1. To us in AACCUP, the current strongest factor to harmonize QA practices, and the best means to promote a level playing field, is the CHED-initiated Outcomes-Based Quality Assurance System (CMO 46).
  1. Upon the invitation of CHED, and as accepted by the AACCUP Board of Trustees, a one-year CHED-AACCUP contract was crafted in 2014, with CHED providing funding assistance amounting to P2 Million for AACCUP to revise its instruments of program and institutional accreditation “in line with outcomes-based quality assurance…” (AACCUP completed the one-year contract on time on September 30, 2015.
  1. Tapping the services of AACCUP Officials and Senior Accreditors, Academic Program Specialists, the AACCUP Pool of Institutional Accreditors and International Experts, the following sequence of steps was pursued:
    1. Formulation of AACCUP QA Framework aligned to CHED, by top-AACCUP officials.
    2. Preparation of the Master Survey Instrument by top AACCUP officials and a pool of Senior Accreditors
    3. Preparation of the 42 Outcomes-Based Program Accreditation Instruments by 42 Curricular Program Specialists
    4. Review of the draft Outcomes-Based Program Accreditation Instruments by a small group of Senior Accreditors
    5. Review, in a national workshop, of the draft Instruments
    6. Finalization of the Instruments, and Preparation of the Guidelines in preparing the Program Performance Profile (PPP) and Institutional Portfolio (IP)
    7. Validation of the Instruments
    8. Copyrighting of all the Instruments
  1. Output of the Contract:
    1. One (1) Instrument on Institutional Accreditation
    2. Forty-two (42) Instruments on forty-two (42) Program Accreditation
    3. One (1) Guidelines in preparing the Outcomes-Based Program Performance Profile
    4. One (1) Guidelines in preparing the Institutional Portfolio
  1. The AACCUP Outcomes-Based Framework is aligned to the CHED policy of defining Quality as “exceptional” i.e., exceeding very high standards as against Quality as “fitness of purpose” and/or “developing a culture of quality”.
  1. The accreditation instruments are also aligned to the definition of outcomes-based Quality Assurance as measurement of , but still consider inputs and processes as important. Thus, AACCUP measurement of quality of programs and institutions include:
    1. System (inputs and processes)
    2. Implementation
    3. Outcomes

AACCUP evaluation also gives premium to “best practices”

  1. There are 10 Areas (Standards/Key Result Areas) in all Program Accreditation Instruments:
Area I - Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives
Area II - Faculty
Area III - Curriculum and Instruction
Area IV - Support to Students
Area V - Research
Area VI - Extension and Community Involvement
Area VII - Library
Area VIII - Physical Plant and Facilities
Area IX - Laboratories
Area X - Administration

 

  1. Each area is composed of Indicators and Parameters e.g.,

Area II – Faculty

Indicators

PARAMETER A: Academic Qualifications and Professional Experience
- System Inputs and Processes
- Implementation  
- Outcomes Outcomes
   
PARAMETER B: Recruitment, Selection and Orientation
- System Inputs and Processes
- Implementation  
- Outcomes Outcomes
PARAMETER C:  
Etc.

 The Rating for the Parameter = (System + Implementation + Outcomes)  / 3

  1. There are nine (9) Areas (Standard/Key Result Areas) in Institutional Accreditation
Area I - Governance and Management
Area II - Teaching, Learning and Evaluation
Area III - Faculty and Staff
Area IV - Research
Area V - Extension, Consultancy and Linkages
Area VI - Support to Students
Area VII - Library
Area VIII - Infrastructure and Other Learning Resources
Area IX - Quality Assurance Culture

 

  1. Rating Scale
RATING SCALE
NA 0 1 2 3 4 5
-   Poor Fair Satisfactory Very Satisfactory Excellent
Not Applicable Missing

Criterion is met minimally in some respects, but much improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.

(75% lesser than the standards)

Criterion is met in most respects, but some improvement is needed to overcome weaknesses.

(50% lesser than the standards)

Criterion is met in all respects.

   

(100% compliance with the standards)

Criterion is fully met in all respects, at a level that demonstrates good practice.

(50% greater than the standards)

Criterion is fully met with substantial number of good practices, at a level that provides a model for others.

(75% greater than the standards)

 

 

Our Best Practices in the Implementation of Outcomes-Based Quality Assurance

 

  1. The Framework and Instruments are thoroughly prepared by our experienced Senior Accreditors with appropriate qualifications: these are accepted by SUCs and Accreditors as validated; and copyrighted. 
  1. Before using the instruments, Senior Accreditors and New Accreditors have been given training separately in different AACCUP Training Centers: National, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao

Training Activities in Outcomes-Based Quality Assurance

Year Name of Training Number of Participants
2014

      Training on OBQA for Senior Accreditors

    Training on OBQA for New Accreditors

349

922

2015

    Training on OBQA for Senior Accreditors

      Training on OBQA for New Accreditors

243

717

2016 

     Training on OBQA for Accreditors

     Training on OBQA Team Leadership

     Training-Workshop for Internal Quality Assurance Units

442

400

265

 The professionalization of the AACCUP Accreditors primarily through its Training Programs has earned for the AACCUP the award of

 2016 APQN Quality Award for the Professionalization of Quality Assurance 

  1. The OBQA was adopted for implementation in 2015 but not fully as many SUCs which were scheduled in 2015 for their next accreditation cycle preferred still using the old framework. In 2016, OBQA was adopted in all programs and all levels of accreditation. This year, AACCUP assessed a total of 1,419 programs broken down by levels as follows:
Candidate - 307 (22%)
Level I - 413 (30%)
Level II - 496 (34%)
Level III - 192 (13%)
Level IV - 11 (.78%) 


The production in terms of number of programs and institutions accredited has been consistently large. This gained for AACCUP the  

 2014 APQN Quality Service Award
for Most Vibrant Quality Assurance Body   

  1. The Applications for Accreditation for Survey Visits have consistently been larger than AACCUP’s capacity to accommodate, especially in the last five (5) years. Thus, AACCUP has developed the strategy of calling for applications which were made the bases for scheduling of programs on a first-come, first-served basis. This is the Final Annual Schedule of Accreditation Visits. Applications which could not be accommodated are placed in the “Waiting List”.  
  1. The AACCUP publishes two (2) Reports on Assessed Programs:
    1. List of Assessed (in a particular year), 2016; and
    2. Consolidated List of Assessed Programs circa 1992. (List of updated Assessed Programs, 1992-2016). This is updated regularly every year.
  1. AACCUP has adopted a policy of gradually delegating to SUCs the accreditation of their programs. In 2016, it started implementing the long-range policy by delegating to qualified SUCs the conduct of the Preliminary Survey of their respective programs. So far, only two (2) SUCs, the Visayas State University and the West Visayas State University have qualified and used this privilege. In 2017, this internalization of QA will be pursued with greater vigor as SUCs develop their internal quality assurance systems.