(W): (

)

Cell Phone #:

( )

AURAK E-Mall:

@

Section B: Employer Information

Please provide the following information about the internship site.

Employer Name:

Department (lf applicable):

Address:

Employer Man Phone #: Fax: ( )

Employer Webpage address:


INTERNSHIP SITE CONFIRMATION

Section C: Supervisor Information

Please provide the following information about your Supervisor.

Supervisor:

Supervisor's Title:

Supervisor's Phone #: Fax: ( )

Supervisor's E-Mall: @

Section D: Internship Duration

Intern Startling Date: _1 1 20 Intern Ending Date: 1 1 20

Section E: Type of Internship Position: (Please check (√) the appropriate box.)

Voluntary *Paid (as a paid position, the rate is AED per .)

INTERNSHIP SITE CONFIRMATION

SIGNATURES

1 1 20

Intern Date

1 1 20

Supervisor Date

Please return to the Faculty internship advisor upon completion. Thank you.

1 1 20

Faculty internship advisor Date Reviewed


Appendix 4

STUDENT EVALUATION OF

INTERNSHIP PROGRAM

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH P.O.Box 10021

Ras Al KhaImah, United Arab Emirates

Tel. No. +971-7-2210500

Fax No. +971-7-2210300

Name of Intern:

Name of Employer:

Name of Faculty Internship advisor:

Please help us to assess the Internship Program of all Schools at AURAK by Indicating

how well the University and the School did in meeting your needs as an Intern.

Section A: Evaluation of Department (Check (√) the appropriate box)

Evaluative Criteria P

oo

r F

air

Go

od

Ver

y g

ood

Ex

cell

ent

1. Overall rating of university policies and procedures such as registration and administrative procedures

2. Availability of the Faculty Internship Advisor during your Internship

3. Faculty Internship Advisor 's relation with the employer and Internship supervisor

during your Internship

1. Do you feel that your Faculty Internship advisor adequately monitored your progress

during your Internship program?


3. Did the Faculty Internship advisor or the university a c t on any special

problems1concerns that you brought to their attention? Please comment if applicable.

4. Did you apply theories or concepts learned in the classroom to your experiences?

5. What recommendations do you have to improve the Internship program?

Section B. Evaluation of Internship Site Supervisor

1. Did your supervisor make arrangements to orient you to the work site?

2. Did your supervisor give you any kind of feedback? Was the feedback helpful to you?


3. Did you receive help when you needed it?

5. Overall, how would you evaluate the supervision received from your supervisor?

Please write comments, if any.

Section C: Evaluation of Internship Site (Check (√) the appropriate box)

Evaluative Criteria P

oo

r F

air

Go

od

Ver

y g

ood

Ex

cell

ent

1. Acceptance of yon as an Important member of staff (I.e.. willingness to Integrate yon Into all appropriate levels In activities, programs and protects)

2. Cooperation of company staff to provide professional growth experiences by assigning progressively more responsible and challenging work tasks

3. Provision of training programs, seminars or other meaningful activities by company

4. Employment of qualified, professional staff with demonstrated capability to provide competent supervision

5. Willingness to discuss any doubt you might have as a student

Section D: Evaluation of Internship Employer (Check (√) the appropriate box) 1. What recommendations do you have for the employer to improve their Internship

program?


2. Would you recommend this employer or department to future students? Why or why

not?

3. Additional comments: (Attach additional pages if necessary)

SIGNATURES

1 1 20

Intern Date


Appendix 5

EMPLOYER SATISTFACTION SURVEY FORM

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF RAS AL KHAIMAH

P.O.Box 10021

Ras Al KhaImah, United Arab Emirates

Tel. No. +971-7-2210500

Fax No. +971-7-2210300

Employer1SupervIsor Name: Date:

Internship Location:

Student Name:

Faculty Internship advisor:

Section A: Please circle the number that represents your experience with our

Internship Program and student (s).

Evaluation Criteria

Strongly Agree

Somewhat Agree

Neutral Somewhat Disagree

Strongly Disagree

1. The expectations of me as a supervisor were made clear by the university

5 4 3 2 1

2. I felt I knew who to contact If I had questions about my Intern

5 4 3 2 1

3. I received appropriate and timely

responses from the University regarding

any questions I had

5 4 3 2 1

4. My Intern managed hIs1her

responsibilities In a professional manner 5 4 3 2 1

Section B: Employer/Supervisor's perspective on American University of Ras Al

Khaimah Internship Program

1. Based on your experience with our student (s), would you take another Intern

From?

American University of Ras Al KhaImah?

Yes No Maybe


2. Do you have any suggestions for our Internship program as a whole? (How can we make this

program more successful?)

Section C: Additional comments (Attach additional pages if necessary)

SIGNATURES

1 1 20

Employer/Supervisor Date

1 1 20

Faculty Internship advisor Date Reviewed



Alumni Survey

Personal Contact Information

First Name

Last Name

Contact Number

Email Address

Contact Address

Country of Residence

Semester/Year of Graduation

Academic and Career Information

At AURAK

Bachelors Masters Other

Degree earned

Major

Other qualifications gained since

Employment Status

Full Time Part Time Self Employed Not considering work

Income Status <= AED 5000 AED 5000 >= 8000 AED 8000 > 12000 AED 12000 > 15000 > AED 15000

Employer

Current Job Title

Industry Sector

How closely is your

work related to your

major at AURAK?

Completely Highly Partially Less Not at all

Kindly provide your opinion on aspects of the program you enrolled in at

AURAK. Use the following scale:

SD=Strongly Disagree D=Disagree N=Neutral A=Agree SA=Strongly

Agree

SD

D

N

A

SA

1. The program at AURAK was effective in preparing me for my present work

2. The projects and assignments part of my program helped developing my skills

3. The program was designed to address current requirements in my profession

Alumni Survey Page 1 of 3 AURAK


4. At AURAK I had opportunities to develop my teamwork skills

5. At AURAK I had opportunities to develop my time-management skills

6. The environment at AURAK helped improve my skills and interaction with

others

7. I had opportunities to participate in campus student clubs

8. The internship during my program helped me prepare for my current job

9. In general at AURAK students have the opportunity to balance studies with

extracurricular activities and personal development

10. As an AURAK graduate I feel that I have an advantage over graduates of other

Universities in the UAE

11. Provide your opinion on how well you are able to perform on the following competencies and the level

of importance each of these holds for your work How well you achieved at AURAK? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Average 4=Above Average 5=Completely

To the left of each statement below rate how well you

achieved each statement, and on the right rate how

important it is to your job on the respective scales

How Important is it to your job? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Average 4= Above Average 5=Very Important

1 2 3 4 5 a) [First Program Objectives- to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) [Second Program Objectives- to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) [Third Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) [Fourth Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) [Fifth Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) [Sixth Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) [Seventh Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) [Eighth Program Objectives to be filled per program] 1 2 3 4 5

12. Reflecting on the program- indicate how well your program prepared you in the areas listed below that

are related to your career or graduate degree: How Prepared were you? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Neutral 4=Moderately 5=Very

To the left of each statement circle how prepared you were

and on the right circle how important it is to your job on

the respective scales

How Important is it to your job? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Neutral 4=Moderately 5=Very

1 2 3 4 5 a) Economic, global, social and ethical context of work 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) Knowledge of contemporary issues 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Effective written communication skills 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Effective oral communications skills 1 2 3 4 5



1 2 3 4 5 e) Prepared for a Wide Range of Careers 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Ability to learn on Your Own 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Professional skills relevant to the field 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Critical thinking skills 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) Use of industry-standard software in your field 1 2 3 4 5

Kindly provide your opinion on aspects of your experience at AURAK

13. I am aware of the Career Services Office Yes No

14. I have been contacted about postings by the Career Services Office Yes No

15. I have been employed through posting(s) by the Career Services Office Yes No

16. I am satisfied with the services offered by the Career Services Office Yes No

Kindly provide any suggestions

17. I do receive communication about Alumni events Yes No

18. I am satisfied with the Alumni services offered by the Alumni Office Yes No

Kindly provide any suggestions

19. I have recommended AURAK’s program to others Yes No

And Why?

20. Describe the aspects of the program at AURAK which were most satisfying?

Since the University’s reputation affects graduates directly, are there any special aspects of the institution 21.

the University should highlight to make alumni more proud of it?

22. Are you interested in any of the following?

a) Participating as an Alumni Speaker

b) Participating in the Alumni Association and its Events




Employer Assessment

As part of our on-going effort to assess the quality of our academic program(s) and graduates, we are

contacting you, as an employer of one or more of AURAK graduates, to kindly request your valuable feedback

by completing this survey. We highly appreciate that direct supervisors of our graduates provide us with their

evaluation of our graduate’s performance.

Company / Organization

Department / Section

Job Title of Respondent

Name of your Employee (AURAK Graduate):

How long has the graduate

been employed with you < 6 months 6 months – 1 year 1 year – 2 years > 2 years

Your Contact Information (Telephone) (Email)

Total Number of Employees

Kindly provide below your evaluation of the AURAK graduate employed with

your organization / using the following scale

1=Cant’ evaluate 2=Weak 3=Fair 4= Good 5=Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

1. Overall preparedness for job at hand

2. Technical preparedness

3. Analytical abilities

4. Problem solving skills

5. Level of performance

6. Knowledge of contemporary issues in their field

7. Ability to use new techniques, skills or methods relevant to the job

8. Creative thinking

9. IT knowledge and skills

10. Organizational skills

11. Willingness to learn

12. Quality of written and oral communications

13. Attitude towards work

14. Teamwork skills, cooperation with others

15. Interaction with peers

Employer Assessment Page 1 of 2 AURAK


Kindly provide below your evaluation of the AURAK graduate employed with

your organization / using the following scale

1=Cant’ evaluate 2=Weak 3=Fair 4= Good 5=Excellent

1

2

3

4

5

16. Interaction with superiors

17. Relevant documentation skills

18. Level of professionalism

19. Flexibility and acceptance towards changes

20. Overall level of competency for current position

21. Kindly list specific skills, knowledge, or job functions that you believe AURAK graduate(s) are not very well

prepared for

22. In the coming few years what kind of additional skills, knowledge or technologies would you recommend

are important for graduates to be prepared for in this field of work

Employer Assessment Page 2 of 2 AURAK


Appendix B

Assessment Instruments for Administrative Units & Services



Student Satisfaction Survey

Assessment of Support Units

Program of Study (Major):

Year of Study First year Second Year Third Year Fourth Year Fifth year Postgraduate

Gender Male Female

How often do you access the University IT Services (Email, website, etc)

Daily Weekly Once a Month Not at all

Use of the Information Technology Services

How satisfied are you? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very Satisfied

Rate each IT-related service below as follows:

To the left, circle how satisfied you are, and

To the right, circle how important it is to you

How Important is it to you? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very Important

1 2 3 4 5 a) Online course materials on website 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) Online Assignments on website 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Online CD Resources 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Mailers and Communication about services 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Public Site: Information quality & quantity 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Public Site: Search Engine 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Network & Communication: Wired (LAN Ethernet) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Network & Communication: Wireless 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) University Email access 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 j) Off- campus access to online AURAK resources 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 k) Security & Anti Viruses 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 l) Student network share folder 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 m) IT labs: Computers availability and performance 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 n) IT labs: Printers accessibility and quality 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 o) IT Support: Help Desk, Online Support 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 p) IT Support: Speed of problem resolution 1 2 3 4 5

Students Satisfaction Survey Page 1 of 4


On average, how often do you visit the Library?

3 or more times a week Once a week Once every 2 weeks Once a month

Use of the Library Services


Rate each Library-related service below as follows:




1 2 3 4 5 a) Library as a Place to study 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) Access to the library homepage off-campus 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Library book collection in general 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Online Catalog 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Online Databases 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Audio-Visual Materials (Tapes, Videos, etc) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Reference Books 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) Periodicals 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 j) Library Service: Assistance at the Library for searching various library resources

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 k) Library Service: Assistance at the Reference Desk 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 l) Document Delivery / Inter-Library Loan 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 m) Library Instructions Sessions 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 n) Response to the Online Forms Requests 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 o) Library Staff are helpful and proficient in general 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 p) The design of the Library is comfortable 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 q) Group Study Rooms are available for use 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 r) Library working hours are suitable 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 s) IT services (PC, printers, network, etc) inside the Library

1 2 3 4 5



On average, how often do You Visit the Office of Enrollment Services / Registrar’s Office in a Semester?

Many times Few times Once every semester Not at all

Enrollment and Registration Services

How satisfied are you with? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very Satisfied

Rate each service below as follows:




1 2 3 4 5 a) Location and accessibility 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) Working hours and staff availability 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Helpful staff attitude 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Class schedule and timings 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Announcements 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Ability to enroll and drop classes 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Overall process of enrollment into courses 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Payment Procedure 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) Availability of guidance on procedures 1 2 3 4 5

Choose all the facilities that use on a daily basis:

Facilities Buildings (Classrooms) Residence Halls Sports Facilities Student Center

Facilities Management evaluation

How satisfied are you? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very




How Important is it to you? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very

1 2 3 4 5 a) Security and safety on campus 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) General hygiene and cleanliness on campus 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) General condition of buildings 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Availability of parking spaces 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Information awareness about policies and procedures 1 2 3 4 5



Please provide your suggestions to improve IT services at AURAK?

Please provide your suggestions to improve Library services at AURAK?

Please provide your suggestions to improve the Admissions and Recruitment Process?

Please provide your suggestions to improve the Facilities that affect your campus life?



Professor Associate Prof. Assistant Prof.

Lecturer Others


Faculty & Staff Satisfaction Survey

Assessment of Administrative & Support Units

Academic Rank

Department / Academic Program:

How often do you access the University IT Services (Email, website, etc)

Daily Weekly Once a Month Not at all

Use of the Information Technology Services


Rate each IT-related service below as follows:




1 2 3 4 5 a) University Email access 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) IT Training workshops 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Online course materials- ease of use 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Online course management tools 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Communication about IT services 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Website: Information quality & quantity 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Website: Search Engine 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Availability of classroom multimedia devices 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) Network & Communication: Wired (LAN Ethernet) 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 j) Network & Communication: Wireless 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 k) Network & Communication speed of access 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 l) Telephony and Voice Mail services 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 m) Off- campus access to online AURAK resources 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 n) Security & Anti Viruses 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 o) IT labs: Computers availability and performance 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 p) IT labs: Printers accessibility and quality 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 q) IT Support: Phone Helpdesk availability 1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5 r) IT Support: Speed of problem resolution 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 s) Information on policies and procedures 1 2 3 4 5

On average, how often do you visit the Library?

2 or more times a week Once a week Once every 2 weeks Once a month

Use of the Library


Rate each Library-related service below as follows:




1 2 3 4 5 a) Library as a place to study & do research 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) Quality and contents of the library website 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Library book collection in general 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Online Catalog 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Online Databases 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Availability of relevant reference books 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 g) Availability of relevant textbooks 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 h) Availability of relevant periodicals 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 i) Library Service: Assistance for searching various library resources

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 j) Library Service: Assistance at the Reference Desk 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 k) Document Delivery / Inter-Library Loan 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 l) Library Instructions Sessions 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 m) Response to your requests 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 n) Library staff are helpful and proficient in general 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 o) The design of the Library is comfortable 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 p) Library working hours 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 q) IT services inside the Library 1 2 3 4 5

On average, how often do you interact with the Office of Enrollment Services / Registrar’s Office during

a Semester?

Many times Few times Once every semester Not at all


Use of the Office of Enrollment Services / Registrar’s Office services

How satisfied are you with? 1=Not at all 2=Slightly 3=Don’t Know 4=Moderately 5=Very Satisfied






1 2 3 4 5 b) Working hours and staff availability 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Helpful attitude of staff 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Your class schedule and timings 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Notification procedures 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Availability of guidance on academic procedures 1 2 3 4 5

How often do you interact with the Human Resources Department during a year?

Every Month Once in a 3 months Once or few times a year Not at all

Interaction with Human Resources (HR) services







1 2 3 4 5 b) Staff availability and helpfulness 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) Availability of HR forms and procedures 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) The manner in which Appraisal procedures are administered

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Guidance on policies and procedures 1 2 3 4 5

Choose all the facilities that you use on a daily basis:

Classrooms Labs Offices Sports Facilities


Facilities Management evaluation






1 2 3 4 5 a) Security and safety on campus 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 b) General hygiene and cleanliness on campus 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 c) General condition of buildings 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 d) Availability of parking spaces 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 e) Availability of guidance on procedures 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5 f) Online Forms availability and easy to use 1 2 3 4 5

Please provide your suggestions to improve IT services at AURAK

Please provide your suggestions to improve Library services at AURAK

Please provide your suggestions to improve the enrollment / registration processes?

Please provide your suggestions to improve the Human Resources services?

Please provide your suggestions to improve the Facilities that affect your work environment?

Faculty & Staff Satisfaction Survey Page 4 of 4


Staff Performance Appraisal

Employee Information

Employee Name:

Department :

Date of joining: Position :

Type of Rating Period Probationary Annual Progress Review

Probationary Rating Periods and Reviews

Rating : Unsatisfactory Satisfactory

Rating and Evaluation:

5 Outstanding (90- 100)

4 Exceeds expectations (80- 89)

3 Meets expectations (70- 79) 2 Needs Improvement (60- 69) 1 Unacceptable (Below 60)

5. Outstanding: Work performance is consistently superior to the standards required for the job.

4. Exceeds expectations: Work performance frequently exceeds the position’s requirements and expectations.

3. Meets expectations: Work performance consistently meets the standards of performance for the position.

2. Needs Improvement: Work performance does not consistently meet the standards of performance for the position. Serious effort is needed to improve performance.

1. Unacceptable: Work performance is inadequate and inferior to the standard of performance required for the position. Performance at this level will not be allowed to continue.


Assessment Criteria

No. Parameter Categories 5 4 3 2 1 Rating 1 Job Knowledge 2 Work Output/Meeting deadlines 3 Quality of work 4 Problem Solving & Decision Making 5 Language Skills 6 Computer Skills 7 Initiatives and Work Improvement 8 Team Work and Work Reports 9 Potential 10 Attitude towards work and colleagues 11 Communication Skills 12 Presentation Skills 13 Engagement in community service

activities

No. Parameter Categories 5 4 3 2 1 Rating

14 Flexibility and Creativity 15 Availability at Work 16 Customer Service 17 Appearance and dress 18 Ability to handle multiple assignments 19 Training and Seminars 20 Leadership qualities

Total:

Comments and Recommendations:

Supervisor:_

Name: / / Signature: / /


HR Manager:


DVP: Name: / / Signature: / /

Evaluated Staff member:_



ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. REDEFINED

AURAK Administrators’ Evaluation Report

Administrator Information

Name:

Position:

Direct Supervisor:

Date of assuming position:

INSTRUCTIONS: Evaluate the administrator contribution in:

CRITERIA

Outstanding

Very

Good

Good

Satisfactory

Unsatisfactory

1.

Providing leadership and guidance for the

personnel of his/her unit

Comments:

2.

Directing and supervising the implementation of

the responsibilities of his/her unit


Comments:

3.

Fulfilling the mission of the institution and in

achieving its goals

Comments:

4.

Ensuring compliance with academic and

professional standards within your unit

Comments:

5.

Reviewing and monitoring the implementation of

the operational plans of his/her unit

Comments:

6.

Effectively presenting his/her unit & institution

Comments:

Page 2 of 3


7.

Responding to the needs and concerns of the

personnel of his/her unit

Comments:

8.

Effectively communicating with Administrators of

other units within the institution

Comments:

Other recommendations or concerns, if any:

Signature of evaluator:

Date:

Signature of evaluated administrator: Date:


ACADEMIC EXCELLENCE. REDEFINED

AURAK Board Self-Evaluation Questionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS: Please mark your response by checking [ ] the appropriate box.

CRITERIA

Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree

Undecided

Somewhat

Agree

Strongly

Agree

1.

The Board is effective in overseeing the management of

AURAK and the development of its rules and

regulations.

2.

The Board supports the independence of the university,

takes all means leading to its development and enables it

to fulfill its mission and achieve its objectives.

3.

The Board sets the general policies for the University

and approves by-laws and regulations relating to

administrative and financial affairs in an effective

manner.

4.

The Board is effective in the allocation of the university

resources and in the investment of its funds.

5.

The number of Board members is adequate to discharge

its functions effectively.

6.

The academic representation on the Board is sufficient

to enable satisfactory results.

7.

The agenda of the Board meetings is well planned to

allow effective running of meetings.


Please outline your concerns/recommendations, if any, regarding the performance of the

Board:

Signature:

Date:

American University of Ras Al Khaimah · PDF fileThe American University of Ras Al Khaimah ......

Documents

Transcript of American University of Ras Al Khaimah · PDF fileThe American University of Ras Al Khaimah ......