Handbook on typology outcomes, Essays for Advanced Education. University of Southern Mindanao
bencas
bencas

Handbook on typology outcomes, Essays for Advanced Education. University of Southern Mindanao

90 pages
12Number of download
540Number of visits
100%on 1 votesNumber of votes
Description
Guide to typology
20 points
Download points needed to download
this document
Download the document
Preview3 pages / 90
This is only a preview
3 shown on 90 pages
Download the document
This is only a preview
3 shown on 90 pages
Download the document
This is only a preview
3 shown on 90 pages
Download the document
This is only a preview
3 shown on 90 pages
Download the document
handbook ON TYPOLOGY, OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION, AND INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

2014 COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION

HANDBOOK ON TYPOLOGY,

OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION,

AND INSTITUTIONAL

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

1

Copyright Commission on Higher Education Handbook on Typology, Outcomes-Based Education, and Institutional Sustainability Assessment © 2014, Commission on Higher Education Office of Institutional Quality Assurance and Governance HEDC Building, C.P. Garcia Avenue, U.P. Diliman, Quezon City, 1101 Philippines ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) is committed to widely disseminate this handbook for FREE to the general public. It can be reproduced for educational purposes only with CHED properly cited as the source/author. Any unauthorized reprint, reproduction, or use of any part of this handbook for commercial use or for profit is strictly prohibited. This handbook can be downloaded in PDF from the CHED website, www.ched.gov.ph.

2

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................. 6

ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... 7

PART I – INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 8

PART II – HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TYPOLOGIES ............................................. 12

Choosing Your Horizontal Type ................................................................................... 13

Operational Criteria for the Different Horizontal Types ............................................. 15

Vertical Classification as a Measure of Quality ............................................................ 17

Program Excellence ................................................................................................ 18

Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement ........................................................... 18

Autonomy and Deregulation .................................................................................... 20

PART III – OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION .............................................................. 24

Determining Program Outcomes ................................................................................. 27

Aligning with the HEI’s VMG .................................................................................... 27

Using PSGs as Guide to Determining Program Outcomes ...................................... 28

Using HEI Type ....................................................................................................... 28

Determining Performance Indicators and Standards ................................................ 30

Indicators, Metrics, Targets ..................................................................................... 31

Designing the Learning Environment ........................................................................... 32

Preparing a Curriculum Map .................................................................................... 32

Planning for Resources ........................................................................................... 33

Implementing the Teaching-Learning System .............................................................. 34

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

3

Curriculum Delivery: Student-Centered Courses ..................................................... 34

Developing an Outcomes-Based Syllabus and Learning Plan ................................. 35

Assessment of the Program Outcomes ....................................................................... 40

Completing the Quality Cycle: Continuous Quality Improvement ................................. 41

PART IV – INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT: TOWARDS OUTCOMES-BASED QUALITY ASSURANCE .............................................................. 43

Determining Institutional Outcomes ............................................................................. 43

Outcomes based on HEI VMG ................................................................................. 43

Describing the Ideal Graduate Attributes and Impact on Society ............................. 45

Indicators, Metrics, Targets ..................................................................................... 48

Designing Institutional Systems ................................................................................... 48

Planning for Resources ........................................................................................... 49

Planning with the KRAs ........................................................................................... 49

Implementing the QA Systems .................................................................................... 56

Efficiency and Effectiveness .................................................................................... 56

QA Systems for the KRAs ....................................................................................... 57

Assessment of the Institutional Outcomes ................................................................... 58

The Institutional Sustainability Assessment Tool ..................................................... 59

Completing the Quality Cycle: Continuous Quality Improvement ................................. 59

PART V – DEFINITION OF TERMS ................................................................................ 60

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 71

ANNEX 1 – CRITERIA FOR COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE: EQUATIONS TO DETERMINE POINTS FOR LOCAL ACCREDITATION .................................................. 73

4

ANNEX 2 – INSTITUTIONAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK ........... 75

Table A2-1. ISA: KRA Indicators and Criteria ............................................................. 75

Table A2-2. ISA Indicators by HEI Type ...................................................................... 76

Table A2-3. Summary of ISA Indicators according to HEI Type .................................. 77

Table A2-4. Rubric for Rating Each Indicator ............................................................... 77

Table A2-5. Minimum Scores to Qualify for Autonomous and Deregulated Status ....... 78

ANNEX 3 – SAMPLE CURRICULUM MAPS FROM THE NURSING PROGRAM ........... 79

ANNEX 4 – RECOMMENDED VERBS FOR WRITING LEARNING OUTCOMES .......... 83

ANNEX 5 – SAMPLE SYLLABUS ................................................................................... 86

ANNEX 6 – SAMPLE LEARNING PLAN ......................................................................... 87

ANNEX 7 – PROGRAM OUTCOMES – PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – ASSESSMENT EVALUATION METHODS – STANDARDS MATRIX .............................. 88

List of Figures

Figure 1. Outcomes-Based Quality Assurance .................................................................. 9

Figure 2. Outcomes-Based Framework for Higher Education .......................................... 10

Figure 3. Framework for Outcomes-based Education ...................................................... 24

Figure 4. Sample of a SWOT Analysis for an HEI ........................................................... 45

List of Tables

Table 1. Criteria for Commitment to Excellence (70%) .................................................... 18

Table 2. Criteria for Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement (30%) ......................... 19

Table 3. Point System for Autonomous by Evaluation (Minimum of 80 points plus additional evidences) ....................................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Point System for Deregulated by Evaluation (Minimum of 65 points plus additional evidences) ....................................................................................................... 22

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

5

Table 5. Ideal Typical Depiction of Inputs-based and Outcomes-based Education Paradigms ....................................................................................................................... 25

Table 6. Changing Educational Paradigms and their Implication for Education ............... 27

Table 7. Sample Curriculum Map .................................................................................... 33

Table 8. Shift in Perspective using an Outcomes-based Approach .................................. 36

Table 9. Sample Elements of a Learning Plan ................................................................. 40

List of Boxes

Box 1. Examples of Program Outcomes by Discipline ..................................................... 29

Box 2. Examples of Learning Outcomes.......................................................................... 30

Box 3. Example of Determining Learning Outcomes ....................................................... 36

Box 4. Ten Points to Remember in Writing Outcomes ..................................................... 37

Box 5. Example of Selection of Methodology .................................................................. 38

Box 6. A System Illustrating how OBE Concepts can be Practiced as Developed by TP for Engineering .......................................................................................................... 42

Box 7. Example of Institutionalizing QA Systems ............................................................ 47

Box 8. Example of Setting Indicators, Metrics, and Targets ............................................ 48

Box 9. Points to Consider in KRA Governance and Management ................................... 51

Box 10. Points to Consider in KRA Quality of Teaching and Learning ............................. 52

Box 11. Points to Consider in KRA Professional Exposure, Research, and Creative Work ................................................................................................................. 54

Box 12. Points to Consider in KRA Support for Students ................................................. 55

Box 13. Points to Consider in KRA Relations with the Community .................................. 56

6

Acknowledgements

In a borderless society, cross-country mobility of students, workers, and businesses is bound to happen. For the Philippines, this means more opportunities for the Filipinos to study or work abroad as well as more foreign students and workers coming in the country. But to be globally competitive, there is a need to ensure that Filipinos have the right competencies and attitudes through excellent quality education at all levels. To address the demands and challenges of an international community, the Philippine government have been implementing educational reforms for the past few years. In basic education, we have the universalization of kindergarten, the mother-tongue based education in the early years, and the senior high school. In higher education, we have shifted from an inputs-based to an outcomes-based education (OBE), thus placing the students in the center of all educational planning. There is also a recognition that higher education institutions (HEIs) are different from each other and thus, a typology or classification of HEIs was developed to guide HEIs to have an alignment among their vision, mission, and goals (VMGs); their desired graduate attributes and impact on society; and their educational programs. A major key that will enable HEIs to achieve their VMGs is their institutional quality assurance systems which they could establish following the Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) framework. There have been questions on the typology of HEIs, OBE, and ISA and these concepts have been explained in CMO No. 46, series 2012, however, the specifics can be found in this handbook. It was not designed to be comprehensive, but it gives enough information to guide HEIs, the Technical Panels and Technical Committees of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), and other stakeholders to move forward towards an outcomes- based and typology-based quality assurance. This handbook would have not materialized without the technical expertise and assistance of the Task Force to Assist the Management of the Transition to Outcomes-based and Typology-based Quality Assurance (TFOTQA). CHED is greatly appreciative of the unselfish contribution and collective effort of the TFOTQA members, chaired by Dr. Maria Assunta Cuyegkeng and co-chaired by Dr. Reynaldo Vea. Special thanks also goes to Commissioner Maria Cynthia Bautista and Dr. Allan Bernardo who were part of the Task Force on Quality Assurance (TFQA) that conceptualized the typology of HEIs.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

7

Acronyms

ABET Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CHED Commission on Higher Education

CMO CHED Memorandum Order

COD Center of Development

COE Center of Excellence

CQI Continuous Quality Improvement

CSO CHED Special Order

EHEA European Higher Education Area

EUR-ACE EURopean ACcredited Engineer

HEI Higher Education Institution

HOTS Higher Order Thinking Skills

ICT Information and Communications Technology

IQuAME Institutional Quality Assurance Monitoring and Evaluation

ISA Institutional Sustainability Assessment

IT Information Technology

LLL Lifelong Learning

KPI Key Performance Indicator

KSA Knowledge, Skills, and Attitudes

MRA Mutual Recognition Agreements

OBE Outcomes-based Education

OBTL Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning

OJT On-the-Job Training

PEO Program Educational Objectives

PQA Philippine Quality Award

PQF Philippine Qualification Framework

PTC Philippine Technological Council

PSG Policies, Standards, and Guidelines

QA Quality Assurance

SED Self-Evaluation Document

SMART Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound

STCW Seaman’s Training Certification Watchkeeping

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Targets

TFQA Task Force on Quality Assurance

TP Technical Panel

VMG Vision, Mission and Goals

8

PART I – INTRODUCTION

“The changing realities spurred by globalization underscore the shift in contemporary international education discourse from education to lifelong learning, and from education as transmission of expert knowledge to education as building learner competencies – including learning how to learn.”1

Furthermore, “jobs can be moved readily from one country to another, and multi-national employers do not hesitate to relocate jobs to their maximum advantage. There will be many factors influencing relocation, including cost, access to markets, and the regulatory environment of a country, among others.”2

These are realities that Philippine higher education institutions (HEIs) have to face or already facing as they compete in a global and regional arena, where borders are starting to disappear.

What this means is that the competitive advantage of Philippine HEIs – and in many cases, their survival – is premised on their ability to offer quality degree programs that meet world- class standards and produce graduates with lifelong learning competencies. HEIs are therefore expected to develop “human resources with various types of knowledge, competencies, and expertise, especially in support of the social, economic, and development needs of the Philippines.”3

As such, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) “supports the development of HEIs into mature institutions by engaging them in the process of promoting a culture of quality. Premised on a shared understanding of quality, CHED encourages institutional flexibility of HEIs in translating policies into programs and systems that lead to quality outcomes, assessed and enhanced within their respective internal quality assurance (QA) systems.”4

CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 46, series 2012, entitled “Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA” discussed the role of the state in providing quality education to its citizens. It also discussed how quality in higher education has been defined in different ways, often as “excellence” or “fitness for purpose”, but also as “transformation” of stakeholders, especially for mature institutions.5

Taking these important elements as bases, CHED defines quality as the “alignment and consistency of the learning environment with the institution’s vision, mission, and goals demonstrated by exceptional learning and service outcomes and the development of a culture of quality.”6

Quality, thus, is premised on the HEIs’ ideals and on their commitment to achieve them while involving their respective organizations in the process. This kind of commitment is translated into having a mindset for QA which is “aboutensuring that there are mechanisms,

1 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 11, p. 4. 2 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA, p. 14. 3 Ibid., p. 15. 4 Ibid., p. 14. 5 Harvey, L. and Green, D. (1993), “Defining quality”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1): 9-34. 6 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 6, p. 3.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

9

procedures and processes in place to ensure that the desired quality, however defined and measured, is delivered.”7

“The internal capacity of HEIs to translate policy into quality programs and quality results depends on established internal QA systems. The starting point of QA is the articulation of the desired quality outcomes, set within the context of the HEI’s Vision, Mission, and Goals (VMG).”8 The VMG can be stated in operational terms as the HEIs’ institutional outcomes (i.e., attributes of ideal graduates and desired impact on society) that would serve as the foundation for the development of a proper learning environment (i.e., teaching-learning and support systems). It is important to note that the learning environment needs to be focused on developing the attributes of the HEIs’ ideal graduates.

This then is CHED’s definition of outcomes-based education: it is an approach that focuses and organizes the educational system around what is essential for all learners to know, value, and be able to do to achieve the desired level of competence. Thus, this kind of teaching-learning system will have its appropriate assessment of student performance.

The HEI’s management systems are set up to support its goals and strategies. There should be appropriate assessment tools to measure performance and to check if the mechanisms, procedures, and process actually deliver the desired quality. Such systems and processes, when properly implemented could lead to quality outcomes as well as sustainable programs and initiatives (refer to Figure 1). QA systems then “look at institutional performance in terms of the HEI’s capacity to translate policy (in terms of VMG) into quality programs and quality results.”9

In the context of CHED, these internal QA systems should focus on programs and institutional processes. These should also look into the cycle of planning, implementation, assessment, and transformation (refer to Figure 2, adapted from CMO No. 46, series 2012).10

7 Ibid., Section 7, p. 3. 8 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA, p. 14. 9 Ibid., p. 16 10 Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the Crisis. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, p. 88.

VMG

Desired institutional and program outcomes

Are processes in place?

Management and assessment tools

Learning environment: Teaching-learning and support systems

Figure 1. Outcomes-Based Quality Assurance

10

Moreover, “QA can be carried out with the help of external agencies, like CHED and the accrediting bodies. The role of CHED is to oversee a rational and cohesive system that promotes quality according to the typology of HEIs. This recognizes that different types of HEIs have different requirements in terms of the qualifications and corresponding desired competencies of their graduates, their programs, the qualifications of their faculty, their learning resources and support structures, and the nature of their linkages and outreach activities.”11

“This also means that CHED will have different incentives depending on the type of HEI, and programs of recognition within each type, e.g., autonomous and deregulated status, and Centers of Excellence (COEs) and Centers of Development (CODs).”12

CHED is adopting an outcomes-based approach to assessment (including monitoring and evaluation) because of its potential “to greatly increase both the effectiveness of the QA system, and the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of higher education.”13 There is a need to demonstrate that the achievement of outcomes matches international norms. The Philippine Qualification Framework (PQF) was designed to make our system more aligned with these norms, including the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Qualifications Reference Framework, Washington Accord for engineering, Seoul Accord for information technology, Canberra Accord for architecture; and the Seaman’s Training Certification Watchkeeping (STCW) for maritime.

11 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 9, p. 3 12 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA, p. 16. 13 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 14, p. 4.

Figure 2. Outcomes-Based Framework for Higher Education

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

11

Increasingly, these agreements are made among accrediting bodies and the government is entering into Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with ASEAN. These allow for global mobility (e.g., for studies and employment) and competitiveness of graduates in whatever industry they are involved in. This can be achieved through quality tertiary education, thus, CHED is interested in developing the systems that would help the country produce the best professionals and more competitive Philippine-based companies.

“Mature evaluation systems are based upon outcomes, looking particularly into the intended, implemented, and achieved learning outcomes. Inputs and processes remain important, as they shape the learning experience that is made available to students.”14

“CHED adopts two different approaches to outcomes-based evaluation of programs and of institutions:”15

Approach 1:“A direct assessment of educational outcomes, with evaluation of the individual programs that lead to those outcomes.”16 “This can provide a basis for program accreditation.”17

Approach 2:“An audit of the quality systems of an institution, to determine whether these are sufficiently robust and effective to ensure that all programs are well designed and deliver appropriate outcomes. Such an audit will not normally make direct judgments on academic programs, but it will consider program-level evidence to the extent necessary to establish that institutional systems are functioning properly.”18 “This can provide a basis for institutional accreditation.”19

“A move to outcomes-based evaluation from an evaluation system based more on inputs represents a shift to a review process that is more reflective, e.g., asking the HEI to provide justification for their initiatives and chosen strategies, in view of its VMG and desired outcomes. Factual data are still required to support the HEI’s effective performance but not as an end in itself. This approach is less prescriptive, and gives the institution the opportunity to propose solutions that is more fitting to its VMG, culture, and context.”20

This handbook discusses horizontal and vertical typologies of HEIs since their type will be the bases of their quality outcomes (refer to Part II). It also serves as a guide to HEIs on how to implement outcomes-based education (refer to Part III) and outcomes-based quality assurance, specifically institutional sustainability assessment (refer to Part IV). It also contains definitions of terms that are relevant to quality, quality assurance, outcomes-based education, among others (refer to Part V).

14 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA. 15 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 16, p. 5. 16 Ibid. 17 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA. 18 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 16, p. 5. 19 Primer on the Quality Assurance and Institutional Sustainability Assessment of HEIs, Annex 4 of Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes- based and Typology-based QA. 20 Ibid.

12

PART II – HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL TYPOLOGIES

Quality is premised on the:

1) alignment and consistency of the learning environment with the HEI’s VMG;

2) demonstration of exceptional learning and service outcomes; and

3) development of a culture of quality.

The first element is related to the horizontal type of the HEI while the last two are related to level of program excellence and institutional quality.

Program excellence is manifested through accreditation, Centers of Excellence and Development, and international certification.

Institutional quality is manifested through institutional accreditation, Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA), or other evidences in the areas of governance and management; quality of teaching and learning; quality of professional exposure, research, and creative work; support for students; and relations with the community. 21

Furthermore, the maturity of the HEI’s internal QA system can be seen in the institutionalization and documentation of systems or processes in the HEI, the extent of implementation of these systems or processes, and the quality outcomes that contribute to program excellence.

The overall quality is reflected in the vertical typology of the HEI as:

Autonomous HEI (by Evaluation),

Deregulated HEI (by Evaluation), or

Regulated HEI.

CHED recognizes that particular types of HEIs will respond fittingly to particular global and national challenges, and thus can be autonomous or deregulated in view of their horizontal type, namely Professional Institution, College, or University.

Although the mandates of the types are not mutually exclusive, they provide focus for the HEI, especially in the use of resources. They are differentiated through features in their desired competency of graduates, kinds of academic and co-curricular programs, qualification of faculty, learning resources and support structures, and the nature of their linkages and outreach activities.

21 Evidences in the five KRAs would be considered in the interim. There is a further recommendation to allow accrediting agencies to use this instrument in parts or en toto.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

13

Choosing Your Horizontal Type

As described in CMO No. 46, series 2012, the different horizontal types have different roles to play in the national development of the Philippines.

Professional Institutions contribute to nation building by providing educational experiences to develop technical knowledge and skills at the graduate and undergraduate levels, which lead to professional practice, e.g., Engineering, Medicine, Law, IT, Management, Teacher Education, Maritime Education). Professional Institutions develop adults who will have the technical and practical know-how to staff the various professional sectors that are required to sustain the economic and social development of the country and the rest of the world, as well as to contribute to innovation in their respective areas.”22 In line with this mandate, Professional Institutions should have:23

1) Full-time permanent faculty members who have the relevant degrees as required by CHED, as well as professional licenses and/or professional experience in the subject areas they handle;

2) Degree programs in professional fields that develop graduates with specialized skills;

3) Learning resources and support structures that are appropriate for developing professional knowledge and skills, including laboratories, practicum sites or internship programs, linkages with the relevant professional sectors, etc.;

4) Sustained program linkages with relevant industries, professional groups, and organizations that support the professional development programs; and

5) Outreach programs involving all students in social-development oriented

experiences that allow them to develop the service orientation in their professions.

“Colleges contribute to nation building by providing educational experiences to develop adults who have the thinking, problem solving, decision-making, communication, technical, and social skills to participate in various types of employment, development activities and public discourses, particularly in response to the needs of the communities they serve. In order to attain its mandate, Colleges should have:”24

1) Full time permanent faculty members who have the relevant graduate degrees as required by CHED and/or experience in the subject areas they handle;

2) Degree programs characterized by a core curriculum that holistically develops thinking, problem solving, decision-making, communication, technical, and social skills in line with the mission of the College;

3) Learning resources and support structures that are appropriate for developing

knowledge and skills in the specific natural science, social science, humanities, and professional disciplines offered by the college, including laboratories, books and journals, etc.;

4) Links with the community that would ensure the development of relevant academic

and extension programs as well as the application of their learning outcomes; and

22 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 23, p. 7. 23 Ibid., Section 23.1, p. 7. 24 Ibid., Section 23.2, pp. 7 – 8.

14

5) Outreach programs involving students in social-development oriented experiences that allow them to contextualize their knowledge within actual social and human experiences.

Universities contribute to nation building by providing highly specialized educational experiences to train experts in the various technical and disciplinal areas and by emphasizing the development of new knowledge and skills through research and development. The focus on developing new knowledge is emphasized from the basic post- secondary (i.e., baccalaureate) academic programs through the doctoral programs; thus, a research orientation is emphasized in the Bachelor, Master’s and doctoral degree programs. Universities contribute to nation building by producing experts, knowledge, and technological innovations that can be resources for long-term development processes in a globalized context. In order to attain its mandate, Universities should have:”25

1) Faculty members with relevant degrees in their areas of specialization as required by CHED, and who participate in research and development activities in their respective disciplines as evidenced by refereed publications, and other scholarly outputs;

2) A comprehensive range of degree programs in all levels, from basic post-secondary to doctoral programs;

3) Viable research programs in specific (disciplinal and multidisciplinary) areas of study

that produce new knowledge as evidenced by refereed publications, citations, inventions and patents, etc.;

4) Comprehensive learning resources and support structures (e.g., libraries, practicum laboratories, relevant educational resources, and linkages with the relevant disciplinal and professional sectors) to allow students to explore basic, advanced, and even cutting edge knowledge in a wide range of disciplines or professions;

5) Links with other research institutions in various parts of the world that would ensure

that the research activities of the university are functioning at the current global standards; and

6) Outreach activities that allow the students, faculty, and research staff to apply the

new knowledge they generate to address specific social development problems, broadly defined.

25 Ibid., Section 23.3, p. 8.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

15

Operational Criteria for the Different Horizontal Types

The following operational criteria should guide the HEI as to which data it needs to prepare in order to be typed as a Professional Institution, College, or University.

To be typed as a Professional Institution:26

1) At least 70% of the enrollment (graduate and undergraduate levels) is in degree programs in the various professional areas27 …

2) At least 60% of the academic degree program offerings are in the various professional areas … and have enrollees.

3) There should be a core of permanent faculty members. Until 2017, at least 50% of full time permanent faculty members have the relevant degrees as required by CHED … as well as professional licenses (for licensed programs) and/or professional experience in the subject areas they handle, … All other faculty should have the relevant degrees, professional licenses (for licensed programs), and/or professional experience in the subject areas they handle (e.g. in the event a professional institute has doctoral programs, all faculty members teaching in these programs must have doctoral degrees).

4) Learning resources and support structures are appropriate to the HEI’s technical or professional programs.

5) There are sustained program linkages with relevant industries, professional groups and organizations that support the professional development programs. Outreach programs develop in students a service orientation in their professions.

These minimum requirements for Professional Institutions should be reviewed by 2017, to determine if these are responsive to the development needs of the country.

To be typed as a College:28

1) At least 70% of undergraduate programs have a core curriculum that develops thinking, problem solving, decision-making, communication, technical, and social skills in line with the College’s mission …

2) There should be a core of permanent faculty members. Until 2017, at least 50% of the full time permanent faculty members have the relevant degrees as required by CHED in the subjects they handle …. All other faculty should have the relevant degrees as well as licenses (for licensed programs), and/or experience in the subject areas they handle (e.g. In the event the college has doctoral programs, all faculty members teaching in these programs must have doctoral degrees).

3) Learning resources and support structures are appropriate for the HEIs’ programs.

26 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 5.3.1, p. 18. 27 Examples: Engineering, Health, Medicine, Law, Teacher Education, Maritime, Information Technology, Management, Communication, Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries, among others. 28 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 5.3.2, p. 19.

16

4) Outreach programs in the relevant geographic or special communities towards which the College mission is oriented allow students to contextualize their knowledge within actual social and human experiences.

These minimum requirements for Colleges should be reviewed by 2017, to see if these are responsive to the development needs of the country.

To be typed as a University:29

1) The presence of graduate students manifests the training of experts, who will be involved in professional practice and/or discovery of new knowledge.

2) Academic degree programs should be comprehensive and manifest the pursuit of new knowledge.

3) There are at least twenty (20) active academic degree programs with enrollees, at least six of which is at the graduate level.

4) There is at least one doctoral program in three different fields of study30 (disciplines or branches of knowledge) with enrollees.

5) All graduate programs and at least 50% of baccalaureate programs require the submission of a thesis/project/or research papers.

6) There should be a core of permanent faculty members. All full-time permanent faculty members and researchers have the relevant degrees as required by CHED. … All faculty members teaching in the doctoral programs have doctoral degrees. All other faculty should have the relevant degrees, professional licenses (for licensed programs), and/or relevant experience in the subject areas they handle.

7) At least thirty (30) full-time faculty members or 20% of all full-time faculty, whichever is higher, are actively involved in research.

8) Any one of these conditions:

8.1 Annual research cost expenditure for the past five years is equivalent to at least PhP75,000 x the number of faculty members involved in research31; or

8.2 At least 5% of full-time faculty members engaged in research have patents, articles in refereed journals, or books published by reputable presses in the last ten years32

9) Comprehensive learning resources and support structures allow students to explore basic, advanced, and even cutting edge knowledge in a wide range of field of study/disciplines or professions.

10) Links with other research institutions in various parts of the world ensure that the research activities of the university are functioning at the current global standards.

29 Ibid., Section 5.3.3, pp. 19 – 21 30 For purposes of this CMO, field of study refers to recognized areas of specialization within a discipline (IACES and NSCB, 2006, p. 33). Given this definition, the comprehensiveness of a university may be gauged from the existence of programs representing a range of disciplines in different branches of knowledge; different disciplines within a branch of knowledge; or different recognized fields of study within a discipline. 31 Including external grants, monetary value of research load of faculty members, equipment, and similar expenses credited to research. 32 Includes the CHED-accredited journals.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

17

11) Outreach activities allow the students, faculty, and research staff to apply the new knowledge they generate to address specific social development problems, broadly defined.

These minimum requirements for Universities – particularly the numbers and percentages pertaining to academic degree programs, faculty, and costs – should be reviewed by 2017, to see if these are responsive to the development needs of the country.

HEIs recognized as universities before the establishment of CHED or granted such status by the Commission will retain their status unless they choose to be classified differently along the horizontal typology.

Furthermore, the lead university for HEIs that are recognized as university system status ought to meet the requirements for university by 2014. By 2017, the system as a whole must meet the 2017 requirement for university status.

To facilitate the gathering of data of the HEIs, a template (in MS Excel format) is available for download at the CHED website. Although this may seem overwhelming at first, the data will provide the HEI with basic information that it can use for effective strategic management. Most of the data asked for are also data that accrediting agencies and applications for COE/COD may require.

Vertical Classification as a Measure of Quality

As mentioned earlier, the overall quality is reflected in the vertical typology of the HEI.

“Autonomous HEIs (by Evaluation) demonstrate exceptional institutional quality and enhancement through internal QA systems, and demonstrate excellent program outcomes through a high proportion of accredited programs, the presence of Centers of Excellence (COE) and/or Development (COD), and/or international certification. In particular, they show evidence of outstanding performance consistent with their horizontal type, e.g., research and publications for universities; creative work and relevant extension programs for colleges; and employability or linkages for professional institutes.

Deregulated HEIs (by Evaluation) demonstrate very good institutional quality and enhancement through internal QA systems, and demonstrate very good program outcomes through a good proportion of accredited programs, the presence of COEs/CODs, and/or international certification. In particular, they show evidence of very good performance consistent with their horizontal type.

Regulated HEIs are those institutions, which still need to demonstrate good institutional quality and program outcomes.”33

“Vertical classification is based on the assessment of the HEI’s Commitment to Excellence and Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement. Commitment to Excellence mainly considers program excellence while Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement is largely based on institutional quality.”34

33 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 25, p. 9. 34 Ibid., Section 26, pp. 9 – 10.

18

A maximum of 70 percentage points is awarded for Commitment to Excellence (refer to Table 1) while a maximum of 30 percentage points is awarded for Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement (refer to Table 2).35

Program Excellence

Table 1 shows the criteria and corresponding point system for Commitment to Excellence which include the presence of COEs and/or CODs, program accreditation (local/ international), and international program certification.36

Commitment to Excellence cannot be fully manifested using just one criterion. Ideally, points from at least two criteria are needed to get the maximum points.

Points for local accreditation (refer to Annex 1) are obtained using the proportion of accredited programs to the total number of programs that can be accredited, as well as the level of accreditation. Thus, commitment to excellence is shown by the efforts of the HEI to have a good proportion of their programs accredited at a high level.

Table 1. Criteria for Commitment to Excellence (70%)

Criteria No. of points Max points that can be awarded

COE

COD

10/COE

5/COD

60

Local accreditation (Refer to Annex 1) 60

International accreditation (CHED recognized-mobility)

10/program 40

International certification 10/program 20

Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement

Table 2 shows the criteria and corresponding point system for Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement which include institutional accreditation, institutional certification (local/international), the Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) and international institutional certification (such as ISO for institutions).37

An HEI may accumulate more points for each area but only the maximum number of points will be awarded.

In the interim, in the absence of the suggested evidences, assessment can be made on the basis of additional evidence in the areas of Governance and Management, Quality of Teaching and Learning, Quality of Professional Exposure/Research/Creative Work, Support

35 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 6.3, p. 22. 36 Ibid., Section 6.3.1, p. 22. 37 Ibid., Section 6.4, p. 23.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

19

for Students, and Relations with the Community, however, the points awarded for these evidences will be smaller than those given to HEIs that went through the formal processes.38

After the interim, CHED will use the Institutional Sustainability Assessment (ISA) Framework (refer to Annex 2).

Table 2. Criteria for Institutional Sustainability and Enhancement (30%)

Criteria No. of points Max points that can be

awarded

Institutional accreditation

 based on program accreditation39

 using instrument for type-based institutional accreditation

2540

Points to be aligned with the ISA41

30

IQuAME (Categories from 2005- 2010)

Category A: 30

Category B: 25

30

Institutional Sustainability Assessment42

Ave ≥ 2.75 : 30

2.75 >Ave ≥ 2.50 : 25

2.50 > Ave ≥ 2.00 : 20

Six Sigma, Baldridge PQA

30

Institutional certification ISO 2014: 25

ISO 9001: 20

25

Additional evidence (type-based):

 Governance & Management

 Quality of Teaching & Learning

 Quality of Professional Exposure/ Research/ Creative Work

 Support for Students

 Relations with the Community

Max 4/key result area 20

38 Ibid., Section 6.4.1, p. 24. 39 Program-based institutional accreditation is considered only for the transition period, i.e. May 2014-May 2015 when the HEIs renew/apply for autonomy and deregulation. For this period, it is assumed that these HEIs meet the minimum ISA scores. After the interim, accrediting agencies are recommended to have their own type-based institutional accreditation that may use elements of the CHED ISA. Their scores have to be harmonized with ISA. The accrediting agency makes a proposal of equivalences to CHED; approved equivalences maybe used in the vertical classification by 2015 (for institutions seeking initial institutional accreditation) and by 2017 (for institutions seeking renewal of institutional accreditation). 40 As accreditation bodies harmonize their criteria and develop institutional accreditation separate from program accreditation, “having a high number of accredited institutions” may be a criterion that will merit higher maximum points than 25. 41 Refer to Footnote 38. 42 Refer to Annex 2.

20

Autonomy and Deregulation

In the vertical classification, HEIs that accumulate 80 points may be classified as Autonomous (refer to Table 3) while those with a minimum of 65 points may be classified as Deregulated (refer to Table 4). The HEIs should also show type-based evidences, which should already form part of the materials for COEs/CODs and/or accreditation. Thus, most of these evidences should already be available to the HEIs. This further means that there can be Autonomous and Deregulated HEIs in the different horizontal types.

Note that CHED is using a “moving target” framework in both cases, in order to give time for HEIs to adjust to the new system before raising the bar for quality in 2017. Table 3. Point System for Autonomous by Evaluation (Minimum of 80 points plus additional evidences)43

43 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 6.6, pp. 24 – 26. 44 The score has to be harmonized with other accrediting systems. The accrediting agency makes a proposal of equivalences to CHED; approved equivalences maybe used in the vertical classification by 2015 (for institutions seeking initial institutional accreditation) and by 2017 (for institutions seeking renewal of institutional accreditation). 45 Refer to Footnote 44. 46 For first time takers; the national passing rate (taken from PRC data) = total national passers in the set of programs offered by the HEI divided by total national takers in the set of programs offered by the HEI. The passing rate of the HEI = total HEI passers in the set of programs offered by the HEI divided by total HEI takers in the set of programs offered by the HEI.

Horizontal Type

Evidences by 2014 Evidences by 2017

Professional Institution

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score (e.g. ISA) or its equivalent44 ≥ 2.75 (see Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent45 ≥ 2.75 (see Annex 2).

2. Any two of the following: 2. Any two of the following:

a. At least one program with licensure, or 20%

of the school’s programs with licensure,

whichever is higher, has a passing rate that

is higher than the national passing rate46

in board/licensure exams, in the last five

years.

a. At least one program with licensure, or

20% of the school’s programs with

licensure, whichever is higher, has a

passing rate that is at least 1.1 times

than the national passing rate in

board/licensure exams, in the last three

years.

b. At least two programs are accredited

under internationally agreed upon criteria

and procedures, which promote

professional mobility across national

boundaries (e.g., accreditation under the

terms of Washington Accord by ABET or

by the PTC as a probationary member of

said Accord, etc.)

b. At least two programs are accredited

under internationally agreed upon criteria

and procedures, which guarantee

professional mobility across national

boundaries (e.g., accreditation under the

terms of Washington Accord by ABET or

by the PTC as a full signatory of said

Accord; Bologna Accord, etc.)

c. Over the last five years, at least 80% of

its graduates were employed within the

first two years of graduation.

c. Over the last five years, at least 80% of

its graduates were employed within the

first two years of graduation.

d. Sustained linkage with industry as

evidenced by working program(s) that

significantly contribute to the attainment

of desired student learning outcomes

and to the employability of its graduates.

d. Sustained linkage with industry as

evidenced by working program(s) that

significantly contribute to the attainment

of desired student learning outcomes and

to the employability of its graduates.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

21

Table 3. (con’t) Horizontal

Type Evidences by 2014 Evidences by 2017

College 1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent47 ≥ 2.75 (Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or its

equivalent48 ≥ 2.75 (Annex 2).

2. At least 80% of all graduates were

required as students to participate in a

community-based research/public

service/ extension program for a

cumulative period of two years.

2. At least 80% of all graduates were

required as students to participate in a

community-based research/public

service/ extension program for a

cumulative period of two years.

3. Over the last five years, at least 20% of

faculty members were engaged in

research and extension services that

contribute to instruction and/or

community development.

3. Over the last five years, at least 20% of

faculty members were engaged in

research and extension services that

contribute to instruction and/or community

development.

University 1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent49 ≥ 2.75 (Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or its

equivalent50 ≥ 2.75 (Annex 2).

2. At least 50 full-time faculty members or

at least 30% of full-time faculty,

whichever is higher, have been actively

engaged in scholarly work (research or

creative work) in the last two years.

(Evidence of this includes

completed/progress reports, approved

research grants, presentation at

conferences, books and anthologies,

and documented creative work.)

2. At least 50 full-time faculty members or

at least 30% of full-time faculty,

whichever is higher, have been actively

engaged in scholarly work (research or

creative work) in the last five years.

(Evidence of this includes

completed/progress reports, approved

research grants, presentation at

conferences, books and anthologies, and

documented creative work.)

3. At least 10% full-time faculty has patents

or publications in refereed journals. Of

these, at least 5% of full-time faculty has

publications in internationally indexed

journals and/or books published in

reputable academic presses in the last

five years.

47 Refer to Footnote 44. 48 Refer to Footnote 44. 49 Refer to Footnote 44. 50 Refer to Footnote 44.

22

Table 4. Point System for Deregulated by Evaluation (Minimum of 65 points plus additional evidences)51

Horizontal Type

Evidences by 2014 Evidences by 2017

Professional Institution

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score

(e.g. ISA) or its equivalent52 ≥ 2.50 (see

Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent53 ≥ 2.50 (see Annex 2).

2. Any two of the following: 2. Any two of the following:

a. At least one program with licensure, or 20%

of the school’s programs with licensure,

whichever is higher, has a passing rate that

is at least equal to the national passing

rate54 in board/licensure exams, in the

last five years.

a. At least one program with licensure, or

20% of the school’s programs with

licensure, whichever is higher, has a

passing rate that is higher than the

national passing rate in board/licensure

exams, in the last three years.

b. At least one program accredited under

internationally agreed upon criteria and

procedures, which promote professional

mobility across national boundaries

(e.g., accreditation under the terms of

Washington Accord by ABET or by the

PTC as a probationary member of said

Accord; Bologna Accord, etc.).

b. At least one program is accredited under

internationally agreed upon criteria and

procedures, which guarantee

professional mobility across national

boundaries (e.g., accreditation under the

terms of Washington Accord by ABET or

by the PTC as a full signatory of said

Accord; Bologna Accord, etc.).

c. Over the last five years, at least 70% of

its graduates were employed within the

first two years of graduation.

c. Over the last five years, at least 70% of

its graduates were employed within the

first two years of graduation.

d. Sustained linkage with industry as

evidenced by working program(s) that

significantly contribute to the attainment

of desired student learning outcomes

and to the employability of its graduates.

d. Sustained linkage with industry as

evidenced by working program(s) that

significantly contribute to the attainment

of desired student learning outcomes and

to the employability of its graduates.

College 1) The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent55 ≥ 2.50 (Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or its

equivalent56 ≥ 2.50 (Annex 2).

2. At least 70% of all graduates are

required to participate in a community-

based extension program for a

cumulative period of two years.

2) At least 70% of all graduates are required

to participate in a community-based

extension program for a cumulative

period of two years.

3) Over the last five years, at least 15% of

faculty members were engaged in

research and extension service that

contributes to instruction and/or

community development.

3. Over the last five years, at least 15% of

faculty members were engaged in

research and extension service that

contributes to instruction and/or

community development.

51 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 6.6, pp. 26 – 27. 52 Refer to Footnote 44. 53 Refer to Footnote 44. 54 Refer to Footnote 46. 55 Refer to Footnote 44. 56 Refer to Footnote 44.

CHED Handbook on Typology, OBE, and ISA

23

Table 4. (con’t) Horizontal

Type Evidences by 2014 Evidences by 2017

University 1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or

its equivalent57 ≥ 2.50 (Annex 2).

1. The Institutional Sustainability Score or its

equivalent58 ≥ 2.50 (Annex 2).

2. At least 30 full-time faculty members or

at least 25% of full-time faculty,

whichever is higher, have been actively

engaged in scholarly work (research or

creative work) in the last five years.

2. At least 30 full-time faculty members or

at least 25% of full-time faculty,

whichever is higher, have been actively

engaged in scholarly work (research or

creative work) in the last five years.

3. At least 7% full-time faculty has patents or

publications in refereed journals.

It must be noted that vertical typology of the HEI requires that it states its horizontal type as seen in the point system. The triple role of the HEI (i.e., instruction, research, and outreach) can still be achieved, but the extent and manner to which this is done depends on the mission of the HEI.

This emphasizes that the “operationalization of the horizontal typology do not mean that they are mutually exclusive to the HEI type, e.g. colleges and universities may offer professional programs, professional institutions and universities may have their own core curricula; professional institutions and colleges may conduct research associated with the scholarship of discovery.”59 The differences therefore lie on the focus and thrust of the HEI.

Furthermore, HEIs that wish to qualify for Autonomous or Deregulated status should highlight type-based evidences, which are already part of the materials submitted for COEs/CODs and/or accreditation.

57 Refer to Footnote 44. 58 Refer to Footnote 44. 59 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 5.1.3.8, p. 17.

24

PART III – OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION

“CHED is committed to developing competency-based learning standards that comply with existing international standards when applicable (e.g. outcomes-based education for fields like engineering and maritime education) to achieve quality and enable a more effective integration of the intellectual discipline, ethos and values associated with liberal education.”60

CHED defines outcomes-based education (OBE) as an approach that focuses and organizes the educational system around what is essential for all learners to know, value, and be able to do to achieve a desired level of competence. OBE is “open to incorporating discipline-based learning areas that currently structure HEI curricula.”61

For the HEIs, this means describing the attributes of their ideal graduates based on their visions and missions as part of their institutional goals or outcomes, and using these as bases for developing specific program outcomes.

Program outcomes are the sets of competencies (related knowledge, skills, and attitudes) that all learners are expected to demonstrate. Institutional or program outcomes may also emphasize lifelong learning. For instance, HEIs could describe the attributes of their ideal graduates which they expect to see five years after graduation.

These desired outcomes have to be translated to what the students learn in specific courses. The HEI should ensure that at the level of the courses, the desired course and learning outcomes are attained with the proper content, methodologies, and student performance assessment (refer to Figure 3).

60 CMO No. 46, series 2012, Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes- Based and Typology-Based QA, Section 13, p. 4. 61 Guidelines for the Implementation of CMO 46, series 2012 on the Policy-Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance (QA) in Philippine Higher Education through Outcomes-based and Typology-based QA. Section 3.1.4.3, p. 12.

Program outcomes

(Curriculum map)

Teaching-learning systems

Assessment &

Evaluation Learning Environ:

Content & Methodologies

Course Design

Institution’s Vision, Mission & Goals

Institutional Outcomes (Competencies of Ideal Graduate)

Course outcomes

S o c ia

l. E

n v ir

o n m

e n ta

l C

o n te

x t

S ta

n d

a rd

s &

D e m

a n d

s

Figure 3. Framework for Outcomes-based Education

no comments were posted
This is only a preview
3 shown on 90 pages
Download the document