The report is the
main output of the visit. It will be studied carefully by many people. Reports
should concentrate on judgements made and the evidence which supports them. They
should not include guesses or personal comments. The writing must be accurate
and clear. The style throughout the report must be consistent.
The
report is the responsibility of all
the team. Team members will contribute to more than one section, but each
section should be edited by the person responsible.
On
the third day of the visit, the team holds a final meeting of all the team, in
private. They agree on findings and grades and conclusions.
These are the fýndings, grades and conclusions which are writtten in the
report.
The details and results of
visits are classified as CONFIDENTIAL. The documents provided, the things
assessors are told, their judgements and opinions must
not be discussed outside the team and YÖK.
A fictional report is given in Appendix 2.2.
The team chairperson chairs the
meetings during the visit, and is well prepared for them. He helps the team to
identify and agree on major strengths and weaknesses included in the report (see
Appendix 4).
Through all team
meetings during the visit the team chair ensures that the team discussions are
pointed towards developing the lists of major strengths and weaknesses and the
confidential recommendations. With these purposes in mind, the team can focus
its efforts on the main issues and not get distracted by small ones.
As the team discusses
the major points of the visit, it will identify areas where there is agreement
and areas where additional information needs to be gathered. The role of the
chair is to ensure that all members of the team are helping to gather the
additional information so that, as far as possible, the team can come to an
agreement on the main points.
The
team chair will be responsible for checking the first draft of the complete
report. He or she will make sure that it is factually accurate, and represents
the views of all the assessors. He may send sections back for rewriting. He will
be responsible for keeping to deadlines and for the final editing.
Ideally, the team will reach
consensus about the list of principal strengths and weaknesses by the end of Day
2 of the visit. Also, the team
should reach consensus on the confidential recommendation. It is the
responsibility of the team chair to produce the list of principal strengths and
weaknesses, and to report the findings of the team with respect to the
confidential recommendation.
At
the end of the visit, the team chair (and possibly other team members) will meet
with the dean and faculty accreditation coordinator.
The team chair comments on the strengths and weaknesses, as given in the
report, but does not give the recommendation.
YÖK will do this later.
·
Report format
1
Introduction The
size of the faculty, its programs, buildings, and other general matters. About
500 words. Use Section A of the self-evaluation report,
either whole, or edited.
2
Profile The
are seven sections under the following headings:
1
Planning, implementation and
evaluation of the program
2
Faculty staff and staff development
3
Students: intake, progress and
achievement, support and guidance
4
School partnerships
5
Facilities and equipment, library,
usage.
6
Management
7 Quality assurance
Each
section should be about 350 to 500 words long.
Each section will contain the judgements of the people who have looked at
the areas 1 to 5 in individual subject areas, such as classroom teaching and
mathematics education, see section
6.2.
It
follows that a team member looking at a subject area (eg classroom teaching or
maths) will write short sections for that subject, under the headings 1 to 3 and
5 above. One member will also do
the overview for 1, 2, 3 and 5. The
team member responsible for schools will do 4, in consultation with the others.
The team member responsible for the educational science courses will
contribute to all. The team chair will do 6 and 7, after consultation with the
others.
The
contributions from each person will contain the judgements
and the evidence
to support them. It should not be an opinion or a guess. If something was not
considered, the writer should say so: not make up a comment. In the judgements,
the writer should also comment on
strengths and weaknesses. Each section will consider input standards and process
standards. Output standards should
be fully considered in the second round of accreditation visits.
One
team member should edit each section. He or she takes everyone’s contribution
and produces a coherent and logical piece of writing for each section.
This is the overview
for each section.
The
self-evaluation report and other documents are used to form judgements. Then
judgements are tested by examining as many activities and evidence as possible. Keep
notes
all the time. This is essential.
At the
end of each section of the report a grade of A (high), B, C, or D (low), is
given.
A
It makes a full contribution to the
aims/objectives. The aims/objectives are fully met.
B
It
makes a considerable contribution to the aims/objectives. However, there is
scope for improvement.
C
It makes an acceptable contribution
to the aims/objectives. But considerable improvement could be made.
D
The
aims/objectives are not met. There are major weaknesses which must be corrected.
Grades
of A, B and C are regarded as acceptable. Grade D is not.
3
Conclusions and recommendations The
conclusions
of the report are derived from the profile of all seven sections. Each section
carries the same weight. In the conclusion, state the strengths and weaknesses
found, and comment on them.
Recommendations State
recommendations for improvement.
4
Comment on the visit
The team comments on the
organisation of the faculty and the support provided for the visit.
Was the self-evalutaion complete and accurate?
Did the staff demonstrate an accurate understanding of how well their
programs met the standards? Were
the logistics sufficiently organised? Was
everyone with whom the team needed to meet available?
Were the documents sufficient and well organised?
If missing documentation made it difficult for the team to do its work,
that should be noted here.
5
The team’s recomendation about accreditation for YÖK
Full
accreditation means
the faculty is accredited in that program, for a number of years to be set by YÖK,
on the standards reviewed. Full
accreditation does not mean excellence, but a satisfactory level.
Excellence would be shown in the main strengths of the program.
Accreditation
with probation means
that some aspects of the program’s provision is inadequate.
It must be remedied by a date set by YÖK.
Normally the problems lie within the faculty, and must be corrected by
them. Soon after this date it will
be re-visited,
and may achieve full accreditation. However,
the problem may be caused by lack of resources, such as too few
staff/facilities. Then YÖK and/or
the faculty will consider what assistance can be given.
Accreditation deferred
is
a rare recommendation. Only if -
for example -
·
conditions,
including inputs have recently changed,
or will change soon. The change would be enough to make a substantial change to
the outputs.
·
not
enough information
is available. For example, if
students are prevented from completing their final teaching practice by some
natural or other disaster, such as an earthquake.
Accreditation withdrawn means
that a substantial number of students do not meet the national
competencies
for beginning teachers, or the program fails in more
than one standard.
‘Accreditation withdrawn’ should not come out of the blue.
It would normally follow an earlier assessment of ‘accreditation with
probation’.
2
Chair
completes draft report
Within one week of the
visit, the team chair writes a complete draft of the report and sends copies to
the team. The report at this point
is complete, providing the contextual statement, the assessment of each program
on the Standards Domains 1-5, and overall for Standards Domains 6 and 7.
It also includes the team’s summary of major strengths and weaknesses
and recommendation. The team reply
to the chair with any necessary comments.
The
draft confidential recommendation to YÖK is appended.
3 Chair sends draft report to dean for correction of
factual errors
Two
weeks after the visit, the team chair will have incorporated feedback from the
team into the draft report. The
next step is to send the draft report to the dean for correction of factual
errors. The
confidential team recommendation is not sent to the dean.
Three weeks after the visit,
the dean lets the team chair know what factual errors, if any, are in the draft
report. The dean is asked to
correct errors of fact only. For
example, if the team stated that the program enrolled 842 students and the
correct number, verified by the team chair, is 824, the chair would make this
correction in the team report. At
this stage, the dean does not comment on the judgement of the team.
5
The chair sends the final version of the report to the dean and to YÖK
Four
weeks after the visit, after the team chair has corrected factual errors, he
sends out the final version of the team report as follows:
To
YÖK: Team report plus
confidential recommendation
To
dean: Team report only.
6
The dean sends the faculty response to YÖK with a copy to the team chair
Five
weeks after the visit, the faculty response is due.
The
response may state that the faculty agrees with the report.
The
response may note those areas where the faculty believes that the judgements or
conclusions of the team are not supported by fact.
For example, the team report may state that students are not given
explict instruction in using the library, and are therefore inadequate in this
aspect of their preparation. The
faculty response might indicate that elsewhere in the report, the team noted
that students’ use of bibliographic format was correct and that students used
a variety of information resources in their assignments.
If the faculty response states that the faculty believe the judgements or
conclusions of the team are not supported by fact, the faculty must support
their assertions with factual evidence. They
should also indicate whether that evidence was available to the team during the
visit.
If
there were serious deviations from the stated schedule of the visit and the
faculty staff believe that these deviations caused the team to make inaccurate
judgements or conclusions, the faculty staff may explain the problem in their
response. An example would be if
the team report stated that teaching in partner schools did not provide good
models for students, but the team did not visit any partner schools.
In this example, the faculty might note that the completed form in
5.4 Team member meetings during the visit
indicates that no team member visited a partner school.
There
is new information to consider. Here
the faculty can note new developments since the time of the team visit.
For example, suppose the report indicated that the faculty had
not formally adopted a mission statement at the time of the visit.
By five weeks after the visit, when the faculty response is due, the
faculty may have done so. In this
case, the faculty response would include a copy of the approved mission
statement, and a copy of the faculty resolution from faculty records.
7
The YÖK group considers the report and makes a formal recommendation to
YÖK
Six
weeks after the visit, the group at YÖK charged with the task will consider the
faculty programs being reviewed. The
group will have the following evidence to consider:
·
The
self-evaluation of the faculty
·
The
team report, including the statement of major strengths and weaknesses
·
The
team confidential recommendation
·
The
faculty response
The group, through its
established procedures, will consider all the evidence and make a recommendation
to YÖK. By considering the
programs of each faculty as they go through the accreditation process, the group
will be able to consider faculties equitably and treat the conclusions fairly.
8
YÖK
makes the decision and conveys it to the Rektor, with a copy to the dean
Eight
weeks after the visit, YÖK will make the final decision and inform the Rektor
and the dean. The final decision
will include reasons for the decision. It
will notify the faculty when the next visit will occur, and also the particular
concerns to which the next team will attend.
A sample notification letter is included in A2.3
Notification letter for
accreditation from YÖK.
9
The
Dean may respond
Upon
considering the decision, the dean may respond in only two cases:
·
The
recommendation failed to consider
important information. Here, the
dean would need to build a strong case, as the group had much evidence to
consider.
·
There is new
information. Here, the new
information would need to be of such weight that it would overcome the weight of
the earlier evidence. Suppose, for
example, that the team visit confirmed that there were not sufficient faculty
staff to offer the pre-school program. However,
if the dean has recently re-assigned two faculty staff from special needs to
pre-school, YÖK can reconsider the recommendation.
This
final opportunity to respond ensures that the accreditation decision is valid at
the time it is made. It reflects
the facts at the time of the visit, but is updated if there are important
changes.