1. Kantor Jaminan Mutu UGM
Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi melalui
AUN-QA System
Leni S. Heliani
Kantor Jaminan Mutu UGM
2016

2. References
AUN-QA , Guide to AUN-QA Assessment at Programme Level, 2015
Materi Pengembangan SAR: Jonson Ong, Titi Savitri

3. Contents of Presentation
AUN in Brief
AUN-Certification
AUN-QA Criterias
ASIIN - Criterias

4. Objectives of AUN ASEAN University Network (AUN) In Brief
To strengthen existing network of cooperation among universities in ASEAN
To promote collaborative study, research and educational programmes on the priority areas identified by ASEAN
To promote cooperation and solidarity among scholars, academicians and researchers in the ASEAN Member States
To serve as the policy-oriented body in HE in the ASEAN region

5. ASEAN University Network (AUN)
30 Members
Brunei Darussalam
Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Cambodia
Royal University of Phnom Penh
Royal University of Law and Economics
Indonesia
Universitas Gadjah Mada
Universitas Indonesia
Institut Technologi Bandung
Universitas Airlangga
Lao PDR
National University of Laos
Malaysia
University of Malaya
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Myanmar
Institute of Economics, Yangon
University of Yangon
The Philippines
University of the Philippines
De La Salle University
Ateneo de Manila University
Singapore
National University of Singapore
Nanyang Technological University
Singapore Management University
Thailand
Chulalongkorn University
Burapha University
Mahidol University
Chiangmai University
Currently, there are 22 AUN Member Universities from 10 ASEAN countries including
Viet Nam
Vietnam National University, Hanoi
Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City

6. AUN Organisation Structure
ASEAN University Network (AUN)
In Brief
AUN Organisation Structure
AUN Board of Trustees
(AUN-BOT)
AUN Secretariat
30 AUN Member Universities
AUN Secretariat is located at Room 210. Jamjuree 1 Bldg.
Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
<

7. AUN Thematic Networks AUN Quality Assurance (AUN-QA)
Secretariat: Chulalongkorn University
AUN Southeast Asia Engineering Education Development Network (AUN/SEED-Net) Secretariat: Chulalongkorn University
ASEAN Graduate Business and Economics Programme Network (AGBEP) Secretariat: Universitas Gadjah Mada
AUN Human Rights Education Network (AUN-HREN)
Secretariat: Mahidol University
AUN Inter-Library Online (AUNILO)
Secretariat: Universiti Sains Malaysia
ASEAN Credit Transfer System (ACTS)
Secretariat: Universitas Indonesia
AUN Intellectual Property (AUNIP)
AUN University Social Responsibility & Sustainability (AUN-USR&S)
Secretariat: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia

8. AUN Quality Assurance Project
AUN Goal for Higher Education Quality
AUN Quality Assurance Project
Quality Assurance (QA)
“must be succeeded”
to drive higher education in Asia towards the World Class.

9. Kuala Lumpur AUN-QA Policies
AUN Quality Assurance
Kuala Lumpur AUN-QA Criteria (2004)
Kuala Lumpur AUN-QA Policies
(2001)
Bangkok Accord on AUN-QA
(2000)
AUN Quality Assurance
Evolution of AUN-QA
In the Bangkok Accord , AUN Member Universities agreed to:
Appoint CQOs (Chief Quality Officers)
Establish common QA criteria
Exchange mutual collaboration and information
Encourage the good practices for QA
Facilitate QA auditing, assessment and review
Share a mutual consultation on any differences or disputes
Seek further and deeper engagement with ASEAN dialogue partners
The 1st AUN-QA meeting was organised under the heading “Workshop on AUN-QA Alliance”. The corrective will and commitment of all AUN Member Universities was demonstrated in the Bangkok Accord on AUN-QA, which has since become the bedrock of ASEAN’s future quality improvement. The Bangkok Accord provided a guideline to promote the development of a quality assurance system as a instrument for maintaining, improving and enhancing teaching, research and the overall academic standards of AUN Member Unviersities.

10. Benefit of AUN-QA for higher Education in ASEAN
AUN Quality Assurance
Benefit of AUN-QA for higher Education in ASEAN
- Harmonisation of QA Framework in ASEAN
- A system of readable and comparable Degree
Enhancing movement of business persons, professionals, talents and labour in ASEAN
Free flow of workforce in 2010
Therefore, AUN is working on the Quality Assessment in order to make the recognised system for comparable degrees among Member Universities, which serve the ASEAN Charter in Article 1 by enhancing movement of business persons, professionals, talents and labours in ASEAN.
ASEAN Charter: Article 1

11. Titi Savitri Prihatiningsih-BPK FK UGM
HRK German Rector’s Conference
Purposes of the AUN-QA Assessment:
To have an agreed quality framework and criteria of QA in Higher Education in ASEAN (to anticipate ASEAN Community 2015)
To strengthen internal QA and improve the quality
Recognition of education programme across member universities (for credit transfers, joint degree, mobility of staff and students, etc)
To uplift the quality of the ASEAN HE in education, research and services
Titi Savitri Prihatiningsih-BPK FK UGM

12. Mobility in Higher Education
ASEAN University Network (AUN)
Quality Assurance
Credit Transfer
NQF
Mobility in Higher Education
Mobility of Students, Faculty and Researchers
facilitate
Realization of AEC (MEA)

13. AUN-QA Certification

14. Quality Assurance in Higher Education
Internal Quality Assurance
External Quality Assurance
- Accrediation
- Certification
- Audit

15. Certification AUN Type of certification: - Instiutional
- Program : undergraduate
Fokus on quality improvement process
Outcome based assessment
Discipline: All
AUN Bukan akreditasi, tetapi sertifikasi berupa assesment process, untuk mendapatkan feedback posisi Prodi terhadap Standar AUN.

16. Input-Output Based Education
financial resources
Programe/Institution
lab equipment
Number of students graduating
Infrastructure facilities
quantitative grades of students
success rate of students
faculties
Number of quality of students
Measurable Outputs
Measureable Input
Karnakata, 2015

17. Outcome Based Education (OBE)
Starting with a clear picture of what is important for students to be able to do…
Then organizing the curriculum, delivery and assessment to make sure learning happens and LO achieved…
Measureble outcome :
- Achievement of LO  direct and in-direct assessment systems

18. Outcome Based Education
OBE (Education)
OBC
(Curriculum)
What the student should be able to do?
OBLT
(Learning & Teaching)
OBA
(Assessment)
How to make the student achieve the outcome?
How to measure what the student has achieved?
Attributes
Karnakata, 2015

19. Outcome Based Education

20. Key constituents of Outcome based Education
design
Vision
Mission
Graduate
Attributes
Karnakata, 2015 20

21. WHY “Outcome-based Education (OBE)
More directed & coherent curriculum,
Graduates will be more “relevant” to industry & sector, other stakeholders and society ,
Continuous Quality Improvement is an inevitable consequence of OBE.
No OBE = very difficult to get international accreditation/certification

22. Outcome based education
Outcame based delivery and assessment

23. Outcome based education (OBE)
IT’S NOT WHAT Academic Staff TEACH, (In this case there is no need to program outcomes and program educational objectives) OBE is WHAT Students ACHIEVE (LEARNED Acquirements after completion a course or program)

24. 2. Learning design
(Felder&Bert dalam Samadi, 2015)

25. AUN Criterias

26. AUN-QA Models for Higher Educatio

27. AUN-QA Model for Institutional Level

28. AUN-QA Model for IQA System

29. Comparison of 3 versions criterias

30. Reference 2015

31. AUN-QA Model for Programme Level (3rd)

32. Ong, 2012

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

34. 1. Expected Learning Outcome
AUN- Criteria
1. Expected Learning Outcome
Criteria/standard:

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

36. c. Checklist

37. 3. Programme Structure and Content
Criteria/standard:

38. b. Checklist

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

40. c. Structured-Curriculum
Constructive alignment between the courses, teaching and learning also assessment methods
Constructive alignment includes:
defining ELOs that are measurable;
selecting teaching and learning methods that are likely to ensure that the ELOs are achieved; and
assessing how well the students have achieved the ELO as intended.

41. 4. Teaching and Learning Approach

42. The Learning Pyramid

43. b. Checklist

44. 5. Student Assessment

45. b. Checklist

46. c. Evident
Samples of in-course assessment, project work, thesis, final examination, etc.
Rubrics
Marking scheme
Moderation process
Appeal procedure
Programme and course specifications
Examination regulations

47. Assessment process: Program level
Program faculty develop/refine program learning outcomes
Program faculty plan/refine assessments & performance criteria
aculty collect evidence throughout the program on student learning
Assessment committee analyzes evidence & compares to performance criteria
Program faculty make decisions based on evidence
Program faculty implement & enhance curriculum & program activities
Samadi, 2015

48. P: Program C: Course Assessment Tools
Exit surveys, Exit interviews (P)
Alumni surveys and interviews (P)
Employer surveys and interviews (P)
Job offers, starting salaries (relative to national benchmark) (P)
Admission to graduate schools (P)
Performance in group and internship assignments (P,C)
Assignments, report and tests (P,C)
P: Program C: Course

49. Sample. of Oral Communication Rubrics
Performance Area
3: Exceeds Standards
2: Meets Standards
1: Fails to Meet Standards
Score
Organization
Presenter follows logical sequence and provides explanations/elaboration.
Presenter follows logical sequence, but fails to elaborate.
Presenter does not follow logical sequence (jumps around in presentation).
Eye Contact
Presenter seldom returns to notes, maintaining eye contact with audience throughout the presentation.
Presenter maintains eye contact with audience most of the time, but frequently returns to notes.
Presenter reads most or all of report, making little to no eye contact with audience.
Delivery
Presenter speaks clearly and loud enough for all in audience to hear, makes no grammatical errors, and pronounces all terms correctly and precisely.
Presenter’s voice is relatively clear, but too low to be heard by those in the back of the room. Presenter makes several major grammatical errors, and mispronounces some terms.
Presenter mumbles, mispronounces terms, and makes serious and persistent grammatical errors throughout presentation. Presenter speaks too quietly to be heard by many in audience.
Conclusion:
Effectively summarizes the presentation and provides a sense of closure.
Provides an adequate summary &/or recommendation that is reasonable given the information/analysis presented.
Weak or no conclusion provided (it is too vague to be of any practical value) or the recommendation is weakly related to the analysis.
Responsiveness:
a) Q&A
b) time
Addresses all questions in a manner that demonstrates a thorough command of the topic(s) of the presentation.
Speaker uses the allotted time effectively. Finishes on time.
Presenter demonstrates an ability to address most questions in a thoughtful and effective manner.
Speaker finishes on time but has to rush through last points to finish on time.
Presenter cannot address basic questions about the topic or addresses them in a superficial manner.
Speaker does not finish on time or finishes well before allotted time.
Multimedia Support and
Visual Aids: Charts,
animation, graphs, handouts,
posters, videos, slides, sound
Presentation includes a balanced use of appropriate multimedia that enhances the overall presentation (easy to read, attractive, informative, and error free).
Presentation includes limited multi-media that enhance the overall presentation. Easy to read and informative, but not outstanding.
Presentation includes little or no multimedia or uses it in distracting or ineffective manner (difficult to read, has errors &/or typos, etc.).

50. Program Educational Objectives(PEOs) Program Outcomes (POs)
When to Assess
Program Educational Objectives(PEOs)
Few years after
Graduation – 4 to 5 years
Upon
graduation
Program Outcomes (POs)
Course Outcomes (COs)
Upon
course completion 50 50

51. Scoring Scale

52. Scoring Scale

53. International Accreditation ASIIN
Akkreditierungsagentur für Studiengänge der Ingenieurwissenschaften, der Informatik, der Naturwissenschaften und der Mathematik
Founded in 1999 as the non-profit association

56. ASIIN General Criterias7
ASIIN General Criterias
Formal Program Specification
2. DEGREE PROGRAMME: CONTENT CONCEPT AND IMPLEMENTATION
2.1. Objectives of the degree programme
2.2. Learning outcomes of the programme
5. RESOURCES
5.1. Staff involved
5.2. Staff development
5.3. Institutional environment, financial and physical resources
2.3. Learning outcomes of the modules/module objectives
2.4. Job market perspectives and practical relevance
2.5. Admissions and entry requirements
2.6 Curriculum/content
6. QUALITY MANAGEMENT: FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF DEGREE PROGRAMMES
6.1. Quality assurance and further development
6.2. Instruments, methods and data
3. DEGREE PROGRAMME: STRUCTURES, METHODS AND IMPLEMENTATION
3.1. Structure and modularity
3.2. Workload and credit points
3.3. Educational methods
3.4. Support and advice
. DOCUMENTATION AND TRANSPARENCY
7.1. Relevant regulations
7.2. Diploma Supplement and qualification certificate
4. EXAMINATIONS: SYSTEM, CONCEPT AND ORGANISATION
8. DIVERSITY AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES

57. Agronomy specific criterias (1)
Knowledge and Understanding
know and understand the principles of natural sciences, social science, mathematics, medical science, and economics their discipline is based on;
have a coherent knowledge in their discipline including knowledge of the latest findings in their discipline;
know concepts of identification and safeguarding of quality in their respective fields of work;
know the essential legal regulations relating to their discipline;

58. Agronomy specific criterias (2)
Engineering Analysis
have the required knowledge and understanding to identify and formulate problems arising in agronomy, nutrition science, or landscape architecture (which may contain aspects stemming from areas other than their field of specialisation)
are able to apply different methods orientated on fundamentals – such as mathematical, statistical, and experimental (laboratory) analysis;
are qualified to plan and conduct respectively suitable experiments, interpret the data, and draw conclusions.
are able to pursue literature searches in a targeted way and to use data bases and other sources of information;
are qualified to carry out assessments on the basis of comparisons with literature references and plausibility considerations.

59. Agronomy specific criterias (3)
Engineering desain
to develop descriptive and comparative approaches.
to work on the basis of concepts
and develop strategies
Engineering Practice
have the skills to solve practical problems;
can combine theory and practice to solve subject-specific practical problems;
are able to select and apply suitable devices, processes, and methods;
have developed an understanding of applicable techniques and methods and their limita- tions;
recognise the technical, health and safety, social, economic, ecological, and legal implica- tions of engineering practice in their field of scientific expertise;
can apply methods relevant for their profession;
are aware of the usability and the restrictions of concepts and solution strategies;
can resort to experience with problems, topics, and processes relating to their scientific discipline;
are able to consult adequate literature and information sources and coordinate the work of experts.

60. Agronomy specific criterias (4)
Social Competences
are able to work efficiently on their own and as team members;
are qualified to apply different methods to communicate effectively with the scientific community and the society as a whole;
feel obliged to act in accordance with professional ethics and the responsibilities and stan- dards of practical engineering;
are aware of the methods of project management and business practices such as risk and change management and understand their limitations;
recognise the necessity of independent life-long learning and are qualified to do so;
depending on the professional field they have competences in the fields of management and marketing, in particular project management, acquisition, personnel management, con- trolling etc,
are adequately competent in the area of communication, e.g. presentations or moderation.

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

62. GinÖng Prati Dino
Terima Kasih