1. بيروت 22-24 تشرين الثاني 2015

2. الاساليب المتبعة في تطبيق جودة الاداء ( ضمان الجودة ) في والجامعات الايرلندية الاخرى UCD اسلوب التقييم الذاتي Self Assessment اسلوب التقييم الخارجي External Assessment اسلوب المقارنات المرجعية Benchmarking تقييم الاقران Peer Evaluation الممتحن الخارجي External Examiner تقييم البحث العلمي Review Research Activity تضمين اعضاء خارجيين في لجان المقابلة External members in interview panels الاعتماد Accreditation

3. تدابير جامعة دبلن للحفاظ على المعايير والجودة Measures for the maintenance of standards and quality Involvement of external examiners (drawn from institutions abroad in a large proportion of cases) in all undergraduate and postgraduate study programmes External members are included in interview panels and selection groups for all permanent academic appointments External accreditation of programmes in the practice professions. مشاركة الممتحنين الخارجيين ( من مؤسسات في الخارج بنسبة كبيرة من الحالات ) في جميع البرامج الجامعية والدراسات العليا يتم تضمين أعضاء خارجيين في لجان المقابلة لتعيين اعضاء الهيئة التدريسية الدائمة تبني الاعتماد الخارجي للبرامج الاكاديمية ذات التوجهات المهنية.

4. تدابير جامعة دبلن للحفاظ على المعايير والجودة Measures for the maintenance of standards and quality In accord with global practice, as academic staff carry out scholarship and research and make their findings known, they are also subject to expert scrutiny Review by experts in the relevant areas of all research grant applications. The Irish research funding bodies increasingly use experts from outside Ireland in such review processes Peer review and professional editorial examination of all significant research publications وباتفاق مع الممارسات العالمية ، تخصع اعمال هيئة التدريس البحثية لتدقيق الخبراء وذلك : باستعراض من قبل خبراء من خارج ايرلندة في المجالات ذات الصلة لجميع طلبات المنح البحثية وتمويل الابحاث من قبل الجهات الايرلندية باستعراض البحوث المنشورة الهامة من قبل باحثين اقران

5. تدابير جامعة دبلن للحفاظ على المعايير والجودة Measures for the maintenance of standards and quality Mechanisms and procedures that is systematically implemented in UCD Feedback mechanisms for student evaluation of teaching, administration and other services, Regular review of academic, administrative, service and support units, Formal mechanisms for approval and review of study programmes with external inputs. الآليات والإجراءات التي يتم تنفيذها بصورة منتظمة في الجامعة آليات التغذية الاسترجاعية لتقييم الطالب للتدريس والمدرسين والإدارة وغيرها من الخدمات المراجعة المنظمة لاعضاء الهيئة التدريسية والإدارات ووحدات الخدمات والدعم الآليات الرسمية للموافقة على ولمراجعة برامج الدراسة وبمساهمات من خبراء خارجيين

6. Quality Improvement Exit surveys, Exit interviews Alumni surveys and interviews Employer surveys and interviews Job offers, starting salaries (relative to national benchmark) Admission to PhD research

7. Quality Improvement Student surveys, individual and focus group interviews Peer-evaluations Written tests linked to learning objectives Written project reports Oral presentation Classrooms assessment techniques Improvements based on feedback from surveys and evaluations will close the system loop and the process will continue year after year.

8. QUALITY ASSURANCE IN IRISH UNIVERSITIES Detailed self-evaluation report Preliminary site visit (two days duration) by a European University Association (EUA) review team composed of independent experts in quality assurance from Europe and North America A further site visit to each institution (three days duration) took place some four or five months later, after which time individual university reports were prepared by the EUA review team These reports were sent to the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) who forwarded the final reports to the individual universities An international panel considered the outcomes of the EUA review and prepared for the HEA a "reflections“ document which identified particular issues of relevance to future reviews

9. Ubenchmarking: UCD School of Chemical & Bioprocess Engineering Research Activities compared to other Schools / Departments of Chemical Engineering Refereed Journals 2007-2008 Research Income 2007-2008 Current PhD & Master per per Staff per Staff in € 100 k Staff UCD, Ireland Trondheim, Norway Lyngby, Denmark Cape Town, RSA Stanford, US Ohio State, US Mississippi State, US 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. Plot of points of students entrance against their end-of-year results

11. Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) The Head of the unit, on receipt of the Review Group Report, will establish a Quality Improvement Committee, which is broadly representative of staff from the unit. The Quality Improvement Committee will arrange to have a Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) drafted within twelve weeks, based on the unit’s Self-assessment Report and the Review Group Report findings. A QIP template is available from the UCD Quality Office. The QIP should usually take the form of short summaries of the action taken/planned, or if actions are not being taken, an explanation provided.

12. QIP: Addressing recommendations Recommendation:The unit should review its undergraduate programmes with a view to streamlining the range of modules offered (SAR reference/Review Group Report reference) Action PlannedA School sub-committee will be established by [month/year] and will meet on a monthly basis to review module provision. Proposals will be prepared for consideration by the Teaching and Learning Committee on [date]. Module rationalisation will be initiated in [month/year] and be completed by [month/year]. Responsibility for action will be the Head of School and Chair of the Teaching and Learning Committee. The sub-committee will evaluate the effectiveness of the module rationalisation at the end of academic year [X].

13. Recommendations for Improvements – Follow-Up Action Taken and/or Planned CATEGORY 1: Recommendations concerning academic, organisational and other matters which are entirely under the control of the university

14. Recommendations for Improvements – Follow-Up Action Taken and/or Planned Category 1(a) Recommendations already implemented Recommendation: Action taken:

15. Recommendations for Improvements – Follow-Up Action Taken and/or Planned Category 1(b) Recommendations to be implemented within one year Recommendation: Action planned: Recommendation: Action planned:

16. Recommendations for Improvements – Follow-Up Action Taken and/or Planned Category 1(c) Recommendations to be implemented within five years Recommendation: Action planned: Recommendation: Action planned:

17. Recommendations for Improvements – Follow-Up Action Taken and/or Planned Category 1(d) Recommendations which will not be implemented Recommendation: Reason for not implementing:

18. Prioritised Resource Requirements This section should only contain a list, prioritised by the Quality Improvement Committee, of recommendations outlined in the Review Group Report, which require additional resources. The planned action to address each recommendation with an estimate of the cost involved should also be included: ___________