Assessment of Quality of Education Department of Islamic Studies University of Dhaka
June 2017
REPORT ON
Assessment of Quality of Education
Department of Islamic Studies
University of Dhaka
Submitted To
Institutional Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC)
University of Dhaka
Institutional Quality Assurance Unit (IQAU)
University Grants Commission of Bangladesh
Dhaka, Bangladesh
Submitted By
SA-Entity
Department of Islamic Studies
Faculty of Arts
University of Dhaka
Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
i | P a g e
THE PROJECT TEAM
Professor Dr. Muhammad Abdur Rashid Head, SA-Entity Department of Islamic Studies Institutional Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) University of Dhaka
Professor Dr. Muhammad Shafiqur Rahman & Professor Dr. Md. Shamsul Alam Member, SA-Entity Department of Islamic Studies Institutional Quality Assurance Cell (IQAC) University of Dhaka
ii | P a g e
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We are very much grateful to the people who have contributed to making the institutional quality assurance cell (IQAC) sub project of the Department of Islamic Studies, University of Dhaka, a success. Here, we would like to heartfelt thanks especially to the following;
. A A M S Arefin Siddque, Honorable Vice Chancellor, University of Dhaka . All faculty members of the Department of Islamic Studies . All Current students of the Department of Islamic Studies . All Ex-students of the Department of Islamic Studies . All Employers of the Department of Islamic Studies
We also like to convey our especial thanks to the Professor Dr. Sheikh Shamimul Alam, Director, IQAC, and Professor Dr. Rahmat Ullah and Professor Dr. Mahbub Ahasan khan, Additional Director, IQAC, University of Dhaka.
We are grateful to Md. Khalid Hasan, Assistant Professor, Institute of Disaster Management and Vulnerability Studies, University of Dhaka, for his contribution to data analysis and writing of SA report.
Finally, we would express our gratitude to our family members for their support and cooperation throughout the period of this sub-project.
PROFESSOR DR. MUHAMMAD ABDUR RASHID
PROFESSOR DR. MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUR RAHMAN
PROFESSOR DR. MD. SHAMSUL ALAM
JUNE 2017
iii | P a g e
TABLE OF CONTENTS
The Project team ...... ii
Acknowledgement ...... iii
Table of Contents ...... iv
List of Tables ...... xi
List of Figures ...... xiv
Executive Summary ...... xvii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Background ...... 1
1.2 Objective of the Study ...... 2
1.3 Limitation of the Study ...... 2
1.4 Organization of the Report ...... 2
Chapter 2: Department of Islamic Studies: A Brief Overview ...... 3
2.1 University of Dhaka—the Highest Echelon of Academic Excellence: A Short Introduction ...... 3
2.1.1 The University of Dhaka: At a glance ...... 4
2.1.2 Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University: 1921-2017 ...... 4
2.2 Department of Islamic Studies: An Overview ...... 5
2.2.1 Undergraduate Programme ...... 6
2.2.2 Graduate Programme ...... 8
2.2.3 Lab Facilities ...... 8
2.2.4 Library Facilities ...... 9
2.2.5 Research and Training Facilities ...... 9
2.2.6 Extra Curricular Activities ...... 9
2.2.7 Awards and Financial Supports ...... 10 iv | P a g e
Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 11
3.1 Methods and Sample Size ...... 11
3.2 Analytical approach ...... 11
3.3 Ethical Issues, Privacy, and Confidentiality ...... 11
Chapter 4: Evaluation on Governance of DIS ...... 13
4.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 13
4.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 15
4.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 16
4.4 Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation ...... 19
4.5 Comparative Analysis of Governance ...... 21
Chapter 5: Evaluation on Curriculum Design & Review of DIS ...... 22
5.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 22
5.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 23
5.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 24
5.4 Comparative Analysis of Curriculum Design & Review ...... 26
Chapter 6: Evaluation on Students Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements of DIS ...... 27
6.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 27
6.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 28
6.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 29
6.4 Comparative Analysis of Students Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements ...... 31
Chapter 7: Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities of DIS ...... 32
7.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 32
7.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 33
7.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 35
v | P a g e
7.4 Comparative Analysis of Institutional Structures and Facilities ...... 37
Chapter 8: Evaluation on Teaching Learning and Assessment of DIS ...... 38
8.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 38
8.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 40
8.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 43
8.4 Comparative Analysis of Teaching Learning and Assessment ...... 45
Chapter 9: Evaluation on Student Support Services of DIS ...... 47
9.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 47
9.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 48
9.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 50
9.4 Comparative Analysis of Student Support Services ...... 51
Chapter 10: Evaluation on Research and Extension of DIS ...... 52
10.1 Current Students’ Evaluation ...... 52
10.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation ...... 53
10.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 54
10.4 Comparative Analysis of Research and Extension ...... 56
Chapter 11: Evaluation on Faculty and Staff: Recruitment and Development of DIS .. 57
11.1 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 57
11.2 Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation ...... 59
11.3 Comparative Analysis of Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development ...... 61
Chapter 12: Evaluation on Process Control Internal: Quality Assurance and Continuous quality Improvement of DIS ...... 62
12.1 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation ...... 62
Chapter 13: Evaluation of Employers on The Services Provided by The Employees (Student of DIS) ...... 64
13.1 Knowledge Skills Evaluation ...... 64
vi | P a g e
13.2 Communication Skills Evaluation ...... 66
13.3 Interpersonal Skills Evaluation ...... 68
13.4 Work Skills Evaluation ...... 71
Chapter 14: SWOC Analysis ...... 74
14.1 SWOC Analysis of Governance ...... 74
14.1.1 Strengths ...... 74
14.1.2 Weaknesses ...... 74
14.1.3 Opportunities ...... 74
14.1.4 Challenges ...... 74
14.2 SWOC Analysis of Curriculum ...... 75
14.2.1 Strengths ...... 75
14.2.2 Weaknesses ...... 75
14.2.3 Opportunities ...... 75
14.2.4 Challenges ...... 75
14.3 SWOC analysis of Student entry qualifications, Admission procedure, progress and achievements ...... 75
14.3.1 Strengths ...... 75
14.3.2 Weaknesses ...... 76
14.3.3 Opportunities ...... 76
14.3.4 Challenges ...... 76
14.4 SWOC analysis of structure and facilities ...... 76
14.4.1 Strength ...... 76
14.4.2 Weaknesses ...... 76
14.4.3 Opportunities ...... 76
14.4.4 Challenges ...... 76
vii | P a g e
14.5 SWOC analysis of teaching and learning assessment ...... 77
14.5.1 Strengths ...... 77
14.5.2 Weaknesses ...... 77
14.5.3 Opportunities ...... 77
14.5.4 Challenges ...... 77
14.6 SWOC Analysis of Student support service ...... 78
14.6.1 Strengths ...... 78
14.6.2 Weaknesses ...... 78
14.6.3 Opportunities ...... 78
14.6.4 Challenges ...... 78
14.7 SWOC analysis of research and extension ...... 79
14.7.1 Strengths ...... 79
14.7.2 Weaknesses ...... 79
14.7.3 Opportunities ...... 79
14.7.4 Challenges ...... 79
14.8 SWOC analysis of staff and facilities ...... 79
14.8.1 Strengths ...... 79
14.8.2 Weaknesses ...... 80
14.8.3 Opportunities ...... 80
14.8.4 Challenges ...... 80
14.9 SWOC Analysis of process control ...... 80
14.9.1 Strengths ...... 80
14.9.2 Weaknesses ...... 80
14.9.3 Opportunities ...... 80
14.9.4 Challenges ...... 81
viii | P a g e
14.10 SWOC Analysis of employer ...... 81
14.10.1 Strengths ...... 81
14.10.2 Weaknesses ...... 81
14.10.3 Opportunities ...... 81
14.10.4 Challenges ...... 81
14.11 Overall SWOC Analysis: ...... 81
14.11.1 Strengths ...... 81
14.11.2 Weaknesses ...... 82
14.11.3 Opportunities ...... 82
14.11.4 Challenges ...... 82
Chapter 15: Recommendations ...... 84
15.1 Current Students ...... 84
15.1.1 Recommendation 1: Existing Best Practices of the Department ...... 84
15.1.2 Recommendation 2: Needs Improvement ...... 84
15.1.3 Recommendation 3: Courses that should be included to improve the quality of graduates ...... 85
15.2 Alumni ...... 86
15.2.1 Recommendation 1: Existing Best Practices of the Department ...... 86
15.2.2 Recommendation 2: Practices of the program need to be improved ...... 87
15.2.3 Recommendation 3: Courses need to be included to improve the quality of graduates ...... 87
15.3 Academicians ...... 88
15.3.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses ...... 88
15.3.2 Recommendation 2: Needs Improvement ...... 89
15.4 Non-academic ...... 90
15.4.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses ...... 90
ix | P a g e
15.4.2 Recommendation 2: Needs improvement ...... 90
15.5 Employer ...... 91
15.5.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses you have observed in the Graduates of Program University working at your organization ...... 91
15.5.2 Recommendation 2: Do you provide any training just after recruitment before assigning any responsibility ...... 92
15.5.3 Recommendation 3: General Comments...... 93
Chapter 16: Conclusion ...... 94
Appendix – A: List of the Heads and Chairmen ...... 95
Appendix – B: Faculty Members of the Department of Islamic Studies ...... 96
Appendix – C: Brief syllabus for B.A. (Hons), M.A. and M.Phil. Programme ...... 97
Appendix – D: Survey Questionnaire For Employer ...... 102
Appendix – E: Survey Questionnaire For Alumni ...... 106
Appendix – F: Survey Questionnaire for Students ...... 112
Appendix – G: Survey Questionnaire for Non-academic ...... 117
Appendix – H: Survey Questionnaire for Academic ...... 120
x | P a g e
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Dhaka University: At a Glance ...... 4
Table 2: List of Academics of the Department of Islamic Studies ...... 5
Table 3: Summary Statistics of Honors Students of DIS ...... 7
Table 4: Summary Statistics of Graduate Students of DIS ...... 7
Table 5: Summary Statistics of Research conducted in DIS ...... 7
Table 6: Summary Statistics of Post-Graduate Programme of DIS ...... 8
Table 7: List of Achievements in Extra-curriculum Activities ...... 10
Table 8: Sample size distribution of respondents of the study ...... 11
Table 9: Percent Distribution of Current Students' Evaluation on Governance (n=230) ...... 13
Table 10: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Governance (n=91) ...... 15
Table 11: Percent Distribution of Academicians' Evaluation on Governance (n=22) ...... 17
Table 12: Percent Distribution of Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation on Governance (n=5) . 19
Table 13: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=230) ...... 22
Table 14: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=91) ...... 23
Table 15: Percent Distribution of Academicians' Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=22) ...... 24
Table 16: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=230) ...... 27
Table 17: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=91)...... 28
Table 18: Percent Distribution of Academicians’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=22) ...... 30
Table 19: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=230)...... 32
xi | P a g e
Table 20: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=91)...... 34
Table 21: Percent Distribution of Academicians’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=22)...... 35
Table 22: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Teaching Learning (n=230) ...... 38
Table 23: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=230) ...... 39
Table 24: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Teaching Learning (n=91) ...... 41
Table 25: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=91) ...... 42
Table 26: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Teaching Learning (n=22)...... 43
Table 27: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=22). . 44
Table 28: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Student Support Services (n=230) ... 47
Table 29: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Student Support Services (n=91) .... 49
Table 30: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Student Support Services (n=22)...... 50
Table 31: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Research and Extension (n=230) ..... 52
Table 32: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Research and Extension (n=91) ...... 53
Table 33: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Research and Extension (n=22)...... 54
Table 34: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development (n=22) ...... 57
Table 35: Percent Distribution of Non-Academicians' on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development (n=5) ...... 59
Table 36: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Process Control Internal (n=22) ...... 62
Table 37: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Knowledge on the Subject Matter (n=28)...... 65
Table 38: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Communication Skill (n=28). . 67
Table 39: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Knowledge Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill (n=28)...... 69
Table 40: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Working Skill (n=28) ...... 72
xii | P a g e
Table 41: Percent Distribution of the Current Students’ Recommendations on Best Practices of the Department ...... 84
Table 42: Percent Distribution of the Current Student’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved...... 85
Table 43: Percent Distribution of the Current Students’ Recommendations on Courses That Should to be included to Improve the Quality of Graduates...... 86
Table 44: Percent Distribution of the Alumni’s Recommendations on Best Practices of the Department ...... 86
Table 45: Percent Distribution of the Alumni’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved...... 87
Table 46: Percent Distribution of Alumni’s Recommendation on Courses That Need to Be Included to Improve the Quality of Graduates ...... 88
Table 47: Percent Distribution of the Academician’s Recommendations on the Major Weaknesses of the Department...... 88
Table 48: Percent Distribution of the Academician’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved...... 89
Table 49: Percent Distribution of the Non-Academicians’ Recommendations on the Major Weaknesses of the Department...... 90
Table 50: Percent Distribution of the Non-Academicians’ Recommendations on What Need to be Improved...... 91
Table 51: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Recommendation on the Major Weaknesses of the Department...... 91
Table 52: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Recommendation If They Give Training after Recruitment before Assigning Responsibility...... 92
Table 53: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Suggestions Which They Think Would Help to Strengthen Our Academic Programs for the Improvement the Quality of Graduates...... 93
xiii | P a g e
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Governance... 14
Figure 2: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Governance . 16
Figure 3: Overall and Item-wise Average of Faculty Members' Evaluation on Governance . 18
Figure 4: Overall and Item-wise Average of Non-Academics' Evaluation on Governance.... 20
Figure 5: Comparative Evaluations on Governance ...... 21
Figure 6: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Curriculum ... 23
Figure 7: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Curriculum .. 24
Figure 8: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Curriculum ...... 25
Figure 9: Comparative Evaluations on Curriculum Design & Review ...... 26
Figure 10: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications ...... 28
Figure 11: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications ...... 29
Figure 12: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications ...... 30
Figure 13: Comparative Evaluations on Student Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress & Achievements ...... 31
Figure 14: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities ...... 33
Figure 15: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities ...... 34
Figure 16: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities ...... 36
Figure 17: Comparative Analysis of Institutional Structure and Facilities ...... 37
Figure 18: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Teaching Learning...... 39
Figure 19: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Learning Assessment ...... 40
xiv | P a g e
Figure 20: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Teaching Learning ...... 41
Figure 21: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Learning Assessment ...... 42
Figure 22: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Teaching Learning ...... 44
Figure 23: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Learning Assessments...... 45
Figure 24: Comparative Analysis of Teaching Learning ...... 46
Figure 25: Comparative Analysis of Learning Assessments Criteria ...... 46
Figure 26: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students’ Evaluation on Student Support Services ...... 48
Figure 27: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Student Support Services ...... 49
Figure 28: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Student Support Services ...... 51
Figure 29: Comparative Analysis of Student Support Services ...... 51
Figure 30: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Student Support Services ...... 52
Figure 31: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Research and Extension ...... 54
Figure 32: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Research and Extension ...... 55
Figure 33: Comparative Analysis of Research and Extension ...... 56
Figure 34: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Staff and Facilities ...... 58
Figure 35: Overall and Item-wise Average of Non-Academicians’ Evaluation on Staff and Facilities Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development ...... 60
Figure 36: Comparative Analysis on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development ...... 61
Figure 37: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Process Control Internal...... 63
xv | P a g e
Figure 38: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers’ Evaluation on Knowledge of Quality Graduates ...... 65
Figure 39 Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Knowledge of DIS Graduates ...... 66
Figure 40: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill ...... 67
Figure 41: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill of DIS Graduates ...... 68
Figure 42: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment ...... 70
Figure 43: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of DIS Graduates ...... 70
Figure 44: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment...... 73
Figure 45: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of DIS Graduates ...... 73
xvi | P a g e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Self-assessment becomes an essential exercise to the academic institutions for continuous improvement and quality assurance in education. It refers to a comprehensive and systematic process of collecting and analyzing information from major stakeholders on the QA areas and related aspects of the educational institution. An assessment of the quality of education of Department of Islamic Studies, University of Dhaka was conducted by quantitative research method using structural survey questionnaire. A total 376 respondents were interviewed from current students’ respondents (230), alumni members’ respondents (91), academic staff (22), non-academic staff respondents (5) and employer respondents (28). The questionnaire was designed to measure 9 different aspects of quality education i.e., governance, curriculum design & review, student entry qualifications, institutional structures and facilities, teaching learning and assessment, student support services , research and extension, faculty and staff: recruitment and development, process control internal using Likert-type questions ranging 1–5 (“Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree”)
2. The average score of governance section ranges from 3.07 to 3.80 out of 5. The Academic Staffs evaluate the Governance Standard 3.66 out of 5, which means they thought 73.2% governance related activity is properly running. However, there is a chance of improvement in 26.8% area. Current Students’ evaluation (3.07/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.57/5) which means the Department’s Governance is getting worse now than the past years. The Nonacademic Staffs’ evaluation has secured the heights score (3.80/5) which means they are more satisfied with the Governance than the other stakeholders.
3. The average rating of curriculum section ranges from 3.61 to 3.75 out of 5. The Alumni members evaluate the curriculum standard 3.75 out of 5, which means they thought 75% curriculum-related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 25% area. There is not much difference between the current students’ evaluation (3.66/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.61/5) which means the Department's curriculum is running quite well.
4. The average score of student entry qualifications ranges 3.32 to 3.76 out of 5. The Academicians evaluate the student entry, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department 3.76 out of 5, which means they thought 75.2% of the student entry admission process, progress, and accomplishments were quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 24.8% area. Current students’ evaluation (3.32/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.61/5) which means department’s student entry, admission procedure, progress, and achievements are getting worse than the past years.
xvii | P a g e
5. The average score of Institutional Structures and facilities ranges 2.66 to 3.19 out of 5. The Academicians evaluate the structure and facilities of the department 3.19 out of 5, which means they thought 63.8%of the structures and facilities of the department were quite enough. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 36.2area. Current students’ evaluation (2.66/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.13/5) which means department’s structure and facilities are getting worse than the past years.
6. In teaching learning assessment, the average score ranges 2.97 to 3.29 (out of 5). The Academicians evaluate the teaching-learning assessment of the department 3.29 out of 5, which means they thought 65.8% of teaching learning assessment was quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 34.2% area. Current students’ evaluation (2.97/5) is quite lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.29/5) which means department’s teaching-learning assessment is getting worse than the past years.
7. In learning assessment, the average score ranges 3.13 to 3.64 (out of 5). The Academicians evaluate the learning assessment of the department 3.64 out of 5, which means they thought 72.8% of teaching learning assessment was quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 27.2% area. Current students’ evaluation (3.13/5) is quite lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.56/5) which means department’s learning assessment is getting worse than the past years.
8. The average score ranges from 2.89 to 3.24 out of 5 in student support services section. The current students evaluate the student support service standard 2.89 out of 5, which means they thought 77.8% service related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 20% area. There is a little between the alumni’s evaluation (3.21/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.24/5) which means the student support service is running average well.
9. The average score of research and extension ranges from 2.77 to 3.94 out of 5. The current students evaluate the research and extension standard 2.77 out of 5, which means they thought 55.4% service related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 45% area. There is not much difference between the alumni’s evaluation (3.18/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.94/5) which means the research and extension are running quite well.
10. For faculty and staff recruitment and development, the average score ranges 2.96 to 3.22 (out of 5). The Non-academicians evaluate the staff and facilities of the department 3.22 out of 5, which means they thought 64.4% of staff and facilities were quite high. However, there is a xviii | P a g e
chance of improvement in the 35.6% area. The academician’s evaluation (2.96/5) is much lower than the non-academicians evaluation. That means the staff and facilities of the department are getting worse than previous years.
11. In the section of process control internal, the average score ranges from 3.40 to 4 out of 5. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.94) were considered as the strengths of the process control.
12. In Evaluation of employers section, the employees evaluated the quality, which is needed for recruitment and what they found in DIS students according to knowledge skills, communication skills, interpersonal skills and working skills.
13. The strength of the department is result publishing on time whereas the website is not updated properly is addressed as weakness. Entity’s embracement of spirits of continual quality improvement is the opportunity of the department. Existing mechanism for engaging the students in research and development is a challenge to the department, as they are not adequate but by improving the mechanism this can be turned into a strength.
xix | P a g e
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Quality assurance in higher education is a global practice now. With the changes in higher education landscape and emerging needs of the stakeholders, there is an urgency to look into the effectiveness of the academic programs. Higher education must be more closely aligned to the needs of the community, needs of the graduates to explore their potential regarding employability and lifelong learning. Universities should focus on preparing graduates with a positive mindset, skills, and competence, which would help them to find a good fit into the social system. To drive the QA system towards the right direction following questions are very critical:
1. Understanding the current state of quality of education the institution is providing
2. Identifying the areas and issues that need to be addressed and improved to enhance and maintain quality of education
3. Integrating the concerns of major stakeholders into the educational system to provide better experience
Assessment of present activities/structure and review of the past activities is a prerequisite for any future planning to improve the program of academic institutions. As a definition of self- assessment, Paloumbas & Banta’s (1999) model has been accepted by the Bangladesh University Grants Commission (UGC), which states that self-assessment means “the systematic collection, review, and use of information about educational programs taken from multiple sources for improving student learning and development.” The same UGC document underlines the importance of self-assessment report as this report “makes the basis of all future reviews/ accreditation of the concerned program.”
Self-assessment becomes a necessary exercise to the academic institutions for continuous improvement and quality assurance in education. It refers to a comprehensive and systematic process of collecting and analyzing information from major stakeholders on the QA areas and related aspects of the educational institution. The SA process allows the organization to identify the strengths and areas in which improvements are required for quality education. It also provides information to participants, enabling them to evaluate and understand the overall quality of academic programs. Self-assessment provides a direction and guidelines for preparing comprehensive improvement plan addressing the issues critical to quality assurance. The understanding and practice of self-assessment promote the developmental process. It is never exhaustive in its ability to grow. It enables the participants of the program and institution to observe the situation precisely and to identify the deficiencies between expectations and actual performances.
1 | P a g e
1.2 Objective of the Study
The overall objective of the study is to assess the quality of education of Department of Islamic Studies (DIS), University of Dhaka. The specific objectives are:
. To determine the current state of teaching and learning environment; . To identify the issues/areas that need change/correction and improvement.
1.3 Limitation of the Study
This study was only followed quantitative method along with structured questionnaire survey. No qualitative tools were used for this study. Moreover, for some cases, the sample size did not meet the statistical significance due to lack of a particular group of respondents.
1.4 Organization of the Report
This report is organized into sixteen chapters. The first chapter as Chapter 1 gives the introductory ideas about the assessment; Chapter 2 gives a brief overview on Department of Islamic Studies; Chapter 3 represents the methodology of study; In Chapter 4 represents evaluation on governance of DIS; Chapter 5 discuss evaluation on curriculum design & review; Chapter 6 represents evaluation on students entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of DIS; Chapter 7 describes evaluation on institutional structures and facilities of DIS; Chapter 8 illustrates evaluation on teaching learning and assessment of DIS; Chapter 9 presents evaluation on student support services of DIS; Chapter 10 discuss evaluation on research and extension of DIS; Chapter 11 represents evaluation on faculty and staff: recruitment and development of DIS; Chapter 12 shows the evaluation on process control internal: quality assurance and continuous quality improvement of DIS; In Chapter 13, evaluation of employees on the services provided by the employees (student of DIS) were described; Chapter 14 describes SWOC Analysis; In Chapter 15, recommendation were enlisted which is given by the respondents and at last Chapter 16 represents conclusion.
2 | P a g e
CHAPTER 2: DEPARTMENT OF ISLAMIC STUDIES: A BRIEF OVERVIEW
2.1 University of Dhaka—the Highest Echelon of Academic Excellence: A Short Introduction
The University of Dhaka was established in 1921. On the first day of July, this university opened doors to the Students with Sir Philip Joseph Hartog, the first Vice Chancellor of the University of Dhaka. The University was set up on 600 acres of land and situated in Ramna area of Dhaka City. The University started its first activities with 3 faculties, 12 departments, 60 teachers, 877 students and 3 dormitories (Residential Halls) for the students. Now a day the University consists of 13 Faculties, 83 Departments, 12 Institutes, 20 residential halls, 3 hostels and more than 56 Research Centers. There are 37,108 Students and 1,992 Teachers in the University respectively.
From the very beginning, the University has been maintaining the distinctive and standard policy in the field of academic and research activities. It has attained a high reputation as famous educational and research institution. The high standard of education and research was set by its first Vice Chancellor Sir P.J. Hartog. In the Second convocation of the university, he said; ‘A man may be an excellent teacher of elementary subjects without the power to add to knowledge. But in advanced work I maintain that no one can really teach well unless he has the combination of imagination with critical power which leads to the production (of Knowledge), and for that, if for no other reason, a university to be a true university must see that its teacher are men who are also capable of advancing knowledge’. For its excellent educational system, good academic curriculum, qualified teaching staff and Professors, rich library with precious materials and rare collections, extensive network with the international arena, and academic facilities. It also undertakes many research projects that provide scope to enrich the knowledge on research methodology. Moreover, it also provides fellowship, scholarship, and awards to the poor and meritorious students.
It has also been playing a vital role in establishing peace and harmony in the society. Moreover, it played an important role in the emergence of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh in 1971 and continuing its good role in the field of the academic, political and natural disasters and calamities of Bangladesh. Furthermore, it is increasingly striving to enrich the values and norms of the society. As a result, it is considered as the source of Bangladeshi tradition and culture.
At present, the University enrolls more than 5,800 students on merit basis in the first year Honors program in different departments of the faculties and institutes. The University offers four years Bachelor, one-year Master’s programs. The university also trains up a large number of M.Phils. Also, Ph.D. researchers in different disciplines. Until today more than 1429 Ph.D. and 1,377 M.Phil. Researchers have obtained their degrees from this university. 3 | P a g e
2.1.1 The University of Dhaka: At a glance
Table 1: Dhaka University: At a Glance
Types Numbers Faculties 13 Departments 83 Institutes 12 Research Bureaus and Centers 56 Residential Halls 20 Hostels 3 Students 37018 Male 20,773 Female 12028 Examinee 4,221 PhD Researchers 1201 MPhil Researchers 1956 Teachers 1992 Male 1327 Female 638 Others 27 Officers 1030 Class-Ill Employees 1,137 Class-IV Employees 2,250 PhDs 1,429 MPhils 1,377 Trust Funds 327 Land Area 275.083 acres Constituent Colleges and Institutes 105 Students in Constituent Colleges 45374 Male 16922 Female 28452 Teachers in Constituent Colleges 7981 Male 4260 Female 3721 Source: 50th Convocation Souvenir, University of Dhaka, 2017, P.21
2.1.2 Vice Chancellor of Dhaka University: 1921-2017
1. Sir. P. J Hartog : 01.12.1920—31.12.1925 2. Profesor G. H Langely : 01.01.1926—30.06.1934 3. Sir A. F Rahaman : 01.07.1934—31.12.1936 4. Dr. R. C. Majuder : 01.01.1937—30.06.1942 5. DR. Mahmud Hasan : 01.07.1942—21.10.1948 6. Dr. S. M Hossain : 22.10.1948—08.11.1953 7. Dr. W.A Jenkins : 09.11.1953—08.11.1956 8. Justice Muhammad Ibrahim : 09.11.1956—27.10.1958 9. Justice Hamoodur Rahaman : 05.11.1958—14.12.1960 4 | P a g e
10. Dr. Mahamud Husain : 15.12.1960—19.02.1963 11. Dr. Md. Osman Ghani : 20.02.1963—01.12.1969 12. Justice Abu Syed Chowdhury : 02.12.1969—20.01.1972 13. Dr. Mozaffar Ahamed Chowdhury : 21.01.1972—12.04.1973 14. Dr.Abdul Matin Chaudhury : 13.04.1973—22.09.1975 15. Professor Mohammad Shams-ul Haq : 23.09.1975—01.02.1976 16. Dr. Fazlul Halim Chowdhury : 02.02.1976—20.02.1983 17. Dr. A.K.M Siddiq : 21.03.1983—16.08.1983 18. Dr. Md. Shamsul Huq : 17.08.1983—12.01.1986 19. Professor Abdul Mannan : 12.01.1986—22.03.1990 20. Professor M Maniruzzaman Miha : 24.03.1990—31.01.1992 21. Professor Emajuddin Ahamed : 01.11.1992—31.08.1996 22. Professor Shahid Uddin Ahamad : 31.08.1996—29.09.1996 23. Professor A.K.Azad Chowdhury : 30.09.1996—12.11.2001 24. Professor Anwarulla Chowdhury : 12.11.2001—31.07.2002 25. Professor A.F.M Yusuf Haider : 01.08.2002—23.09.2002 26. Professor S.M.A Faiz : 23.09.2002—16.01.2009 27. Professor AAMS Arefin Siddique : since 17.01.2009—Till now 2.2 Department of Islamic Studies: An Overview
The department of Islamic Studies is one of the famous departments of the University of Dhaka. This department was established at the very beginning of the University of Dhaka in 1921 and named as the Department of the Arabic and Islamic Studies, with a goal to preach Islam and to spread Islamic education, norms and values in Bangladesh as well as in the whole world through its various activities, i.e. teaching, counseling, seminar-symposium and research.
In 1980, it was separated from the department of Arabic and named as the Department of Islamic Studies. It is situated on the first floor of Arts Building. From its inception it has contributed significantly towards education, research and culture. Through the years, notable Islamic thinkers, intellectuals and social reformers from this department have made significant contributions in a wide range of fields.
The department of Islamic Studies currently hosts several programmes. The department offers a four-year integrated B.A. Honors and a one-year M.A. Courses. It also offers research programmes for Ph.D and M.Phil degrees. Recently the department has introduced ‘M.A (Evening) in Islamic Studies’ to expand Islamic education in the country. There are approximately 175 students per batch in both the undergraduate and the post graduate programme. The department has two air-conditioned classrooms along with high-quality sound system and multimedia projector.
The department was led by a ‘Head of the department’ earlier, from 1921 to 1973. Since then, a ‘Chairman,’ selected by rotation of seniority, is leading the department (for the list of head and chairperson please see Appendix A). Currently, there are 25 world famous scholars as the
5 | P a g e
permanent faculty member in the department. Among the academics (for details please see- Appendix B) –
Table 2: List of Academics of the Department of Islamic Studies
Designation Number a. Super-Numerary Professor One b. Honorary Professor Two c. Professor Eleven d. Associate Professor Two e. Assistant Professor Five f. Lecturer Four
In addition, some prominent part-time teachers form different departments of the University to meet its academic challenges are also the part of this department.
The department has an inclusive and world standard syllabus to meet its mission and vision. The Syllabus includes all branches of Islamic knowledge, e.g. al-Quran, Tafsir Literature, al- Hadith, Principles and History of Hadith Literature, al-Sirat al-Nabawiyyah, Islamic Law & Jurisprudence, Islamic Society & Culture, Muslim philosophy, Islamic Economic, Islamic Politics, Sufism, Islamic Sciences, Contemporary issues in Islam, Comparative Religions, as well as the knowledge of different relevant disciplines, i.e. Bengali, English, Economics, Sociology, Anthropology, Political Science, History, Computer Science, and Bangladesh Studies etc (please see the Appendix - C). This extensive study outline assists students to become a good citizen of the country. This extensive study outline assists students to become a good citizen of the country.
2.2.1 Undergraduate Programme
The department of Islamic Studies offers undergraduate programme titled B.A Honors Programme. The B.A (Honors) degree in Islamic Studies is a four-year program divided into eight semesters. There will be 23 (twenty-three) core courses and 05 (five) area courses and 08 (eight) tutorial presentation and Viva-voce of a total value of 120 credit consisting of 3000 marks. Students are required to obtain at least D grade (40 to less than 45 marks) in CGPA system for a terminal degree. A summary of the recent batches in semester system has been given in Table 3 below.
6 | P a g e
Table 3: Summary Statistics of Honors Students of the Department
No Under Session Year of Current No of Percentage of Graduate Examination Status Students get Student Batch admitted Completed the Degree 01 1st 2006-07 2010 Completed 116 97.41% 02 2nd 2007-08 2011 Completed 125 96% 03 3rd 2008-09 2012 Completed 135 99.26% 04 4th 2009-10 2013 Completed 133 97.74% 05 5th 2010-11 2014 Completed 133 99.25% 06 6th 2011-12 2015 Completed 143 100% 07 7th 2012-13 2016 Completed 167 99.40% 08 8th 2013-14 -- Running 171 -- 09 9th 2014-15 -- Running 186 -- 10 10th 2015-16 -- Running 199 -- 11 11th 2016-17 -- Running 200 --
2.2.2 Graduate Programme
The department has two-fold graduate programme, both taught and research, for the student. The illustrated module named “MA Programme” is a one-year program and is divided into two semesters. Students have the opportunity to choose any group between the two groups, Group A and group B. There are eight courses and two viva voce of total 850 marks and 34 credits (8 courses of 800 marks stand for 32 credits, and two viva-voce of 50 marks stands for two credits) for each group. A brief description of this program is presented in Table 4 as follow-
Table 4: Summary Statistics of Graduate Students of the Department
SI Graduate Session Year of Current No of Students get admitted Batch Examination Status Group A Group B Total 01 1st 2010-11 2011 Completed 28 81 109 02 2nd 2011-12 2012 Completed 27 94 121 03 3rd 2012-13 2013 Completed 11 117 128 04 4th 2013-14 2014 Completed 40 81 121 05 5th 2014-15 2015 Completed 34 96 130 06 6th 2015-16 2016 Completed 63 74 137 07 7th 2016-17 -- Running 73 92 165
Also, the department has an extensive research environment and offers M.Phil. and Ph.D. degree for the outstanding researchers. Table 5, below shows a summary of these researchers
Table 5: Summary Statistics of Research conducted in DIS
No Research Duration Numbers of conducted research 01. M.Phil. 2000-2015 87 02. Ph.D. 1985-2015 136
Besides these, the department provides the opportunity to study for the others as it had a Pg.D program named “Post Graduate Diploma in Islamic Studies” from 2012 to 2017. Pg.D was a 7 | P a g e
one-year program consisting of two semesters and total of 1100 marks and 44 credits. The brief data of that program is given below in Table 6
Table 6: Summary Statistics of Post-Graduate Programme of DIS
No Pg.D Session Year of Current No of No of examinee Batch Examination Status enrolment 1st 2nd semester semester 01 1st 2013-14 2014 Completed 91 62 60 02 2nd 2015-16 2016 Completed 28 28 28 03 3rd 2015-16 2016 Completed 39 36 34 04 4th 2016-17 2017 Running 32 33 running
Currently, in 2017, the department of Islamic Studies has started an evening postgraduate program titled “MA (evening) in Islamic Studies” to spread its mission and vision throughout the country. It is a two-year program divided into four semesters with 68 credits and 1700 marks in total. Around 44 students have been enrolled in the program.
2.2.3 Lab Facilities
The department of Islamic studies emphasizes on computer education by introducing a compulsory course titled “Computer Literacy” in its undergraduate program, which is taught by the teachers of the Department of Computer Science and Engineering. It helps to develop the skill in the field of Information and Communication Technology. In this continuation, the department provides excellent laboratory facilities for the students. The computer lab of the department contains a broad range of Internet access, and 20 students can work at a time.
8 | P a g e
2.2.4 Library Facilities
A beautiful and well equipped Library has been established by the department and named after ‘Dr. Muhammad Ishaq,’ one of the brightest students and teachers of this department who received his Ph.D. degree as a 2nd Muslim student of the University of Dhaka.
Both students and teachers use this library for reading and research work. There are more than 6000 books, a good number of journals, periodicals, and reference materials are available for the study and research.
2.2.5 Research and Training Facilities
In the field of education and research, this department has a great contribution. The department publishes a peer reviewed research journal titled “The Dhaka University Journal of Islamic Studies” to face the scholastic problems and to explore research in different field of Islamic knowledge and of various religions as well.
In addition, from the beginning, the department arranges some national and international seminars, symposiums, research projects on different important issues. Moreover, the department also provides intensive training programme for the junior faculties and researchers.
As a continuation of this process there is a research center in the department named “Dr. Serajul Haque Islamic Research Centre”. This center regularly publishes a journal and organizes seminars of different contemporary issues.
Furthermore, students of the department also participate in the seminar, symposium, and workshops organized by the institutions and research centers of Dhaka University, where they gather knowledge on current issues and research methodology.
2.2.6 Extra Curricular Activities
Apart from education and research, the department provides different types of co-curricular and extra-curricular activities like debate, sports, study tour, etc. The department arranges annual picnic to create a close bondage between the teachers and students. More than 400 students along with the teachers participate in this event every year. A study tour in various historical places of the country for the student of final year of undergraduate programme is also organized by the direct supervision of the department. Moreover, SAARC tour for the graduate students is also an attraction of the department. Students of the department have the opportunity to take part in BNCC activities, Scout, Rangers Unit, etc. Besides, they celebrate all national as well as international days and take part in various socio-religious and cultural events of the country. In the sports arena of the University, this department has a significant role. Some of the achievements of the department in recent years are as follow
9 | P a g e
Table 7: List of Achievements in Extra-curriculum Activities
Event Sports Year Position a. Inter-department Football Tournament Football 2004, 2016 Champion b. Inter-department Cricket Tournament Cricket 2012 Runner-up c. Inter-department Basket Ball Competition Basket Ball 2014 Runner-up
The department also has a Debate Team and a cultural forum to give a proper platform to the students to flourish their talent. Students of the department also proved their sincerity in blood donation activities and elected several times as the key administrator of Badhon, a volunteer blood donation program of the University.
Various events and ceremonies are also organized by the department to engage with the students very closely. Among these- the orientation program, the farewell ceremony, condolence ceremony, study opening ceremony etc. are noteworthy. Moreover, a cultural competition organized by the department in occasion of Eid-I Miladunnabi is considered as a unique event in the entire university. The students of the department also have the opportunity to take part in different co-curriculum activities organized by various institutions and centers of the University of Dhaka and various socio-religious and cultural organizations.
Additionally, a reliable and efficient Alumni Association has been established for the entire development of the department through which the former students can link up with their Alma mater. The department has also launched its own website recently. It helps to find the notice and necessary information through the web.
2.2.7 Awards and Financial Supports
The Department of Islamic Studies provides various scholarships and financial assistances for its students to nurture their talent. Almost each year the students of the department are awarded the prestigious ‘Deans Award’ according to their merit.
There are also three ‘Gold Medal’ for the student of this department. ‘QAMM Abdullah Memorial Gold Medal’ and ‘Dr.Serajul Haque and Mahzuza Haque Gold Medal’ are awarded for the top student of the department at the postgraduate level, while “Dr. Syed M. Saydur Rahman al-Mahbubi Trust Fund Gold Medal” is given to the student securing highest position in the undergraduate programme.
Besides, the department arranges “Grameen Shikkha scholarship” for the toppers in both BA (Hons) and MA program. Moreover, the department also assists its poor and meritorious students through sufficient financial assistances and waiver to continue their study.
10 | P a g e
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Methods and Sample Size
For this study, data were collected from both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected following quantitative approach. The quantitative data were collected by survey method through interview using structured questionnaire.
The Self-Assessment (SA) on Education Quality of Department of Islamic Studies, University of Dhaka, is intended to identify the existing state of weaknesses in teaching learning of the academic program. Therefore, five groups of stakeholders have been considered for assessing their opinions. They are the teaching staff, employees of the department, current students, alumni, and employees.
Primarily, the SA started with an inception workshop at the department with all academic staffs. All the faculty members have been interviewed with a pre-designed survey questionnaire. Regarding selecting the current students and alumni for interviews, sample random method was used whereas for the departmental non-academic staff; all the members have been consulted with a questionnaire. The sample size distribution amongst the type of respondents is given in Table 8.
Table 8: Sample size distribution of respondents of the study
SI Type of Respondents Sample Size 1 Current Students 230 2 Alumni Members 91 3 Academic Staff 22 4 Non-Academic Staff 5 5 Employer 28 Total 376
3.2 Analytical approach
The collected data was analyzed by using SPSS 21 software. In quantitative analysis, univariate analyses were conducted disaggregated by the characteristics of the respondents. Appropriate graphical presentations were given wherever needed using Microsoft Excel 2016 and Windows Visio 2016 software.
3.3 Ethical Issues, Privacy, and Confidentiality
The study will ensure the ethical issues involved in this research including risks and benefits of the respondents. Before conducting data collection, each respondent was clearly informed about the purposes, type of information coverage, confidentiality, interview time, etc. Before
11 | P a g e
starting the interview, respondents were asked for their verbal consent to take part in the survey. In addition, they were well informed about their rights to refuse for giving the interview. It was very important to explain to respondents that their participation in the study was voluntary, their names or any identifying details were kept under strict confidentiality.
12 | P a g e
CHAPTER 4: EVALUATION ON GOVERNANCE OF DIS
4.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
Table 9 represents this study included 230 current students. Students were asked to evaluate the governance of the academic program. Regarding the statements of vision, mission, and objectives of the entity, about one-fifth (19.1%) of respondents strongly agreed that these statements were clear to them whereas 4.8% of them strongly disagreed the matter. However 28% students remained unopinionated. Also, 18.7% respondents strongly confirmed that academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency while 4.3% of them strongly disagreed with it, and 15.2% remained undecided. Furthermore, some of the respondents strongly opined that the entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives, while many of them (28.3%) students strongly said there were no adequate infrastructures. Again few of them (19.7%) strongly confirmed that academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity, whereas 9.2% respondents strongly disconfirmed and 10.5% of them did not answer. For timely results publishing in compliance with the ordinance, 40.9% respondents agreed that results are published timely in compliance with the ordinance while only 12.6% of them disagreed with the statement, and 12.6% of them remained undecided. Again, most of the respondents (27.9%) strongly stated that website in not updated properly, while only 7.4% of them strongly agreed with the statement, also 21.8% of them remained undecided. Regarding the entity is providing comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance using a brochure/handbook, most of the respondents (39.6%) strongly agreed that body provides comprehensive instructions in advance, on the contrary, only 11.7% of them strongly disagreed with it, and 8.3% respondents remained undecided. On the other hand, only 9.6% respondents strongly agreed that entity ensures a conducive learning environment whereas 15.7% of them strongly disagreed with it.
Table 9: Percent Distribution of Current Students' Evaluation on Governance (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Vision, mission and objectives of the 44 74 65 36 (15.7) 11 3.45 entity are clearly stated (19.1)* (32.2) (28.3) (4.8) Academic decisions are taken by the 43 94 35 48 10 3.49 entity with fairness and transparency (18.7) (40.9) (15.2) (20.9) (4.3) The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) 19 52 48 80 31 2.77 satisfy the stated mission and objectives (8.3) (22.6) (20.9) (34.8) (13.5) of the entity The entity has adequate infrastructures to 17 31 22 95 65 2.30 satisfy its mission and objectives (7.4) (13.5) (9.6) (41.3) (28.3) Academic calendars are maintained 45 88 24 51 (22.3) 21 3.37 strictly by the entity (19.7) (38.4) (10.5) (9.2) Results are published timely in 56 94 29 36 15 3.61 compliance with the ordinance (24.3) (40.9) (12.6) (15.7) (6.5)
13 | P a g e
The entity reviews its policy and 21 76 57 54 (23.5) 22 3.09 procedures periodically for further (9.1) (33.0) (24.8) (9.6) improvement Codes of conduct for the students and 20 72 35 65 38 2.87 employees are well communicated (8.7) (31.3) (15.2) (28.3) (16.5) Disciplinary rules and regulations are 33 61 52 55 25 3.10 explicitly defined and well circulated (14.6) (27) (23) (24.3) (11.1) Website is updated properly 17 39 50 59 64 2.50 (7.4) (17.0) (21.8) (25.8) (27.9) The entity provides comprehensive 91 62 19 31 27 3.69 guidelines to the students in advance by (39.6) (27.0) (8.3) (13.5) (11.7) means of a brochure/handbook The entity ensures a conducive learning 22 74 39 59 (25.7) 36 2.94 environment (9.6) (32.2) (17.0) (15.7) Students’ opinion regarding academic 21 57 47 52 53 2.74 and extra-academic matters are (9.1) (24.8) (20.4) (22.6) (23.0) addressed properly *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Current Students’ Evaluation on Governance
The entity provides comprehensive guidelines… 3.69 Results are published timely in compliance with… 3.61 Academic decisions are taken by the entity with… 3.49 Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are… 3.45 Academic calendars are maintained strictly by… 3.37 Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly… 3.10 The entity reviews its policy and procedures… 3.09 Overall average mean Score 3.07 The entity ensures a conducive learning… 2.94 Codes of conduct for the students and… 2.87 The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy… 2.77 Students’ opinion regarding academic and … 2.74 Website is updated properly 2.50 The entity has adequate infrastructures to… 2.30 Mean Score
Figure 1: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Governance
The average score presented in Figure 1 ranges from 2.30 to 3.69. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weakness in the governance system of the department. The indicator with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.07) was considered as strengths of the governance.
14 | P a g e
4.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
In Table 10, Alumni members were asked to evaluate the governance of the academic program. Among all alumni, 91 were responding for this evaluation. Around 27.8% respondents strongly agreed that vision, mission, and objectives of the entity are clearly stated however only 1.1% of them strongly disagreed with the statement, whereas 13.3% of them remained undecided. In addition, 28.9% respondents strongly agreed that academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency however only 3.3% disagreed with the statement. Regarding adequate infrastructures of the entity to satisfy its mission and objectives 17.8% members strongly agreed on it while only a few (6.7%) strongly disagreed with it and around 15. 6% respondents remained undecided. A modest number of respondents (34.1%) strongly opinioned that academic calendar was maintained properly whereas only 3.3% strongly disagreed, rest of 28.6% agreed about the maintenance of the academic calendar, and almost one-fifth alumni remained undecided. The majority of the respondents around 38.2% strongly stated that results were published in time, 40.4% agreed with it normally and 10.1% of them remained undecided. For about 22% respondents’ codes of conduct for the students and employees are very well communicated while only 2.2% of them strongly disagreed with the matter. However, one fifth of respondents remained undecided. Alumni members' opinion regarding academic and extra- academic matters were treated properly only 13.2% cases while for 6.6% it was strongly denied and 17.6% cases remained undecided.
Table 10: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Governance (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Vision, mission and objectives of the 25 44 1 8 1 3.93 entity are clearly stated (27.8)* (48.9) (13.3) (8.9) (1.1) Academic decisions are taken by the 26 38 18 5 3 3.88 entity with fairness and transparency (28.9) (42.2) (20) (5.6) (3.3) The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) 14 34 22 17 4 3.41 satisfy the stated mission and objectives (15.4) (37.4) (24.2) (18.7) (4.4) of the entity The entity has adequate infrastructures 16 23 14 31 6 3.13 to satisfy its mission and objectives (17.8) (25.6) (15.6) (34.4) (6.7) Academic calendars are maintained 31 26 15 16 3 3.73 strictly by the entity (34.1) (28.6) (16.5) (17.6) (3.3) Results are published timely in 34 36 9 10 4.06 compliance with the ordinance (38.2) (40.4) (10.1) (11.2) The entity reviews its policy and 13 34 30 9 5 3.45 procedures periodically for further (14.3) (37.4) (33.0) (9.9) (5.5) improvement Codes of conduct for the students and 20 37 16 16 2 3.63 employees are well communicated (22.0) (40.7) (17.6) (17.6) (2.2) Disciplinary rules and regulations are 15 38 19 17 3.57 explicitly defined and well circulated (16.9) (42.7) (21.3) (19.1)
15 | P a g e
Website is updated properly 13 27 14 14 21 2.97 (14.6) (30.3) (15.7) (15.7) (23.6) The entity provides comprehensive 28 32 12 11 5 3.76 guidelines to the students in advance by (31.8) (36.4) (13.6) (12.5) (5.7) means of a brochure/handbook The entity ensures a conducive learning 17 42 14 13 5 3.58 environment (18.7) (46.2) (15.4) (14.3) (5.5) Students’ opinion regarding academic 12 36 16 21 6 3.30 and extra-academic matters are (13.2) (39.6) (17.6) (23.1) (6.6) addressed properly *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Governance
Results are published timely in compliance… 4.06 Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are… 3.93 Academic decisions are taken by the entity… 3.88 The entity provides comprehensive guidelines… 3.76 Academic calendars are maintained strictly by… 3.73 Codes of conduct for the students and… 3.63 The entity ensures a conducive learning… 3.58 Disciplinary rules and regulations are… 3.57 Overall average mean Score 3.57 The entity reviews its policy and procedures… 3.45 The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy… 3.41 Students’ opinion regarding academic and … 3.30 The entity has adequate infrastructures to… 3.13 Website is updated properly 2.97 Mean Score
Figure 2: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Governance
The average score presented in Figure 2 ranges from 2.97 to 4.06. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the governance system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.57) were considered as the strengths of the governance.
4.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study included 22 academicians. Academicians were requested to evaluate the governance of the academic program, which is presented in Table 11. The highest proportion of the faculty member (36.4%) strongly stated vision, mission and objectives of the entity are clearly stated 16 | P a g e
whereas vision, mission and objectives were unclear for 9.1% respondents and 13.6% of them remained undecided. Only 9.1% respondents strongly opinioned that the entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives while another 4.5% strongly disagreed on this issue and 13.6% of them remained undecided. For most of the respondents, academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity as 36.4% of them strongly agreed on it and rested 9.1% respondents remained undecided. Statements regarding timely result publications, most of the (59.1%) respondents strongly agreed with it; however, to 4.5% respondents this statement was not agreed. Almost 33.3% of respondents strongly agreed that the entity provides comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance using a brochure/handbook; also, this statement was agreed by most of the respondents (half-50%). However, 4.8% academicians did not answer. Surprisingly all the respondents (100%) agreed on the maintenance of documentations. For 36.4% of them, academic staff’s decision-making procedure in the entity is very much participatory while 4.5% strongly disagreed on the issue. In addition, rest 40.9% respondents agreed that decision-making procedure in the entity is participatory and to 18.2% it was not.
Table 11: Percent Distribution of Academicians' Evaluation on Governance (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Vision, mission and objectives of the 8 5 3 4 2 3.59 entity are clearly stated (36.4)* (22.7) (13.6) (18.2) (9.1) Academic decisions are taken by the 12 6 4 4.36 entity with fairness and transparency (54.5) (27.3) (18.2) The intended learning outcomes 1 11 6 3 1 3.36 (ILOs) satisfy the stated mission and (4.5) (50.0) (27.3) (13.6) (4.5) objectives of the entity The entity has adequate 2 6 3 10 1 2.91 infrastructures to satisfy its mission (9.1) (27.3) (13.6) (45.5) (4.5) and objectives Academic calendars are maintained 8 10 2 1 1 4.05 strictly by the entity (36.4) (45.5) (9.1) (4.5) (4.5) Results are published timely in 13 7 1 1 4.45 compliance with the ordinance (59.1) (31.8) (4.5) (4.5) The entity reviews its policy and 5 8 3 3 3 3.41 procedures periodically for further (22.7) (36.4) (13.6) (13.6) (13.6) improvement Codes of conduct for the students and 3 9 4 4 2 3.32 employees are well communicated (13.6) (40.9) (18.2) (18.2) (9.1) Disciplinary rules and regulations are 1 9 5 5 2 3.09 explicitly defined and well circulated (4.5) (40.9) (22.7) (22.7) (9.1) Website is updated properly 5 5 3 9 2.27 (22.7) (22.7) (13.6) (40.9) The entity provides comprehensive 7 11 1 2 4.10 guidelines to the students in advance (33.3) (52.4) (4.8) (9.5) by means of a brochure/handbook 17 | P a g e
Documentations (decisions of 10 12 4.45 committees, class attendance (45.5) (54.5) registers, questions, answer scripts, marks, examination results, students’ progress etc.) are maintained properly Decision making procedure in the 8 9 4 1 4.09 entity is participatory (36.4) (40.9) (18.2) (4.5) The entity ensures a conducive 3 14 3 2 3.82 learning environment (13.6) (63.6) (13.6) (9.1) Students’ opinion regarding academic 3 12 2 5 3.59 and extra-academic matters are (13.6) (54.5) (9.1) (22.7) addressed properly *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Governance
Documentations (decisions of committees, class … 4.45 Results are published timely in compliance with… 4.45 Academic decisions are taken by the entity with… 4.36 The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to… 4.10 Decision making procedure in the entity is… 4.09 Academic calendars are maintained strictly by… 4.05 The entity ensures a conducive learning… 3.82 Overall average mean Score 3.66 Students’ opinion regarding academic and extra-… 3.59 Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are… 3.59 The entity reviews its policy and procedures… 3.41 The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy… 3.36 Codes of conduct for the students and… 3.32 Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly… 3.09 The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy… 2.91 Website is updated properly 2.27 Mean Score
Figure 3: Overall and Item-wise Average of Faculty Members' Evaluation on Governance
The average score presented in Figure 3 ranges from 2.27 to 4.45. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the governance system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.66) were considered as the strengths of the governance.
18 | P a g e
4.4 Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation
In this study, five non-academicians were interviewed. Results presented in Table 12 show the percentage distribution of non-academic staffs' evaluation about governance. Results show that 100% respondents agreed that vision, mission, and objectives of the entity are clearly stated. On the other hand, 100% of the respondents also believed that academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency. Regarding adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives, around 40% respondents agreed that entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives whereas 60% of them disagreed with the statement. To all of the respondents (100%) academic calendar is maintained strictly, and results are published in compliance with the ordinance. Regarding the entity’s providing comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance using a brochure/handbook, most of the respondents (80%) agreed that entity provides comprehensive guidelines in advance; on the contrary, only 20% of them disagreed with it. Codes of conduct for the students and employees are well communicated agreed by all (100%) respondents. On the other hand, regarding the updates of websites, 20% respondents agreed that website is updated properly whereas the same number of respondents disagreed with the statements and another 20% of them remained undecided.
Table 12: Percent Distribution of Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation on Governance (n=5)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagre e Vision, mission, and objectives of the 1 4 4.20 entity are clearly stated (20)* (80) Academic decisions are taken by the 4 1 4.80 entity with fairness and transparency (80 ) (20) The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) 5 4.00 satisfy the stated mission and objectives (100) of the entity The entity has adequate infrastructures 2 3 2.80 to satisfy its mission and objectives (40) (60 ) Academic calendars are maintained 2 3 4.40 strictly by the entity (40) (60) Results are published timely in 3 2 4.60 compliance with the ordinance (60) (40) The entity reviews its policy and 2 1 2 3.60 procedures periodically for further (40) (20) (40) improvement Codes of conduct for the students and 5 4.00 employees are well communicated (100) Disciplinary rules and regulations are 3 2 3.60 explicitly defined and well circulated (60) (40) Website is updated properly 1 1 1 2 2.20 (20) (20) (20) (40)
19 | P a g e
The entity provides comprehensive 4 1 3.60 guidelines to the students in advance by (80) (20) means of a brochure/handbook *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Non-Academic Staffs' Evaluation on Governance
Academic decisions are taken by the entity with… 4.80 Results are published timely in compliance with… 4.60 Academic calendars are maintained strictly by the… 4.40 Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are… 4.20 Codes of conduct for the students and employees… 4.00 The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy… 4.00 Overall average mean score 3.80 The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to… 3.60 Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly… 3.60 The entity reviews its policy and procedures… 3.60 The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy… 2.80 Website is updated properly 2.20 Mean Score
Figure 4: Overall and Item-wise Average of Non-Academics' Evaluation on Governance
The average score presented in Figure 4 ranges from 2.20 to 4.80. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the governance system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.80) were considered as the strengths of the governance.
20 | P a g e
4.5 Comparative Analysis of Governance
The average score presented in Figure 5 ranges from 3.07 to 3.80 out of 5 (Strongly agree, agree, undecided, strongly disagree, disagree). The Academicians evaluate the Governance Standard 3.66 out of 5, which means they thought 73.2% governance related activity is properly running. However, there is a chance of improvement in 26.8% area. Current Students' evaluation (3.07/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members' evaluation (3.57/5) which means the department's Governance is getting worse now than the past years. The Nonacademic Staffs’ evaluation has secured the heights score (3.80/5) which means they are more satisfied.
Comparative Evaluations on Governance
3.80 3.66 3.57
3.07 Avarage Score Avarage
Current Students Alumni Academicians Non-Academicians
Figure 5: Comparative Evaluations on Governance
21 | P a g e
CHAPTER 5: EVALUATION ON CURRICULUM DESIGN & REVIEW OF DIS
5.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
Table 13 represents current student’s (n=230) evaluation on curriculum activities. The students were asked to evaluate the curriculum activities of academic programs. Around 40.2% responders strongly agreed that the courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are consistently arranged whereas 2.6% students strongly disagreed to that. 10.5% students could not decide anything on this matter. Moreover, 41.0% responders agreed to this matter though 5.7% students disagreed. On the other hand, 25.2% responders strongly agreed that curriculum load is optimum and exerts no pressure but 4.8% responders strongly disagreed to that. 46.5% responders agreed, and 10% disagreed with this statement. Furthermore, 13.5 % responders remained undecided to this matter. 22.6% responders strongly think that teaching strategies are clearly stated in the curriculum while 7.45% responders strongly disagreed. 17.5 % responders could not decide what they think about this issue. Around 33.6% agreed, and 25.8% disagreed on this matter.
Table 13: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Courses in the curriculum from 92 94 24 13 6 4.10 lower to higher levels are (40.2)* (41.0) (10.5) (5.7) (2.6) consistently arranged Teaching strategies are clearly 52 77 33 51 17 3.42 stated in the curriculum (22.6) (33.5) (14.3) (22.2) (7.4) Assessment strategies are explicit 41 77 40 59 12 3.33 in the curriculum (17.9) (33.6) (17.5) (25.8) (5,2) Curriculum load is optimum and 58 107 31 23 11 3.77 exerts no pressure (25.2) (46.5) (13.5) (10.0) (4.8) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 6 ranges from 3.33 to 4.10 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further, examines identified some strengths as well as weakness in the curriculum system of the department. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score of curriculum (3.66) were considered as the strengths of the curriculum
22 | P a g e
Mean values of current students’ evaluation on curriculum
Courses in the curriculum from lower to… 4.10 Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no… 3.77 Overall average mean Score 3.66 Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the… 3.42 Assessment strategies are explicit in the… 3.33
Mean Score
Figure 6: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Curriculum
5.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
Table 14 represents the evaluation of the Alumni members (n=91) on the curriculum system of the academic programs. Around 34% responders strongly agreed to the statement that courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are consistently arranged, and no one strongly disagreed to that. 14.6% responders could not decide anything regarding this statement. Moreover, 36% responders agreed, and 14.6% disagreed. Again, 30.3% responders strongly agreed that curriculum load was optimum and exerted no pressure where only 1.1% strongly disagreed to that. Around 39.3% responders agreed, and 15.7% responders disagreed with this statement. 13.5% responders were undecided. About the assessment strategies, being explicit in the curriculum system 19.1% responders strongly agreed and 42.7% members agreed. Whereas 20.2% members disagreed and 18% responders could not decide anything about this matter.
Table 14: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Courses in the curriculum from 31 32 13 13 3.91 lower to higher levels are (34)* (36.0) (14.6) (14.6) consistently arranged Teaching strategies are clearly 23 32 16 17 1 3.66 stated in the curriculum (25.8) (36) (18) (19.1) (1.1) Assessment strategies are explicit 17 38 16 18 3.61 in the curriculum (19.1) (42.7) (18) (20.2) Curriculum load is optimum and 27 35 12 14 1 3.82 exerts no pressure (30.3) (39.3) (13.5) (15.7) (1.1) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 7 ranges from 3.61 to 3.91(out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examines identified some strengths as well as 23 | P a g e
weakness in the curriculum system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the curriculum (3.75) were considered as the strengths of the curriculum.
Mean Values of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Curriculum
Courses in the curriculum from lower to… 3.91 Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no… 3.82 Overall average mean Score 3.75 Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the… 3.66 Assessment strategies are explicit in the… 3.61 Mean Score
Figure 7: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Curriculum
5.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study represents the evaluation of the academicians (n=22) on the curriculum system of the department which is presented in Table 15. Here 40.9% strongly agreed that curriculum was reviewed and updated at regular intervals in compliance with the rules of the universities and no one strongly disagreed to that. 54.5% responders agreed, but 4.5% responders disagreed with the statement. About opinions from the relevant stakeholders (students, teachers, employers and alumni) are duly considered during the review of the curriculum, 13.6% members strongly agreed with the statement while 4.5% students strongly disagreed to that. 9.1% responders could not decide anything on this issue. Around 27.3% responders agreed, but 45.5% responders disagreed on this issue. Curriculum addressed the program objectives, and program learning outcomes, about this matter 9.1% responders strongly agreed, and 22.7% responders were undecided. Around 54.5% responders agreed, and 13.6% responders disagreed. Nevertheless, no one strongly disagreed with this statement. 9.1% responders strongly believed that the curriculum was effective in achieving day-one skill, which happens right at the beginning on the first day at job place but 31.8% responders could not decide anything. Furthermore, 18.2% responders disagreed, but 40.9% responders agreed.
Table 15: Percent Distribution of Academicians' Evaluation on Curriculum Activities (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Curriculum is reviewed and updated 99 12 1 4.32 at regular intervals in compliance (40.9)* (54.5) (4.5) with the rules of the universities Opinions from the relevant 3 6 2 10 1 3.00 stakeholders (students, teachers, (13.6) (27.3) (9.1) (45.5) (4.5)
24 | P a g e
employers and alumni) are duly considered during review of the curriculum Courses in the curriculum from 6 12 3 1 4.05 lower to higher levels are (27.3) (54.5) (13.6) (4.5) consistently arranged Teaching strategies are clearly stated 1 7 7 4 1 3.15 in the curriculum (5) (35) (35) (20) (5) Assessment strategies are explicit in 2 11 3 3 2 3.38 the curriculum (9.5) (52.4) (14.3) (14.3) (9.5) Curriculum load is optimum and 6 12 2 2 4.00 exerts no pressure (27.3) (54.5) (9.1) (9.1) Curriculum addresses the program 2 12 5 3 3.59 objectives and program learning (9.1) (54.5) (22.7) (13.6) outcomes The curriculum is effective in 2 9 7 4 3.41 achieving day-one skill (which (9.1) (40.9) (31.8) (18.2) happens right at the beginning on the first day at job place *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Academicians’ Evaluation on Curriculum
Curriculum is reviewed and updated at… 4.32 Courses in the curriculum from lower to… 4.05 Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no… 4.00 Overall average mean Score 3.61 Curriculum addresses the program objectives… 3.59 The curriculum is effective in achieving day-… 3.41 Assessment strategies are explicit in the… 3.38 Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the… 3.15 Opinions from the relevant stakeholders… 3.00 Mean Score
Figure 8: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Curriculum
The average score presented in the Figure 8 ranges from 3.00 to 4.32 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further, examines identified some strengths as well as weakness in the curriculum system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the curriculum (3.61) were considered as the strengths of the curriculum.
25 | P a g e
5.4 Comparative Analysis of Curriculum Design & Review
The average score presented in Figure 9 ranges from 3.61 to 3.75 out of 5 (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). The Alumni members evaluate the curriculum standard 3.75 out of 5, which means they thought 75% curriculum-related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 25% area.There is not much difference between the current students’ evaluation (3.66/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.61/5) which means the Department's curriculum is running quite well.
Comparative Evaluations on Curriculum Design & Review
3.75
3.66
3.61 Average Score Average
Academicians Current Students Alumni
Figure 9: Comparative Evaluations on Curriculum Design & Review
26 | P a g e
CHAPTER 6: EVALUATION ON STUDENTS ENTRY QUALIFICATIONS, ADMISSION PROCEDURE, PROGRESS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF DIS
6.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
Table 16 represents the study of the current students (n=230). Students were asked to evaluate the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department. Around half of the respondents (52.6%) strongly agreed that admission policy ensured entry of quality students while 6.5% respondents stronglyy disagreed to that. Moreover, 27% respondents agreed and 6.1% respondents disagreed. Only a few (7.8%) were undecided. Regarding the admission procedure is fair, more than half of the respondents (63.3%) strongly agreed, and only 3.1% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 24% respondents agreed, but 3.1% disagreed to that. Only 6.6% respondents remained undecided. Very few respondents (4.8%) strongly agreed that teachers provided regular feedback to the students about their progress while 24.3% respondents strongly disagreed to that. Around 17.8% respondents agreed, but 34.3% respondents disagreed. Almost 17.8% respondents did not give any opinion
Table 16: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Admission policy ensures entry of 121 62 18 14 15 4.13 quality students (52.6 )* (27.0) (7.8) (6.1) (6.5) Commitment among students is 14 45 60 67 44 2.64 observed to ensure desired progress and (6.1) (19.6) (26.1) (29.1) (19.1) achievement Admission procedure is quite fair 145 55 15 7 7 4.41 (63.3) (24.0) (6.6) (3.1) (3.1) Students’ progress are regularly 15 47 40 68 60 2.52 recorded and monitored (6.5) (20.4) (17.4) (29.6) (26.1) Teachers provide regular feedback to the 11 41 43 79 56 2.44 students about their progress (4.8) (17.8) (18.7) (34.3) (24.3) The entity maintains individual 73 85 34 20 16 3.79 student’s records properly (32.0) (37.3) (14.9) (8.8) (7.0) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 10 ranges from 2.44 to 4.41 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1= strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score of 27 | P a g e
the student entry, admission procedure, progress and achievements (3.32) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean Values of Current Students' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualification, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements
Admission procedure is quite fair 4.41 Admission policy ensures entry of quality… 4.13 The entity maintains individual student’s… 3.79 Overall average mean Score 3.32 Commitment among students is observed to… 2.64 Students’ progress are regularly recorded and … 2.52 Teachers provide regular feedback to the… 2.44 Mean Score
Figure 10: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications
6.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
In Table 17, Alumni member’s (n=91) evaluation on the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department are presented. More than half of the respondents (54.5%) strongly agreed that admission policy ensured entry of quality students.
Table 17: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Admission policy ensures entry of 48 24 3 10 3 4.18 quality students (54.5)* (27.3) (3.4) (11.4) (3.4) Commitment among students is 8 33 25 17 5 3.25 observed to ensure desired progress (9.1) (37.5) (28.4) (19.3) (5.7) and achievement Admission procedure is quite fair 61 20 3 2 2 4.55 (69.3) (22.7) (3.4) (2.3) (2.3) Students’ progress are regularly 12 29 23 19 5 3.27 recorded and monitored (13.6) (33.0) (26.1) (21.6) (5.7) Teachers provide regular feedback to 8 24 19 26 11 2.91 the students about their progress (9.1) (27.3) (21.6) (29.5) (12.5) The entity maintains individual 20 30 21 8 8 3.53 student’s records properly (23.0) (34.5) (24.1) (9.2) (9.2) *Frequency (Percentage) 28 | P a g e
Nevertheless, 3.4% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 27.3% respondents agreed and 11.4% disagreed. Only a few respondents (3.4%) were undecided. More than half of the respondents (69.3%) strongly agreed that admission procedure was quite fair and only 2.3% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 22.7% respondents agreed but 2.3% disagreed. Only a few respondents (3.4%) remained undecided. About the entity maintains individual student’s records properly, 23% respondents strongly agreed and 9.2% strongly disagreed. Around 34.5% members agreed but 9.2% respondents disagreed to that. About one fourth of the (24.1%) respondents did not give any opinion.
Mean Values of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualification, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements
Admission procedure is quite fair 4.55 Admission policy ensures entry of quality… 4.18 Overall average mean Score 3.61 The entity maintains individual student’s… 3.53 Students’ progress are regularly recorded and … 3.27 Commitment among students is observed to… 3.25 Teachers provide regular feedback to the… 2.91 Mean Score
Figure 11: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications
The average score presented in the Figure 11 ranges from 2.91 to 4.55 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1= strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score of the student entry, admission procedure, progress and achievements (3.61) were considered as strengths of the system.
6.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
In this study, the academician’s (n=22) evaluation on the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department is presented. Results are shown in Table 18 which represents the evaluation of student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress, and achievements. Around 27.3% respondents strongly agreed that admission policy ensured entry of quality students and no one strongly disagreed to that. Nearly half of the respondents (45.5%) agreed and 13.6% respondents disagreed to the statement. Also, 13.6% respondents were undecided. Almost all the respondents (86.4%) strongly agreed, and 13.6% agreed that the admission procedure was quite fair. No one disagreed with the statement. About the students’ progress is regularly recorded, 13.6% respondents strongly agreed and
29 | P a g e
9.1% respondents strongly disagreed. Nearly half of the respondents (45.5%) agreed, but 18.2% disagreed with the statement. Around 13.6% respondents remained undecided. Regarding the entity maintained individual student’s records properly, 36.4% respondents strongly agreed and 9.1% respondents strongly disagreed to this matter. Around 13.6% respondents were undecided. Lastly, 31.8% respondents agreed, and 9.1% members disagreed to this matter.
Table 18: Percent Distribution of Academicians’ Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree
Admission policy ensures entry of 6 10 3 3 3.86 quality students (27.3)* (45.5) (13.6) (13.6)
Commitment among students is 2 10 6 4 3.45 observed to ensure desired progress (9.1) (45.5) (27.3) (18.2) and achievement
Admission procedure is quite fair 19 3 4.86 (86.4) (13.6) Students’ progress are regularly 3 10 3 4 2 3.36 recorded and monitored (13.6) (45.5) (13.6) (18.2) (9.1) Teachers provide regular feedback to 3 9 2 6 2 3.23 the students about their progress (13.6) (40.9) (9.1) (27.3) (9.1) The entity maintains individual 8 7 3 2 2 3.77 student’s records properly (36.4) (31.8) (13.6) (9.1) (9.1) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualification, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements
Admission procedure is quite fair 4.86 Admission policy ensures entry of quality students 3.86 The entity maintains individual student’s … 3.77 Overall average mean Score 3.76 Commitment among students is observed to… 3.45 Students’ progress are regularly recorded and … 3.36 Teachers provide regular feedback to the… 3.23 Mean Score
Figure 12: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Student Entry Qualifications
The average score presented in the Figure 12 ranges from 3.23 to 4.86 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1= strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the student entry qualifications, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score 30 | P a g e
of the student entry, admission procedure, progress and achievements (3.76) were considered as strengths of the system.
6.4 Comparative Analysis of Students Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress and Achievements
The average score presented in Figure 13 ranges 3.32 to 3.76 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1= strongly disagreed). The Academicians evaluate the student entry, admission procedure, progress and achievements of the department 3.76 out of 5, which means they thought 75.2% of the student entry admission procedure, progress, and achievements were quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 24.8% area. Current students’ evaluation (3.32/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.61/5) which means department’s student entry, admission procedure, progress, and achievements are getting worse than the past years.
Comparative Evaluations on Student Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress & Achievements 3.76
3.61
3.32 Average Score Average
Current students Alumni Academicians
Figure 13: Comparative Evaluations on Student Entry Qualifications, Admission Procedure, Progress & Achievements
31 | P a g e
CHAPTER 7: EVALUATION ON INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES OF DIS
7.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
Table 19 represents the evaluation of the current students (n=230) about the structure and facilities of the department. About the classroom, facilities being suitable for ensuring effective learning, 14.8% responders strongly agreed to that, and 29.6% strongly disagreed. Around 20% responders agreed, but 26.5% disagreed. Only 9.1% responders were undecided. Around half of the responders (50.9%) strongly disagreed about the laboratory facilities being congenial for practical teaching-learning and 5.2% responders strongly disagreed. Also, one-fifth of the responders (20.9%) disagreed, and 14.3% responders agreed. Although 8.7% remained undecided. Nearly half of the responders (47%) strongly disagreed that facilities for conducting research are adequate and 5.7% strongly disagreed to that. Around 13.9% responders agreed, and 23% responders disagreed with the statement. Only 9.1 % did not give any opinion on this matter. Regarding the access to internet facilities with sufficient speed being available, only 6.1% responders strongly agreed, but 43.9% students strongly disagreed. Around 13.9% agreed, and 28.3% responders disagreed with the statement. Among them 7.8% of responders were undecided.
Table 19: Percent Distribution of Current Students’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagreed Strongly Mean Agree Disagreed Classroom facilities are suitable for 34 46 21 61 68 2.64 ensuring effective learning (14.8)* (20) (9.1) (26.5) (29.6) Laboratory facilities are congenial 12 33 2 48 117 2.02 for practical teaching-learning (5.2) (14.3) (8.7) (20.9) (50.9) Facilities for conducting research are 13 32 24 53 108 2.08 adequate (5.7) (13.9) (10.4) (23) (47) The library has adequate up-to-date 46 82 21 45 36 3.25 reading and reference materials to (20) (35.7) (9.1) (19.6) (15.7) meet the academic & research needs Indoor and outdoor medical facilities 20 58 39 59 53 2.71 are adequate (8.7) (25.3) (17) (25.8) (23.1) There are adequate sports facilities 41 102 27 33 27 3.42 (indoor and outdoor ) (17.8) (44.3) (11.7) (14.3) (11.7) Existing gymnasium facilities are 31 77 33 47 42 3.03 good enough (13.5) (33.5) (14.3) (20.4) (18.3) Access to internet facilities with 14 32 18 65 101 2.10 sufficient speed are available (6.1) (13.9) (7.8) (28.3) (43.9) *Frequency (Percentage)
32 | P a g e
The average score presented in the Figure 14 ranges from 2.02 to 3.42 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the structure and facilities of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the structure and facilities (2.66) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean Values of Current Students’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and… 3.42 The library has adequate up-to-date reading and… 3.25 Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough 3.03 Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate 2.71 Overall average mean Score 2.66 Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring… 2.64 Access to internet facilities with sufficient… 2.10 Facilities for conducting research are adequate 2.08 Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical… 2.02 Mean Score
Figure 14: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
7.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
This study represents the alumni’s evaluation (n=91) on the structure and facilities of the department. The results are shown in Table 20. Around one fourth of the responders (25%) strongly agreed that classroom facilities were suitable for ensuring effective learning while 11.4% strongly disagreed. Around 40.9% responders agreed, and 15.9% members disagreed. Only 6.8% responders remained undecided. While 9.1% responders strongly agreed that laboratory facilities were congenial for practical teaching-learning, 11.4% strongly disagreed. Around 28.4% responders agreed, and 33% disagreed on this issue. Nearly one-fifth of the responders (18.2%) remained undecided. One fourth of the responders (25%) strongly agreed that there were adequate sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) but 6.8% strongly disagreed to that. Moreover, 33% responders agreed, and 23.9% responders disagreed. Around one tenth of the responders (11.4%) did not give their opinion. Only a few responders (6.9%) strongly agreed that access to internet facilities with sufficient speed was available while 25.3% responders strongly disagreed to that. Nearly one-fifth of the responders (18.4%) agreed, and 28.7% disagreed with the statement. Furthermore, 20.7% responders were undecided.
33 | P a g e
Table 20: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagreed Strongly Mean Agree Disagreed Classroom facilities are suitable for 22 36 6 14 10 3.52 ensuring effective learning (25)* (40.9) (6.8) (15.9) (11.4) Laboratory facilities are congenial 8 25 16 29 10 2.91 for practical teaching-learning (9.1) (28.4) (18.2) (33) (11.4) Facilities for conducting research 13 17 19 23 16 2.86 are adequate (14.8) (19.3) (21.6) (26.1) (18.2) The library has adequate up-to-date 13 17 19 23 16 3.83 reading and reference materials to (14.8) (19.3) (21.6) (26.1) (18.2) meet the academic & research needs Indoor and outdoor medical 14 19 14 32 10 2.94 facilities are adequate (15.7) (21.3) (15.7) (36) (11.2) There are adequate sports facilities 22 29 10 21 6 3.45 (indoor and outdoor ) (25) (33) (11.4) (23.9) (6.8) Existing gymnasium facilities are 14 20 19 25 11 3.01 good enough (15.7) (22.5) (21.3) (28.1) (12.4) Access to internet facilities with 6 16 18 25 22 2.53 sufficient speed are available (6.9) (18.4) (20.7) (28.7) (25.3) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
The library has adequate up-to-date reading and… 3.83 Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring… 3.52 There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and… 3.45 Overall average mean Score 3.13 Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough 3.01 Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate 2.94 Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical… 2.91 Facilities for conducting research are adequate 2.86 Access to internet facilities with sufficient… 2.53 Mean Score
Figure 15: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
The average score presented in the Figure 15 ranges from 2.53 to 3.83 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as
34 | P a g e
strengths in the structure and facilities of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the structure and facilities (3.13) were considered as strengths of the system.
7.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
Table 21 represents the study of the academician’s (n=22) evaluation about the structure and facilities of the department. Around 13.6% responders strongly agreed that classroom facilities were suitable for ensuring effective learning but 9.1% strongly disagreed. While 36.4 % responders agreed, 31.8% disagreed to this issue. Only 9.1% responders remained undecided. The library had adequate, up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the academic & research needs, about this statement 18.2% responders strongly agreed, and 54.5% responders agreed. No one strongly disagreed to that, but 22.7% disagreed. Only 4.5% responders were undecided. About the indoor and outdoor medical facilities being adequate no one strongly agreed or disagreed. Around 40.9% responders agreed and disagreed with this statement. Nearly one-fifth of the responders (18.2%) remained undecided. While 18.2% responders strongly agreed that the library had adequate, up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the academic & research needs, no one strongly disagreed to that. More than half of the responders (54.5%) agreed, and 22.7% disagreed with the statement. Only 4.5% responders did not give any opinion. More than one-fifth of the responders (22.7%) strongly agreed that the entity had the competent manpower to run the academic affairs and no one strongly disagreed to that. Nearly half of the responders (45.5%) agreed, and 22.7% responders disagreed to this matter. Only 9.1% were undecided. No one strongly agreed that access to internet facilities with sufficient speed was available but 18.2% responders strongly disagreed. Around 27.3% responders agreed, and 31.8% responders disagreed with the statement. More than one-fifth of the responders (22.7%) did not give their opinion.
Table 21: Percent Distribution of Academicians’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagreed Strongly Mean Agree Disagreed Classroom facilities are suitable for 3 8 2 7 2 3.14 ensuring effective learning (13.6) (36.4) (9.1) (31.8) (9.1) Laboratory facilities are congenial 2 8 1 10 1 3.00 for practical teaching-learning (9.1)* (36.4) (4.5) (45.5) (4.5) Facilities for conducting research 2 4 2 12 2 2.64 are adequate (9.1) (18.2) (9.1) (54.5) (9.1) The library has adequate up-to-date 4 12 1 5 3.68 reading and reference materials to (18.2) (54.5) (4.5) (22.7) meet the academic & research needs Indoor and outdoor medical 9 4 9 3.00 facilities are adequate (40.9) (18.2) (40.9)
35 | P a g e
There are adequate sports facilities 5 7 4 4 2 3.41 (indoor and outdoor ) (22.7) (31.8) (18.2) (18.2) (9.1) Existing gymnasium facilities are 2 12 4 3 1 3.50 good enough (9.1) (54.5) (18.2) (13.6) (4.5) Office equipment’s are adequate to 2 10 3 6 1 3.27 support the students’ need (9.1) (45.5) (13.6) (27.3) (4.5) Entity has competent manpower to 5 10 2 5 3.68 run the academic affairs (22.7) (45.5) (9.1) (22.7) Access to internet facilities with 6 5 7 4 2.59 sufficient speed are available (27.3) (22.7) (31.8) (18.2) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 16 ranges from 2.59 to 3.68 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the structure and facilities of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the structure and facilities (3.19) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean Values of Academicians’ Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
Entity has competent manpower to run the… 3.68 The library has adequate up-to-date reading and… 3.68 Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough 3.50 There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and… 3.41 Office equipments are adequate to support the … 3.27 Overall average mean Score 3.19 Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring… 3.14 Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate 3.00 Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical… 3.00 Facilities for conducting research are adequate 2.64 Access to internet facilities with sufficient speed… 2.59 Mean Score
Figure 16: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Institutional Structures and Facilities
36 | P a g e
7.4 Comparative Analysis of Institutional Structures and Facilities
The average score presented in Figure 17 ranges 2.66 to 3.19 (out of 5). The Academicians evaluate the structure and facilities of the department 3.19 out of 5, which means they thought 63.8%of the structures and facilities of the department were quite enough. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 36.2area. Current students’ evaluation (2.66/5) is a little bit lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.13/5) which means department’s structure and facilities are getting worse than the past years
Comparative Evaluations on Institutional Structure and Facilities
3.13 3.19
2.66 Average Score Average
Current student Alumni Academicians
Figure 17: Comparative Analysis of Institutional Structure and Facilities
37 | P a g e
CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION ON TEACHING LEARNING AND ASSESSMENT OF DIS
8.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
This study represents the evaluation of current students (n=230) about the teaching and learning assessment of the department. The results are shown in Table 22. Around 8.3% respondents strongly agreed that the teaching learning was interactive and supportive but 11.3% respondents strongly disagreed to that. Around 36.1% respondents agreed, and 24.3% disagreed with the statement. One fifth of the respondents (20%) were undecided. Regarding the class size being optimum for interactive teaching-learning, 4.4% respondents strongly agreed but 46.7% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 14% respondents agreed, and 26.6% disagreed. Only 8.3% respondents remained undecided. More than half of the respondents (53.7%) strongly agreed that lesson plans/course outlines were provided to the students in advance and 3.5% respondents strongly disagreed. Moreover, 34.9% agreed and 3.9% respondents disagreed on this issue. Only 3.9% respondents did not give their opinion
Table 22: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Teaching Learning (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Mean Disagree Agree Teaching-learning is interactive and 19 83 46 56 26 3.06 supportive (8.3)* (36.1) (20) (24.3) (11.3) Class size is optimum for interactive 10 32 19 61 107 2.03 teaching learning (4.4) (14) (8.3) (26.6) (46.7) Entity provides adequate 14 47 44 50 74 2.46 opportunities for practical exercises to (6.1) (20.5) (19.2) (21.8) (32.3) apply in real life situation Modern devices are used to improve 33 92 29 41 35 3.20 teaching-learning process (14.3) (40) (12.6) (17.8) (15.2) Diverse methods are practiced to 23 48 48 71 38 2.77 achieve learning objectives (10.1) (21.1) (21.1) (31.1) (16.7) Lesson plans/course outlines are 123 80 9 9 8 4.31 provided to the students in advance (53.7) (34.9) (3.9) (3.9) (3.5) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 18 ranges from 2.03 to 4.31 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the teaching-learning assessment of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (2.97) were considered as strengths of the system.
38 | P a g e
Mean Values of Current Students' Evaluation on Teaching Learning
Lesson plans/course outlines are provided to… 4.31 Modern devices are used to improve teaching-… 3.20 Teaching-learning is interactive and supportive 3.06 Overall average mean Score 2.97 Diverse methods are practiced to achieve… 2.77 Entity provides adequate opportunities for… 2.46 Class size is optimum for interactive teaching… 2.03 Mean Score
Figure 18: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Teaching Learning.
Table 23 represents the evaluation of the current students (n=230) on learning assessment of the department. They were asked about the learning assessment of their department. Around 27% respondents strongly agreed that assessment systems were duly communicated to students at the outset of the term/semester while 10.9% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 32.6% respondents agreed, and 18.7% disagreed. Only 10.9% respondents remained undecided. Nearly one-fifth of the respondents (17.8%) strongly agreed that both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations, etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies were followed and 16.1% respondents strongly disagreed to that. Furthermore, 34.3% respondents agreed, but 18.3% disagreed. Around 13.5% respondents were undecided. More than one-tenth of the respondents (12.3%) strongly agreed that the students were provided feedback immediately after assessment while 11% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 32.9% respondents agreed and 21.5% respondents disagreed to the statement. More than one-fifth of the respondents (22.4%) remained undecided.
Table 23: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Assessment systems are duly 62 75 25 43 25 3.46 communicated to students at the (27)* (32.6) (10.9) (18.7) (10.9) outset of the term/semester Assessment procedures meet the 22 75 61 51 21 3.11 objectives of the course (9.6) (32.6) (26.5) (22.2) (9.1) Both formative (quizzes, 41 79 31 42 37 3.20 assignments, termpapers, (17.8) (34.3) (13.5) (18.3) (16.1) continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies are followed
39 | P a g e
Diverse methods are used for 28 75 51 49 25 3.14 assessment (12.3) (32.9) (22.4) (21.5) (11) The students are provided feedback 28 75 51 49 25 2.72 immediately after assessment (12.3) (32.9) (22.4) (21.5) (11) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 19 ranges from 2.72 to 3.46 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the learning assessment of the department. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score of the learning assessment (3.13) were considered as strengths of the system
Mean Values of Current Students' Evaluation on Assessment Criteria
Assessment systems are duly communicated… 3.46 Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term… 3.20 Diverse methods are used for assessment 3.14 Overall average mean Score 3.13 Assessment procedures meet the objectives of… 3.11 The students are provided feedback… 2.72 Mean Score
Figure 19: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students' Evaluation on Learning Assessment
8.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
The alumni members (n=91) were asked about the teaching-learning system of the department. Table 24 represents the results of the evaluation. Around 13.5% respondents strongly agreed that teaching learning was interactive and supportive, but 5.6% respondents strongly disagreed. Nearly half of the respondents (46.1%) agreed and 15.7% respondents disagreed to the statement. Although 19.1% were undecided. Regarding the students attained additional practical ideas apart from classroom teaching, 17% respondents strongly agreed while 8% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 38.6% respondents agreed, but 11.4% disagreed to this issue. One-fourth of the respondents remained undecided. Around 41.4% respondents strongly agreed that lesson plans/course outlines are provided to the students in advance, and only 2.3% respondents strongly disagreed to that. Moreover, 36.8% respondents agreed, but 11.5% disagreed with the statement. Only 8% respondents did not give their opinion on this matter.
40 | P a g e
Table 24: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Teaching Learning (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Mean Disagree Agree Teaching-learning is interactive and 12 41 17 14 5 3.46 supportive (13.5)* (46.1) (19.1) (15.7) (5.6) Class size is optimum for interactive 7 25 17 24 16 2.81 teaching learning (7.9) (28.1) (19.1) (27) (18) Entity provides adequate 10 17 28 24 10 2.92 opportunities for practical exercises (11.2) (19.1) (31.5) (27) (11.2) to apply in real life situation Students attained additional practical 15 34 22 10 7 3.45 ideas apart from class room teaching (17) (38.6) (25) (11.4) (8) Modern devices are used to improve 10 28 17 25 8 3.08 teaching-learning process (11.4) (31.8) (19.3) (28.4) (9.1) Diverse methods are practiced to 10 26 21 29 2 3.15 achieve learning objectives (11.4) (29.5) (23.9) (33) (2.3) Lesson plans/course outlines are 36 32 7 10 2 4.04 provided to the students in advance (41.4) (36.8) (8) (11.5) (2.3) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 20 ranges from 2.81 to 4.04 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the teaching-learning assessment of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (3.27) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean values of Alumni Members' evaluation on teaching learning
Lesson plans/course outlines are provided… 4.04 Teaching-learning is interactive and… 3.46 Students attained additional practical ideas… 3.45 Overall average mean Score 3.27 Diverse methods are practiced to achieve… 3.15 Modern devices are used to improve… 3.08 Entity provides adequate opportunities for… 2.92 Class size is optimum for interactive… 2.81 Mean Score
Figure 20: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Teaching Learning
Table 25 represents the alumni member’s (n=91) evaluation of the learning assessment. More than one-fourth of the members (25.4%) strongly agreed that assessment systems were duly 41 | P a g e
communicated to students at the outset of the term/semester and 3.34% respondents strongly disagreed. Nearly half of the respondents (44.5%) agreed, and 14.6% disagreed. Around 11.2% respondents were undecided. Nearly one-fifth of the respondents (19.1%) strongly agreed that assessment procedures meet the objectives of the course, but 3.4% strongly disagreed to that. Around 44.9% respondents agreed, and 18% respondents disagreed with this statement. Moreover, 14.6% respondents remained undecided. Around 19.1% respondents strongly agreed that diverse methods were used for assessment and 2.2% strongly disagreed. Around 41.6% respondents agreed, and nearly one-fifth of the respondents disagreed with the statement. Lastly, 18% respondents did not give their opinion on this issue.
Table 25: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Assessment systems are duly 23 40 10 13 3 3.75 communicated to students at the (25.8)* (44.9) (11.2) (14.6) (3.4) outset of the term/semester Assessment procedures meet the 17 40 13 16 3 3.58 objectives of the course (19.1) (44.9) (14.6) (18) (3.4) Both formative (quizzes, 21 41 13 11 3 3.74 assignments, term papers, continuous (23.6) (46.1) (14.6) (12.4) (3.4) assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies are followed Diverse methods are used for 17 37 16 17 2 3.56 assessment (19.1) (41.6) (18) (19.1) (2.2) The students are provided feedback 14 26 18 22 8 3.18 immediately after assessment (15.9) (29.5) (20.5) (25) (9.1) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Assessment Criteria
Assessment systems are duly communicated to… 3.75 Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term… 3.74 Assessment procedures meet the objectives of… 3.58 Overall average mean Score 3.56 Diverse methods are used for assessment 3.56 The students are provided feedback… 3.18 Mean Score
Figure 21: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Learning Assessment
42 | P a g e
The average score presented in the Figure 21 ranges from 3.18 to 3.75 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the learning assessment of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the learning assessment (3.56) were considered as strengths of the system.
8.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study represents the academician’s (n=22) evaluation on the teaching-learning assessment of the department. The results are shown in Table 26. Around 18.2% respondents strongly agreed that the teaching learning was interactive and no one strongly disagreed to that. More than half of the respondents (54.5%) agreed, and 13.6% disagreed to this matter. Around 13.6% respondents were undecided. About the class size, being optimum for interactive teaching- learning no one strongly agreed to that, but 27.3% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 13.6% agreed, and half of the respondents (50%) disagreed with the statement. Only 9.1% respondents remained undecided. Around 18.2% respondents strongly agreed that modern devices were used to improve teaching-learning process and no one strongly disagreed to that. Half of the respondents agreed, and 31.8% respondents disagreed to the matter
Table 26: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Teaching Learning (n=22).
Area of Evaluation Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Mean Disagree Agree Teaching-learning is interactive 4 12 3 3 3.77 and supportive (18.2) * (54.5) (13.6) (13.6) Class size is optimum for 3 2 11 6 2.09 interactive teaching learning (13.6) (9.1) (50) (27.3) Entity provides adequate 2 4 3 12 1 2.73 opportunities for practical (9.1) (18.2) (13.6) (54.5) (4.5) exercises to apply in real life situation Students attained additional 1 13 2 3 2 3.38 practical ideas apart from class (4.8) (61.9) (9.5) (14.3) (9.5) room teaching Modern devices are used to 4 11 7 3.55 improve teaching-learning process (18.2) (50) (31.8) Diverse methods are practiced to 3 7 7 4 1 3.32 achieve learning objectives (13.6) (31.8) (31.8) (18.2) (4.5) Lesson plans/course outlines are 6 13 2 4.19 provided to the students in advance (28.6) (61.9) (9.5) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 22 ranges from 2.09 to 4.19 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the teaching-learning assessment of the department. The indicators with an average
43 | P a g e
score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (3.29) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean values of Academicians' Evaluation on Teaching Learning
Lesson plans/course outlines are provided to… 4.19 Teaching-learning is interactive and supportive 3.77 Modern devices are used to improve teaching-… 3.55 Students attained additional practical ideas… 3.38 Diverse methods are practiced to achieve… 3.32 Overall average mean Score 3.29 Entity provides adequate opportunities for… 2.73 Class size is optimum for interactive teaching… 2.09 Mean Score
Figure 22: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians' Evaluation on Teaching Learning
Table 27 represents the study of the academicians (n=22) about the learning assessment of the department. Around 27.3% respondents strongly agreed that assessment systems were duly communicated to students at the outset of the term/semester, but 4.5% strongly disagreed. More than half of the respondents (54.5%) agreed and 9.1% respondents disagreed. Only 4.5% respondents were undecided. Regarding the assessment procedures meet the objectives of the course, 9.1% respondents strongly agreed, and 4.5% strongly disagreed. More than half of the respondents (68.2%) did not give their opinion on this matter. Around 9.1% respondents agreed and 18.2% respondents disagreed to that. Only 4.5% strongly agreed that the students were provided feedback immediately after assessment and no one strongly disagreed to that. Around 40.9% respondents agreed, and half of the respondents (50%) disagreed with the statement. Only 4.5 % respondents did not give their opinion.
Table 27: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Learning Assessment Criteria (n=22).
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Assessment systems are duly 6 12 1 2 1 3.91 communicated to students at the (27.3)* (54.5) (4.5) (9.1) (4.5) outset of the term/semester Assessment procedures meet the 2 2 15 4 1 3.82 objectives of the course (9.1) (9.1) (68.2) (18.2) (4.5) The assessment system is reviewed at 2 11 2 7 3.36 regular intervals (9.1) (50) (9.1) (31.8) Both formative (quizzes, 8 8 3 3 3.95 assignments, term papers, continuous (36.4) (36.4) (13.6) (13.6) assessments, presentations etc.) and
44 | P a g e
summative assessment (final examination) strategies are followed Diverse methods are used for 4 9 2 7 3.45 assessment (18.2) (40.9) (9.1) (31.8) The students are provided feedback 1 9 1 11 3.00 immediately after assessment (4.5) (40.9) (4.5) (50) Fairness and transparency is 8 8 3 3 3.95 maintained in assessment system (36.4) (36.4) (13.6) (13.6) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean values of Academicians' Evaluation on Assessment Criteria
Fairness and transparency is maintained in… 3.95 Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term… 3.95 Assessment systems are duly communicated to… 3.91 Assessment procedures meet the objectives of… 3.82 Overall average mean Score 3.64 Diverse methods are used for assessment 3.45 The assessment system is reviewed at regular… 3.36 The students are provided feedback… 3.00 Mean Score
Figure 23: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Learning Assessments.
The average score presented in the Figure 23 ranges from 3.00 to 3.95 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the teaching-learning assessment of the department. The indicators with average Score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (3.64) were considered as strengths of the system.
8.4 Comparative Analysis of Teaching Learning and Assessment
This is the comparative analysis of teaching-learning assessment. The average score presented in Figure 24 ranges 2.97 to 3.29 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). The Academicians evaluate the teaching-learning assessment of the department 3.29 out of 5, which means they thought 65.8% of teaching-learning assessment was quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 34.2% area. Current students’ evaluation (2.97/5) is quite lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.29/5) which means department’s teaching-learning assessment is getting worse than the past years.
45 | P a g e
Comparative Evaluations on Teaching Learning
3.27 3.29
2.97 AverageScore
Current Students Alumni Academicians
Figure 24: Comparative Analysis of Teaching Learning
This is the comparative analysis of learning assessment. The average score presented in Figure 25 ranges 3.13 to 3.64 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). The Academicians evaluate the learning assessment of the department 3.64 out of 5, which means they thought 72.8% of teaching learning assessment was quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 27.2% area. Current students’ evaluation (3.13/5) is quite lower than the Alumni members’ evaluation (3.56/5) which means department’s learning assessment is getting worse than the past years.
Comparative Evaluations on Learning Assessments 3.64 3.56
3.13 Average Score Average
Current Students Alumni Academicians
Figure 25: Comparative Analysis of Learning Assessments Criteria
46 | P a g e
CHAPTER 9: EVALUATION ON STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES OF DIS
9.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
This study included 230 current students. Students were requested to evaluate the student support service, which is presented in Table 28. About one-fifth (19.2%) students strongly agreed that there is an arrangement in the entity to provide academic guidance and counseling whereas 11.4% of them strongly disagreed with it; moreover, one-fifth respondent remained undecided. Also, around 27.5% respondents strongly disagreed that financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship while only 5.2% students strongly agreed on this issue. However almost 17% of them remained undecided. The entity provides co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students, is agreed by 25.3% respondents whereas to 26.6% of them this statement was disagreeable, moreover; 23.1% of them could not decide. Regarding the presence of organized and supportive alumni society, only one-fifth of the respondents strongly agreed that there is an organized and supportive alumni association whereas 21.8% of them strongly disagreed with the statement moreover; 14% respondents remained undecided. On the other hand, regarding the entity collects alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the program 28.8% respondents strongly disagreed that while only 6.6% of them strongly agreed on it and 23.1% remained undecided
Table 28: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Student Support Services (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree There is an arrangement in the entity to 44 96 27 36 26 3.42 provide an academic guidance and (19.2)* (41.9) (11.8) (15.7) (11.4) counseling Financial grants are available to the 12 38 39 77 63 2.38 students in case of hardship (5.2) (16.6) (17.0) (33.6) (27.5) The entity provides co-curricular and 16 58 53 61 41 2.77 extra-curricular exposures to the (7.0) (25.3) (23.1) (26.6) (17.9) students There is an organized and supportive 46 76 32 25 50 3.19 alumni association (20.1) (33.2) (14) (10.9) (21.8) The entity collects alumni feedback to 15 23 53 72 66 2.34 update the learning outcomes of the (6.6) (10.0) (23.1) (31.4) (28.8) program There are opportunities to be involved 44 79 33 33 39 3.25 with community services (19.3) (34.6) (14.5) (14.5) (17.1) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in Figure 26 ranges from 2.34 to 3.41. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in students’ support service of the department. 47 | P a g e
The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score (2.89) were considered as the strengths of student support service
Mean Values of Current Students' Evaluation on Student Support Services
There is an arrangement in the entity to provide… 3.42 There are opportunities to be involved with… 3.25 There is an organized and supportive alumni… 3.19 Overall average mean Score 2.89 The entity provides co-curricular and extra-… 2.77 Financial grants are available to the students in… 2.38 The entity collects alumni feedback to update… 2.34 Mean Score
Figure 26: Overall and Item-wise Average of Current Students’ Evaluation on Student Support Services
9.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
In Table 29, 12 alumni members were asked to evaluate the student support service. Around 24.7% alumni strongly agreed that there is an arrangement in the entity to provide academic guidance and counseling while only 3.4% of them strongly disagreed with the statement and 6.7% remained undecided. Also, around 7.5% respondents strongly disagreed that financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship while only 4.5% of them strongly agreed on this issue. However almost 29.2% of them remained undecided. The entity provides co- curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students, is agreed by 41.4% respondents whereas to 14.9% of them this statement was disagreeable moreover; 31% of them could not decide. Also, regarding organized and supportive alumni association, 21.1% respondents strongly agreed that there is such an association while 9.2% strongly disagreed with it; however, 12.6% of them remained undecided. To only 5.6% respondents the entity collects alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the program while 18% alumni strongly disagreed on it, most of (30.3%) alumni agreed on it, 24.7% disagreed and around one fifth of them remained undecided. On the other hand, 12.9% respondents agreed that there are opportunities to be involved with community services, whereas only 8% of them disagreed with the statement.
48 | P a g e
Table 29: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Student Support Services (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree There is an arrangement in the entity to 22 39 6 19 3 3.65 provide an academic guidance and (24.7)* (43.8) (6.7) (21.3) (3.4) counseling Financial grants are available to the 4 24 26 28 7 2.89 students in case of hardship (4.5) (27.0) (29.2) (31.5) (7.9) The entity provides co-curricular and 5 36 27 13 6 3.24 extra-curricular exposures to the (5.7) (41.4) (31.0) (14.9) (6.9) students There is an organized and supportive 19 35 11 14 8 3.49 alumni association (21.1) (40.2) (12.6) (16.1) (9.2) The entity collects alumni feedback to 5 27 19 22 16 2.81 update the learning outcomes of the (5.6) (30.3) (21.3) (24.7) (18.0) program There are opportunities to be involved 11 26 22 21 7 3.15 with community services (12.6) (29.9) (25.3) (24.1) (8.0) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in Figure 27 ranges from 2.80 to 3.65. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in student support service of the department. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score (3.20) were considered as the strengths of student support service
Mean Values of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Student Support Services
There is an arrangement in the entity to provide… 3.65 There is an organized and supportive alumni… 3.49 The entity provides co-curricular and extra-… 3.24 Overall average mean Score 3.21 There are opportunities to be involved with… 3.15 Financial grants are available to the students in… 2.89 The entity collects alumni feedback to update the… 2.81 Mean Score
Figure 27: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Student Support Services
49 | P a g e
9.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study included 22 academicians. Academicians were requested to evaluate the student support service of the academic program, which is presented in Table 30. The highest proportion of the faculty member (59.1%) agreed that there is an arrangement in the entity to provide academic guidance and counseling whereas 4.5% faculty member disagreed on it but around 31.8% academicians strongly agreed; however, 4.5% academicians remained undecided. The entity provides co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students, is agreed by 54.5% respondents whereas to 40.9% of them this statement was disagreeable moreover; 13.6% of them could not decide. Also 4.5% respondents strongly opinioned that financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship, 22.7% of them agreed on it, and a half (54.5%) of the respondents disagreed with it. For most of the academicians academic the entity does not collect alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the program as 40.9% of respondents agreed on it, 22.7% staffs strongly disagreed on it. However, rest 9.1% respondents remained undecided. On the other hand, only 5% respondents agreed that there are opportunities to be involved with community services, whereas only 9.1% of them disagreed with the statement and 22.7% remained undecided about it.
Table 30: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Student Support Services (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree There is an arrangement in the entity to 7 13 1 1 4.18 provide academic guidance and (31.8)* (59.1) (4.5) (4.5) counseling Financial grants are available to the 1 5 4 12 2.77 students in case of hardship (4.5) (22.7) (18.2) (54.5) The entity provides co-curricular and 1 12 3 5 1 3.32 extra-curricular exposures to the (4.5) (54.5) (13.6) (22.7) (4.5) students There is an organized and supportive 4 8 1 4 5 3.09 alumni association (18.2) (36.4) (4.5) (18.2) (22.7) The entity collects alumni feedback to 1 5 2 9 5 2.45 update the learning outcomes of the (4.5) (22.7) (9.1) (40.9) (22.7) program There are opportunities to be involved 3 11 5 2 1 3.59 with community services (13.6) (5.0) (22.7) (9.1) (4.5) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in Figure 28 ranges from 2.46 to 4.18. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in student support service of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score (3.23) were considered as the strengths of student support service.
50 | P a g e
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Student Support Services
There is an arrangement in the entity to… 4.18 There are opportunities to be involved with… 3.59 The entity provides co-curricular and extra-… 3.32 Overall average mean Score 3.24 There is an organized and supportive alumni… 3.09 Financial grants are available to the students in… 2.77 The entity collects alumni feedback to update… 2.45 Mean Score
Figure 28: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Student Support Services
9.4 Comparative Analysis of Student Support Services
The average score presented in Figure 29 ranges from 2.89 to 3.24 out of 5 (Strongly agree, agree, undecided, strongly disagree, disagree) The current students evaluate the student support service standard 2.89 out of 5 which means they thought 77.8% service related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 20% area.There is not much difference between the alumni’s evaluation (3.21/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.24/5) which means the student support service is running quite well.
Comparative Evaluations on Student Support Services
3.24 3.21
2.89 Average Score Average
Current student Alumni Academicians
Figure 29: Comparative Analysis of Student Support Services
51 | P a g e
CHAPTER 10: EVALUATION ON RESEARCH AND EXTENSION OF DIS
10.1 Current Students’ Evaluation
In Table 31, 230 current students were asked to evaluate the research and extension of the academic program. Regarding having a well-defined research and development policy, 26.6% respondents agreed that the entity has a clearly defined research and development policy whereas to 24.5% of them this statement was disagreeable and 15.3% of them could not decide. However, 28.9% respondents strongly disagreed with the mechanism exists for engaging the students in research and development whereas 7.9% strongly agreed with the statement and 18.4% respondents remained undecided. Also 10.5% respondents strongly believed that the entity has a community service policy, on contrary, one-fifth of the respondents (19.7%) strongly disagreed with this opinion and rested 23.6% of them remained undecided
Table 31: Percent Distribution of Current Students' on Research and Extension (n=230)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree The entity has a well-defined research 28 61 35 56 49 2.84 and development policy (12.2)* (26.6) (15.3) (24.5) (21.4) Mechanism exists for engaging the 18 49 42 53 66 2.56 students in research and development (7.9) (21.5) (18.4) (23.2) (28.9) The entity has a community service 24 62 54 44 45 2.90 policy (10.5) (27.1) (23.6) (19.2) (19.7) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Current Students' Evaluation on Research and Extension
The entity has a community service policy 2.90 The entity has a well defined research and… 2.84 Overall average mean Score 2.77 Mechanism exists for engaging the students in… 2.56 Mean Score
Figure 30: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Research and Extension
The average score presented in Figure 30 ranges from 2.56 to 2.90. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the research and extension system of the
52 | P a g e
department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of research and extension (2.77) were considered as the strengths of the research and extensions.
10.2 Alumni Members’ (Ex-Student) Evaluation
Table 32 represents study which included 91 alumni members. They were asked to evaluate the research and extension of the academic program. Around 17.6% alumni strongly confirmed that the entity has a well-defined research and development policy whereas only 6.7% of them strongly disagreed with the statement; however, 15.7% respondents remained undecided. Regarding the existence of a mechanism for engaging the students in research and development,9.9% respondents strongly agreed on it, on contrary 11.2% respondents strongly disagreed with it, besides 20.2% of them agreed with the statement,23.1% disagreed with it and 25.3% respondents could not decide. In addition, 13.2% respondents strongly believed that the entity has a community service policy, on contrary, about 14.8% of the respondents strongly disagreed with this opinion and rested 27.3% of them remained undecided
Table 32: Percent Distribution of Alumni Members' on Research and Extension (n=91)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree The entity has a well-defined 16 36 14 17 6 3.44 research and development policy (17.6)* (40.4) (15.7) (19.1) (6.7) Mechanism exists for engaging the 9 26 23 21 10 3.03 students in research and (9.9) (29.2) (25.3) (23.1) (11.2) development The entity has a community service 12 23 24 16 13 3.06 policy (13.2) (26.1) (27.3) (18.2) (14.8) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in Figure 31 ranges from 3.03 to 3. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the research and extension system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of (3.18) were considered as the strengths of the research and extension.
53 | P a g e
Mean Values of Alumni Members' Evaluation on Research and Extension
The entity has a well defined research and… 3.44 Overall average mean Score 3.18 The entity has a community service policy 3.06 Mechanism exists for engaging the students in… 3.03 Mean Score
Figure 31: Overall and Item-wise Average of Alumni Members’ Evaluation on Research and Extension
10.3 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study included 22 academicians. Academicians were requested to evaluate on research and extension of the academic program, which is presented in Table 33. Around 54.5% respondents confirmed that the entity has a well-defined research and development policy whereas only 4.5% of them disagreed with the statement. The highest proportion of the faculty member (40.9%) strongly stated that the entity has a well-defined research and development policy and most of them (54.5%) agreed to it. However only 4.5% respondents disagreed with the statement. Furthermore, 18.2% respondents strongly opinioned that teacher always take the initiative to hunt research fund for the smooth running of the research whereas another 63.6% agreed on this issue and 9.1% of them disagreed with it, and the same number of them remained undecided. In addition, 13.6% respondents strongly believed that the entity has a community service policy, on contrary, about 4.5% of the respondents strongly disagreed with this opinion and rested 13.6% of them remained undecided
Table 33: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Research and Extension (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree The entity has a well-defined 9 12 1 4.32 research and development policy (40.9)* (54.5) (4.5) Mechanism exists for engaging the 8 12 1 1 4.14 students in research and development (36.4) (54.5) (4.5) (4.5) Teachers always take the initiative to 4 14 2 2 3.91 hunt research fund for smooth (18.2) (63.6) (9.1) (9.1) running of the research The entity has a community service 3 10 3 5 1 3.41 policy (13.6) (45.5) (13.6) (22.7) (4.5) *Frequency (Percentage)
54 | P a g e
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Research and Extension
The entity has a well defined research and… 4.32 Mechanism exists for engaging the students in… 4.14 Overall average mean Score 3.94 Teachers always take initiative to hunt research… 3.91 The entity has a community service policy 3.41 Mean Score
Figure 32: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Research and Extension
The average score presented in Figure 32 ranges from 3.41 to 4.32. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the research and extension system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.94) were considered as the strengths of the research and extension.
55 | P a g e
10.4 Comparative Analysis of Research and Extension
The average score presented in Figure 33 ranges from 2.77 to 3.94 out of 5 (Strongly agree, agree, undecided, strongly disagree, disagree). The current students evaluate the research and extension standard 2.77 out of 5, which means they thought 55.4% service related activity is running properly. However, there is a chance of improvement in 45% area.There is not much difference between the alumni’s evaluation (3.18/5) and the academicians’ evaluation (3.94/5) which means the research and extension are running quite well.
Comparative Evaluation on Research and Extension
3.94
3.18
2.77 Average Score Average
Current students Alumni Academicians
Figure 33: Comparative Analysis of Research and Extension
56 | P a g e
CHAPTER 11: EVALUATION ON FACULTY AND STAFF: RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF DIS
11.1 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study represents the academician’s (n=22) evaluation about the staff and facilities of the department. The results are shown in Table 34. Around 9.1% respondents strongly agreed that recruitment policy and practices were good enough for recruitment of competent academic and non-academic staff and no one strongly disagreed to that. Around 36.4% respondents agreed, and 22.7% disagreed. About this issue, 31.8% respondents did not give any opinion. Moreover, 9.1% respondents strongly agreed that good team spirit existed among different non-academic staff and no one strongly disagreed. More than half of the respondents (54.5%) agreed and 27.3% respondents disagreed on this issue. Around 18.2% respondents were undecided. Only 4.5% respondents strongly agreed that non-academics had enough opportunity to take part in different training programs for skill development while 9.1% respondents strongly disagreed. Nearly half of the respondents (45.5%) agreed, and 27.3% disagreed to that. Around 13.6% respondents remained undecided. Regarding the entity practices, seminars and workshops to share knowledge and experience among the faculty members, 9.1% respondents strongly agreed, and 4.5% strongly disagreed. Moreover, 22.7% respondents agreed and 45.5% respondents disagreed. Nearly one-fifth of the respondents (18.2%) were undecided. No one strongly agreed that performance indicators were the criteria for promotion/up-gradation, but 9.1% respondents strongly disagreed. Around 68.2% respondents agreed, and 13.6% disagreed to that. Only 9.1% respondents remained undecided.
Table 34: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Recruitment policy and practices are 2 8 7 5 3.32 good enough for recruitment of (9.1)* (36.4) (31.8) (22.7) competent academic and non- academic staff Salary and incentives are attractive 1 8 4 9 3.05 enough to retain the academic and (4.5) (36.4) (18.2) (40.9) non-academic staff Good team spirit exists among 2 12 2 6 3.45 different non-academic staff (9.1) (54.5) (9.1) (27.3) A congenial atmosphere prevails to 2 8 5 7 3.23 enhance professional knowledge (9.1) (36.4) (22.7) (31.8) through research and higher studies Academics have enough opportunity 1 10 3 6 2 3.09 to take part in different (4.5) (45.5) (13.6) (27.3) (9.1)
57 | P a g e
seminar/workshop/training programs for skill development Non-academics have enough 1 10 3 6 2 2.64 opportunity to take part in different (4.5) (45.5) (13.6) (27.3) (9.1) training programs for skill development The entity has the policy to provide 4 2 14 2 2.36 mentoring/continuous guidance for (18.2) (9.1) (63.6) (9.1) new academic staff. The entity practices seminars and 2 5 4 10 1 2.86 workshops to share knowledge and (9.1) (22.7) (18.2) (45.5) (4.5) experience among the faculty members The entity has a performance award 4 2 10 6 2.18 policy to inspire academic staff (18.2) (9.1) (45.5) (27.3) Performance indicators are the 15 2 3 2 3.36 criteria for promotion/up-gradation (68.2) (9.1) (13.6) (9.1) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 34 ranges from 2.18 to 3.45 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the staff and facilities of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (3.05) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Staff and Facilities Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development
Good team spirit exists among different non-… 3.45 Performance indicators are the criteria for… 3.36 Recruitment policy and practices are good… 3.32 A congenial atmosphere prevails to enhance… 3.23 Academics have enough opportunity to take part… 3.09 Salary and incentives are attractive enough to… 3.05 Overall average mean Score 2.96 The entity practices seminars and workshops to… 2.86 Non-academics have enough opportunity to take… 2.64 The entity has a policy to provide… 2.36 The entity has a performance award policy to… 2.18 Mean Score
Figure 34: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Staff and Facilities
58 | P a g e
11.2 Non-Academic Staffs’ Evaluation
Table 35 represents the study of non-academicians (n=5) evaluation about the staff and facilities of the department. They were asked about the staff and facilities of the department. No one strongly agreed or disagreed that recruitment policy and practices were sufficient for recruitment of competent academic and non-academic staff. Around 80% respondents agreed and 20% respondents disagreed to the statement. One fifth of the respondents (20%) strongly agreed that salary and incentives were attractive enough to retain the academic and non- academic staff and no one strongly disagreed to that. Around 20% respondents agreed and 60% respondents disagreed to that. Around 60% respondents agreed that good team spirit existed among different non-academic staff and no one disagreed or strongly disagreed to that. Around 40% respondents were undecided about this matter. All the respondents (100%) agreed that the entity had the policy to provide mentoring/continuous guidance for new academic staff. Again, all the respondents (100%) disagreed that the entity had a performance award policy to inspire academic staff. Around 40% respondents strongly agreed that performance indicators were the criteria for promotion/up-gradation and no one disagreed or strongly disagreed to that. Around 40% respondents agreed to the matter, and one-fifth of the respondents (20%) remained undecided.
Table 35: Percent Distribution of Non-Academicians' on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development (n=5)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree Recruitment policy and practices are 4 1 3.60 good enough for recruitment of (80)* (20) competent academic and non- academic staff Salary and incentives are attractive 1 1 3 3.00 enough to retain the academic and (20) (20) (60) non-academic staff Good team spirit exists among 3 2 3.60 different non-academic staff (60) (40) A congenial atmosphere prevails to 4 1 3.60 enhance professional knowledge (80) (20) through research and higher studies Academics have enough opportunity 1 1 3 2.60 to take part in different (20) (20) (60) seminar/workshop/training programs for skill development Non-academics have enough 5 2.00 opportunity to take part in different (100) training programs for skill development
59 | P a g e
The entity has a policy to provide 5 4.00 mentoring/continuous guidance for (100) new academic staff. The entity practices seminars and 4 1 3.60 workshops to share knowledge and (80) (20) experience among the faculty members The entity has a performance award 5 2.00 policy to inspire academic staff (100) Performance indicators are the 2 2 1 4.20 criteria for promotion/up-gradation (40) (40) (20) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in the Figure 35 ranges from 2.00 to 4.20 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). Further examination identified some weakness as well as strengths in the staff and facilities of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of the teaching-learning assessment (3.22) were considered as strengths of the system.
Mean Values of Non-Academicians' Evaluation on Staff and Facilities Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development
Performance indicators are the criteria for… 4.20 The entity has a policy to provide… 4.00 The entity practices seminars and workshops to… 3.60 A congenial atmosphere prevails to enhance… 3.60 Good team spirit exists among different non-… 3.60 Recruitment policy and practices are good… 3.60 Overall average mean Score 3.22 Salary and incentives are attractive enough to… 3.00 Academics have enough opportunity to take part… 2.60 The entity has a performance award policy to… 2.00 Non-academics have enough opportunity to take… 2.00 Mean Score
Figure 35: Overall and Item-wise Average of Non-Academicians’ Evaluation on Staff and Facilities Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development
60 | P a g e
11.3 Comparative Analysis of Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development
The average score presented in Figure 36 ranges 2.96 to 3.22 (out of 5) (5=strongly agreed to 1=strongly disagreed). The Non-academicians evaluate the staff and facilities of the department 3.22 out of 5, which means they thought 64.4% of staff and facilities were quite high. However, there is a chance of improvement in the 35.6% area. The academician’s evaluation (2.96/5) is much lower than the non-academicians evaluation. That means the staff and facilities of the department are getting worse than the past years.
Comparative Evaluation on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development 3.22
2.96 Average Score Average
Academicians Non-Academicians
Figure 36: Comparative Analysis on Faculty and Staff Recruitment and Development
61 | P a g e
CHAPTER 12: EVALUATION ON PROCESS CONTROL INTERNAL: QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTINUOUS QUALITY IMPROVEMENT OF DIS
12.1 Faculty Members’ (Academician) Evaluation
This study included 22 academicians. Academicians were requested to evaluate the process control of the academic program, which is presented in Table 36. The highest proportion of the respondents (54.5%) agreed that the entity always acts in compliance with the decision of the university regarding continuous quality improvement whereas only 4.5% of them disagreed with it and 40.9% respondents strongly agreed with the statement. Also, 36.4% strongly opinioned that the entity embraces the spirit of continual quality improvement and most of the respondents (54.5%) agreed on this issue, but 4.5% of them strongly disagreed. On the other hand, 63.3% respondents strongly confirmed that academic programs are reviewed by the entity for the enhancement students’ learning whereas 9.1% of them disagreed with it and another 9.1% of them remained undecided. Regarding the entity is ensuring a usual practice for students’/ Alumni’s feedback as a culture, most of the respondents (45.5%) agreed that entity ensures a usual practice for students’/ Alumni’s feedback as a culture. Whereas only 22.7% of them disagreed with it, moreover 13.6% remained undecided.
Table 36: Percent Distribution of Academicians' on Process Control Internal (n=22)
Area of Evaluation Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Mean Agree Disagree
The entity always acts in 9 12 1 4.32 compliance with the decision of the (40.9)* (54.5) (4.5) university regarding continuous quality improvement The entity embraces the spirit of 8 12 1 1 4.14 continual quality improvement (36.4) (54.5) (4.5) (4.5)
Academic programs are reviewed 4 14 2 2 3.91 by the entity for the enhancement (18.2) (63.6) (9.1) (9.1) students’ learning The entity ensures a usual practice 3 10 3 5 1 3.41 for students’/ Alumni’s’ feedback (13.6) (45.5) (13.6) (22.7) (4.5) as a culture *Frequency (Percentage)
62 | P a g e
Mean Values of Academicians' Evaluation on Internal Process Control
The entity always acts in compliance with… 4.32 The entity embraces the spirit of continual… 4.14 Overall average mean Score 3.94 Academic programs are reviewed by the … 3.91 The entity ensures a usual practice for … 3.41 Mean Score
Figure 37: Overall and Item-wise Average of Academicians’ Evaluation on Process Control Internal.
The average score presented in Figure 37 ranges from 3.40 to 4.Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the process control system of the department. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of governance (3.94) were considered as the strengths of the process control.
63 | P a g e
CHAPTER 13: EVALUATION OF EMPLOYERS ON THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE EMPLOYEES (STUDENT OF DIS)
13.1 Knowledge Skills Evaluation
This study included 28 employees. Employers were requested to evaluate on knowledge (knowledge on the subject matter) which is presented in Table 37. Regarding job knowledge (knowledge on the subject matter), most of the employers (42.9%) agreed that job knowledge is vital for the recruitment process, 35.7% employers rated it extremely important. Also, 32.1% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, job knowledge is excellent, half of the respondents rated it very well, and 14.3% found it good. On the other hand, 21.4% employers thought IT knowledge is essential for job recruitment, most of the employers (39.3%) found IT knowledge as very important and 35.7% as important whereas only 3.6% employers found it as less important.In addition to most of the employers (39.3%) observed IT knowledge very good as a quality of graduates, 14.3% employers found it excellent and 17.9% employers as fair. In the case of innovative knowledge, most of the employers (42.9%) agreed that innovative knowledge is very important for recruitment process, 28.6% employers rated it both extremely important and as important. In addition, 14.3% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, innovative knowledge is excellent, 35.7% employers rated it very well, and 32.1% of them found it good.
The average score presented in Figure 38 ranges from 3.46 to 4.18 (Very important to Important). Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the quality of graduates according to importance in recruitment. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score (3.17) were considered as the strengths of the quality of graduates.
The average score presented in Figure 39 ranges from 3.79 to 4.14 (Very important to important). Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the recruitment system. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score of competence of graduates program, University based on their performance at organization (3.98) were considered as the strengths knowledge on the subject matter
64 | P a g e
Table 37: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Knowledge on the Subject Matter (n=28).
Quality of graduates according to importance in Competence of graduates program, University based on recruitment students’ performance at their organization Area of Evaluation Excellent Very Good Good Fair Mean Extremely Very Important Less Mean Important Important Important Job knowledge 9 15 4 4.18 10 12 6 4.14 (32.1) (53.6) (14.3) (35.7) (42.9) (21.4) IT knowledge 4 11 8 5 3.50 6 11 10 1 3.79 (14.3) (39.3) (28.6) (17.9) (21.4) (39.3) (35.7) (3.6) Innovative Knowledge 4 10 9 5 3.46 8 12 8 4.00 (14.3) (35.7) (32.1) (17.9) (28.6) (42.9) (28.6) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Knowledge of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment
Job knowlege 4.18 Overall average mean Score 3.71 IT knowledge 3.50 Innovative Knowledge 3.46 Mean Score
Figure 38: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers’ Evaluation on Knowledge of Quality Graduates
65 | P a g e
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Knowledge of DIS Graduates
Job knowlege 4.14
Innovative Knowledge 4.00
Overall average mean Score 3.98
IT knowledge 3.79 Mean Score
Figure 39 Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Knowledge of DIS Graduates
13.2 Communication Skills Evaluation
28 employees were requested to evaluate on communication skill, which is presented in Table 38. Regarding oral communication, most of the employers (50%) agreed that oral communication is essential communication skill for the recruitment process, 46.4% employers rated it extremely important, and 3.6% employers found this communication as important. Besides, 32.1% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, oral communication is excellent, 46.4% employers rated it very good, and 17.9% found it good. Around 44.4% employers thought presentation skill is essential for job recruitment, most of the employers (48.1%) found presentation skill as very important and 7.4% as important.In addition, most of the employers (39.3%) observed this skill as very good quality of graduates,35.7% employers found it excellent and 25% employers rated it as good. In case of written communication, most of the employers (57.1%) agreed that it is very important for recruitment process, 35.7% employers rated it both extremely important. Also, 17.9% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, written skill is excellent, 39.3% employers rated it very well, and 25% of them found it good.
The average score presented in Figure 40 ranges from 3.71 to 4.11. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the quality of graduates according to importance in recruitment. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score (3.96) were considered as the strengths of the quality of graduates in communication skill.
66 | P a g e
Table 38: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Communication Skill (n=28).
Quality of Graduates According to Importance in Competence of Graduates Program of DIS, University of Dhaka Recruitment Based on Their Performance at Your Organization Area of Evaluation Excellent Very Good Good Fair Mean Extremely Important Very Important Important Mean Oral communication 9 13 5 1 4.07 13 14 1 4.43 (32.1) (46.4) (17.9) (3.6) (46.4) (50.0) (3.6) Written 5 10 13 3.71 10 16 2 4.29 Communication (17.9) (35.7) (46.4) (35.7) (57.1) (7.1) Presentation skills 10 11 7 4.11 12 13 2 4.37 (35.7) (39.3) (25.0) (44.4) (48.1) (7.4) *Frequency (Percentage)
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment
Presentation skills 4.11
Oral communication 4.07
Overall average mean Score 3.96
Written Communication 3.71 Mean Score
Figure 40: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill
67 | P a g e
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill of DIS Graduates
Oral communication 4.43
Presentation skills 4.37
Overall average mean Score 4.36
Written Communication 4.29 Mean Score
Figure 41: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Communication Skill of DIS Graduates
The average score presented in Figure 41 ranges from 4.29 to 4.43 (Very important). Further examination identified some strength in the communication skill. The indicators with an average score higher than and lower than the overall average score of competence of graduates program, University based on their performance at the organization (4.36) both were considered as the strengths communication skill in recruitment.
13.3 Interpersonal Skills Evaluation
This study included 28 employers. Employers were requested to evaluate on interpersonal skills, which is presented in Table 39. On the issue of ability to work in teams, about half of the respondents (50%) agreed that this ability is extremely important for developing interpersonal skill, to 32.1% of them it is essential and as a quality 46.4%,14.3% of them found it excellent and good respectively. Regarding leadership, most of the employers (42.9%) agreed that leadership is very important for interpersonal skill, 35.7% employers rated it extremely important whereas 17.9% employers found leadership as important but only 3.6% employers rated it as less important. Also, 28.6% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, leadership is excellent, 42.9% employers rated it very good, and 10.7% found it good. In interpersonal skill, motivation skills are rated as extremely important to 39.3% employers, very important to most of (50%) employers. However, as a quality in graduates 42.9% employers observed motivation skill as very good and excellent to 25% employers.
68 | P a g e
Table 39: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Knowledge Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill (n=28).
Quality of graduates according to importance in Competence of graduates program, University based on their recruitment performance at your organization Area of Evaluation Excellent Very Good Good Fair Mean Extremely Very Important Less Mean Important Important Important Ability to work in teams 13 10 4 1 4.25 14 9 5 4.32 (46.4) (35.7) (14.3) (3.6) (50.0) (32.1) (17.9) Leadership 8 12 6 2 3.93 10 12 5 1 4.11 (28.6) (42.9) (21.4) (7.1) (35.7) (42.9) (17.9) (3.6) Empathy 11 12 3 2 4.14 10 13 5 4.18 (39.3) (42.9) (10.7) (7.1) (35.7) (46.4) (17.9) Motivation Skills 7 12 9 3.93 11 14 3 4.29 (25.0) (42.9) (32.1) (39.3) (50.0) (10.7) Reliability 13 9 6 4.25 14 9 3 2 4.25 (46.4) (32.1) (21.4) (50.0) (32.1) (10.7) (7.1) Appreciation of ethical 17 8 3 4.50 18 9 1 4.61 values (60.7) (28.6) (10.7) (64.3) (32.1) (3.6) Adaptability 8 15 3 2 4.04 10 12 6 4.14 (28.6) (53.6) (10.7) (7.1) (35.7) (42.9) (21.4) *Frequency (Percentage)
Again 50% employers thought reliability is essential for interpersonal skill in the recruitment process, (32.1%) employers found reliability as very important and 10.7% as important, but only 7.1% employers said it as less important.On the other hand, most of the employers (46.4%) observed reliability as excellent as a quality of graduates, 32.1% employers found it very good and 31.4% employers rated it as fair. Appreciation of ethical values are calculated as extremely important to 64.3% respondents, very important to 32.1% of them, and as a quality, most of the employer (60.1%) found it excellent for the recruitment process, was found good to 10.7% of them. In the case of adaptability, most of the employers (42.9%) agreed that adaptability is very important for the recruitment process, 35.7% employers rated it important. In addition, 28.6% employers observed that in case of quality of graduates, adaptability is excellent, 53.6% employers rated it very good and 10.7% of them found it good. 69 | P a g e
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment
Leadership 3.93 Motivation Skills 3.93 Adaptability 4.04 Empathy 4.14 Overall average mean Score 4.15 Ability to work in teams 4.25 Reliability 4.25 Appreciation of ethical values 4.50 Mean Score
Figure 42: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment
The average score presented in Figure 42 ranges from 3.93 to 4.50. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the quality of graduates according to importance in interpersonal skills. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score (4.15) were considered as the strengths of the quality of graduates in interpersonal skill.
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of DIS Graduates
Appreciation of ethical values 4.61 Ability to work in teams 4.32 Motivation Skills 4.29 Overall average mean Score 4.28 Reliability 4.25 Empathy 4.18 Adaptability 4.14 Leadership 4.11 Mean Score
Figure 43: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Interpersonal Skill of DIS Graduates
The average score presented in Figure 43 ranges from 4.11 to 4.61 (Very important). Further examination identified some strength in the communication skill. The indicators with an average score higher than and lower than the overall average score of competence of graduates 70 | P a g e
program, University based on their performance at the organization (4.28) both were considered as the strengths interpersonal skill.
13.4 Work Skills Evaluation
Following Table represents 28 employers’ evaluation on working skills, which is presented in Table 32. For time management skills, most of the employers (60.7%) agreed time management skills are extremely important for working skill, 28.6% employers rated it very important, and only 7.1% employers found time management skills as important on the contrary only 3.6% employers rated it as less important. Moreover, 35.7% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates, time management skills are excellent, 50% employers rated it very good, and 14.3% found it good. Regarding problem formulation, solving and decision-making skills, most of the employers (42.9%) agreed that it is very important for the recruitment process, and 14.3% employers found it as important. Besides 25% employers observed that in the case of quality of graduates problem formulation, solving and decision-making skills, is excellent, 28.6% employers rated it very good, and 42.9% found it good. In working skill, collecting and analyzing appropriate data is rated as extremely important to 25% employers, very important to (28.6%) employers whereas only 7.1% employers rated it less important. Also to a quality in graduates, 39.3% employers observed collecting and analyzing appropriate data as very good and excellent to 10.7% employers. Furthermore, to 39.3% employer, the ability to link theory to practice is very important, and to 35.7% employers it is important. Besides as a quality to 10.7% of them this quality is excellent for working skill, 39.3% of them found it very good and 14.3% employer rated it as fair. Also, 67.9% employers thought the sense of responsibility is extremely important for working skill in the recruitment process, (25%) employers found a sense of responsibility as very important and 3.6% as important but only 3.6% employers opined it as less important.On the other hand, most of the employers (53.6%) observed a sense of responsibility as excellent as a quality of graduates, 32.1% employers found it very good and 14.3% employers rated it as fair.
71 | P a g e
Table 40: Percent Distribution of Employers’ Evaluation on Working Skill (n=28)
Quality of graduates according to importance in Competence of graduates program, University based on recruitment their performance at your organization Area of Evaluation Excellent Very Good Good Fair Mean Extremely Very Important Less Mean Important Important Important Time management skills 10 14 4 4.21 17 8 2 1 4.46 (35.7) (50.0) (14.3) (60.7) (28.6) (7.1) (3.6) Judgment 5 14 7 2 3.79 13 10 4 1 4.25 (17.9) (50.0) (25.0) (7.1) (46.4) (35.7) (14.3) (3.6) Problem formulation , solving 7 8 12 1 3.75 12 12 4 4.29 and decision making skills (25.0) (28.6) (42.9) (3.6) (42.9) (42.9) (14.3) Collecting and analyzing 3 11 10 2 3.61 7 8 11 2 3.71 appropriate data (10.7) (39.3) (35.7) (7.1) (25.0) (28.6) (39.3) (7.1) Ability to link theory to practice 3 11 10 4 3.46 7 11 10 3.89 (10.7) (39.3) (35.7) (14.3) (25.0) (39.3) (35.7) Discipline 14 10 3 1 4.32 17 9 2 4.54 (50.0) (35.7) (10.7) (3.6) (60.7) (32.1) (7.1) Sense of Responsibility 15 9 4 4.39 19 7 1 1 4.57 (53.6) (32.1) (14.3) (67.9) (25.0) (3.6) (3.6) *Frequency (Percentage)
The average score presented in Figure 44 ranges from 3.46 to 4.39. Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the quality of graduates according to importance in working skills. The indicators with average score higher than the overall average score (3.93) were considered as the strengths of the quality of graduates in working skill.
72 | P a g e
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment
Sense of Responsibility 4.39 Descipline 4.32 Time managment skills 4.21 Overall average mean Score 3.93 Judgment 3.79 Problem formulation , solving and decision… 3.75 Collecting and analyzing appropriate data 3.61 Ability to link theory to practice 3.46 Mean Score
Figure 44: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of Quality Graduates According to Importance in Recruitment.
Mean Values of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of DIS Graduates
Sense of Responsibility 4.57 Descipline 4.54 Time managment skills 4.46 Problem formulation , solving and… 4.29 Judgment 4.25 Overall average mean Score 4.24 Ability to link theory to practice 3.89 Collecting and analyzing appropriate data 3.71 Mean Score
Figure 45: Overall and Item-wise Average of Employers' Evaluation on Work Skill of DIS Graduates
The average score presented in Figure 45 ranges from 3.71 to 4.57 (Very important to Important). Further examination identified some strengths as well as weaknesses in the competence of graduate program. The indicators with an average score higher than the overall average score of competence of graduates program, University based on their performance at the organization (4.24) were considered as the strengths of the working skill.
73 | P a g e
CHAPTER 14: SWOC ANALYSIS
14.1 SWOC Analysis of Governance
14.1.1 Strengths
1. Timely publish of result in compliance with the ordinance is a strength for sound governance system, according to the opinion of alumni.
2. According to both academicians and non-academicians, strict maintenance of academic calendars by the entity is also considered as strength for effective governance system,
3. Well communicated codes of conduct for the students and employees are strengths according to non-academicians for governance system.
14.1.2 Weaknesses
1. Not updating the website properly is a major weakness for sound governance system according to the opinion of current students, academicians and non-academicians in the governance system.
2. Inadequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives are another weakness of the governance system, according to current students.
14.1.3 Opportunities
1. Taking Academic decisions with fairness and transparency by the entity is a great opportunity to improve the governance system.
2. Defined and well-circulated disciplinary rules and regulations are opportunities according to non-academicians for effective governance system.
3. Reviewing entity’s policy and procedures periodically for further improvement is a great opportunity to enhance academy’s governance system.
14.1.4 Challenges
1. Addressing students’ opinion regarding academic and extra-academic matters is a vital challenge according to the opinion of current students, so by addressing it, this can be turned into strength.
74 | P a g e
2. Satisfying the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) of the stated mission and objectives of the entity are challenges according to current students for sound governance system but by practicing this, governance system can be improved.
3. Ensuring a good learning environment by the entity is a great challenge for governance according to alumni but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
14.2 SWOC Analysis of Curriculum
14.2.1 Strengths
1. Consistently arranged courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are strength of curriculum.
2. Reviewing and updating curriculum at regular intervals in compliance with the rules of the universities is strength for curriculum.
14.2.2 Weaknesses
1. Unclear statement of teaching strategies are in the curriculum are major weakness.
14.2.3 Opportunities
1. Optimum curriculum load and less pressure is a chance of curriculum.
14.2.4 Challenges
1. Implicit assessment strategies in the curriculum are a challenge but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
14.3 SWOC analysis of Student entry qualifications, Admission procedure, progress and achievements
14.3.1 Strengths
1. Ensuring entry of quality students through admission policy is a great strength of curriculum.
2. Fair admission procedure is also a great strength of curriculum.
75 | P a g e
14.3.2 Weaknesses
1. Teacher is not providing regular feedback to the students about their progress is a major weakness of curriculum.
14.3.3 Opportunities
1. Maintaining individual student’s records properly by the entity is a great opportunity of curriculum.
14.3.4 Challenges
1. Recording and monitoring students’ progress regularly is a big challenge for curriculum, which can be turned to strength by practicing.
2. Observing commitment among students to ensure desired progress and achievement is another challenge for current students but by practicing this curriculum system can be improved.
14.4 SWOC analysis of structure and facilities
14.4.1 Strength
1. Access to up-to-date reading and reference materials for libraries to meet the academic & research needs is strength according to the opinions of both academicians and alumni.
14.4.2 Weaknesses
1. Inadequate access to internet facilities is a major weakness of structure and facilities.
14.4.3 Opportunities
1. Access to adequate sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) is a great opportunity for structure and facilities.
14.4.4 Challenges
1. Ensuring effective learning by classroom facilities
2. Providing adequate Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are c challenges to structure and facilities but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
76 | P a g e
3. Inadequate gymnasium facilities are challenges to structure and facilities but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
4. Unsuitable laboratory facilities for practical teaching-learning is a major challenge for structure and facilities.
14.5 SWOC analysis of teaching and learning assessment
14.5.1 Strengths
1. Providing lesson plans/course outlines to the students in advance is strength of teaching and learning assessment.
14.5.2 Weaknesses
2. Unfavorable class size for interactive teaching-learning is a major weakness for teaching and learning assessment.
14.5.3 Opportunities
1. Meeting assessment procedures of the course is an opportunity for teaching and learning assessment.
2. Following both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies an opportunity for teaching and learning assessment.
3. Communicating assessment systems duly to students at the outset of the term/semester is another opportunity for teaching and learning assessment.
4. Maintaining fairness and transparency in assessment system is an opportunity for teaching and learning assessment.
14.5.4 Challenges
1. Providing adequate opportunities for practical exercises to apply in real life situation by entity is a major challenge for teaching and learning assessment but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
2. Practicing diverse methods to achieve learning objectives is another challenge for teaching and learning assessment but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
77 | P a g e
3. Interactive and supportive teaching learning is another challenge for teaching and learning assessment but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength.
4. Using modern devices to improve teaching-learning process is another challenge for teaching and learning assessment but by improving, it can be transformed into strength.
1. Providing feedback to the students immediately after assessment is one of the major challenges to current students for teaching and learning assessment but by practicing, it can be transformed into strength
2. Using diverse methods for assessment is a major challenge to academicians and current students for effective teaching and learning assessment but by practicing it can be transformed into strength.
14.6 SWOC Analysis of Student support service
14.6.1 Strengths
. The arrangement in the entity to provide an academic guidance and counseling is strength according to academicians for student support service.
14.6.2 Weaknesses
1. Less collections of alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the program is a weakness to student support service.
14.6.3 Opportunities
1. Opportunities to be involved with community services are considered as great opportunity according to the opinions of academicians for better student support service.
14.6.4 Challenges
1. Providing co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students is a big challenge but by practicing the exposures in can be transformed into strength for student support service.
2. Establishing organized and supportive alumni association is another challenge for student support service. By establishing supportive alumni, this can be turned into strength.
3. Availability of financial grants to the students in case of hardship is a major challenge for analysis of student support service, which can be turned into strength by taking initiatives.
78 | P a g e
4. Opportunities to be involved with community services are a challenge according to alumni members but by practicing, it can also be turned into strength of student support service.
14.7 SWOC analysis of research and extension
14.7.1 Strengths
1. Presence of a well-defined research and development policy is considered as strength, according to the opinion of academicians for research and extension
14.7.2 Weaknesses
1. Existing mechanism for engaging the students in research and development is a weakness according to current students for research and extension.
14.7.3 Opportunities
1. Teacher’s initiatives to hunt research fund for smooth running of the research are great opportunities to improve overall research and extension.
14.7.4 Challenges
1.Community service policy by entity are considered as a challenge according to current students, alumni and academicians but by improving their service policy this challenge can be transformed into strength for better extension and research.
2. A well-defined research and development policy by entity is considered as strength according to the opinion of current students and alumni for research and extension but by practicing this can also be transformed into strength for improved research and extension.
3. Existing mechanism for engaging the students in research and development is another challenge according to current students and alumni as they are not adequate but by improving the mechanism this can be turned into strength for better research and extension..
14.8 SWOC analysis of staff and facilities
14.8.1 Strengths
1. Having a policy to provide mentoring/continuous guidance for new academic staff is strength according to both academicians and non-academicians.
2. Treating performance indicators as the criteria for promotion/up-gradation for staffs and facilities. 79 | P a g e
14.8.2 Weaknesses
1. Not having a performance award policy by entity to inspire academic staff is a major weakness according to academicians, non-academicians and alumni.
2. Not having enough opportunity for non-academics to take part in different training programs for skill development is another weakness for effective analysis of staff and facilities.
14.8.3 Opportunities
1. Good recruitment policy and practices for recruitment of competent academic and non- academic staff is a great opportunity according to the opinion of alumni, academicians and non- academicians.
14.8.4 Challenges
1. Practicing seminars and workshops to share knowledge and experience among the faculty members by entity is a major challenge according to the opinion of academicians and alumni but by practicing this can be turned into strength.
2. Increasing Salary and incentives enough to retain the academic and non-academic staff is another challenge for staff and facilities.
3. Providing enough opportunity to academics to take part in different seminar/workshop/training programs for skill development is a major challenge for improved facilities of staffs but by providing facilities this can be turned to strength.
14.9 SWOC Analysis of process control
14.9.1 Strengths
1. The entity’s acts in compliance with the decision of the university regarding continuous quality improvement are strengths of process control.
14.9.2 Weaknesses
1. Ensuring a usual practice for students’/ Alumni’s feedback as a culture is a weakness for process control.
14.9.3 Opportunities
1. Entity’s embracement of spirits of continual quality improvement is opportunity of process control. 80 | P a g e
14.9.4 Challenges
1. Reviewing academic programs for the enhancement of students learning are a great opportunity for improving process control. By practicing this challenge, it can be transformed to strength.
14.10 SWOC Analysis of employer
14.10.1 Strengths
1. Time management skills, sense of responsibility, discipline are strength in case of working skills for recruitment.
2.Appreciation of ethical values, reliability, ability to work in teams, overall average mean Score, empathy, adaptability are great strength for interpersonal skill in recruitment.
3. Oral communication, presentation skills are other important strengths for communication skills in recruitment process.
14.10.2 Weaknesses
1. Ability to link theory to practice is a major weakness for working skill.
14.10.3 Opportunities
1. Collecting and analyzing appropriate data, problem formulation, solving and decision- making skills, judgment are great opportunities for developing working skills.
2. IT knowledge is another important opportunity, which can be developed more for knowledge.
14.10.4 Challenges
1. Innovative Knowledge is another challenge to knowledge on the subject matter but it can be turned into strength by more practicing.
14.11 Overall SWOC Analysis:
14.11.1 Strengths
1. Timely publish of result in compliance with the ordinance is a power to alumni for sound governance system.
81 | P a g e
2. Providing appropriate lesson plans/course outlines to the students in advance is also a great strength to current students and alumni
3. Presence of a well-defined research and development policy is considered as strength to academicians for research and extension.
4. The entity’s acts in compliance with the decision of the university regarding continuous quality improvement are strengths of process control.
14.11.2 Weaknesses
1. Not updating the website correctly is a major weakness to current students, academicians and non-academicians in the governance system.
2. Not ensuring a usual practice for students’/ Alumni’s feedback as a culture is a weakness for process control.
3. Not having ability to link theory to practice is a major weakness for working skill.
14.11.3 Opportunities
1. Reviewing entity’s policy and procedures periodically for further improvement is a great opportunity to enhance academy’s governance system
2. Maintaining individual student’s records properly by entity is a great opportunity for academicians and non-academicians.
3. Providing adequate up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the academic & research need is an opportunity.
4. Entity’s embracement of spirits of continual quality improvement is opportunity of process control.
5. Following both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies an opportunity for teaching and learning assessment.
14.11.4 Challenges
1. Addressing students’ opinion regarding academic and extra-academic matters is a vital challenge to current students so by addressing it this can be turned into strength.
82 | P a g e
2. Unsuitable classroom facilities for ensuring effective learning are a challenge but improving classroom facilities, it can be transformed into strength.
3. Opportunities to be involved with less community services are a challenge to alumni members but by practicing, it can also be turned into power of student support service.
4. Existing mechanism for engaging the students in research and development is another challenge to current students and alumni, as they are not adequate but by improving the mechanism this can be turned into strength for better research and extension.
5. Innovative Knowledge generation is another challenge to knowledge on the subject matter but it can be turned into strength by more practicing.
83 | P a g e
CHAPTER 15: RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Current Students
15.1.1 Recommendation 1: Existing Best Practices of the Department
In this Table 41, the recommendations of the current students about the best practices of the department are presented. According to the current student’s answers, some of the best practices are- Maintaining the academic calendar like taking classes and exams regularly and timely ( 37.4%), Taking midterms, exams and publishing the results on time (0.5%),Teacher’s behavior and teaching style is good (12.3%) etc. They also said that the teachers and students are very cooperative (10.3%) and recreational facilities like sports, picnics and study tours are also arranged for the students (5.6%).
Table 41: Percent Distribution of the Current Students’ Recommendations on Best Practices of the Department
Best Practices of the Department Responses Percent of Cases Taking midterms, exams and publishing the results on time 80 41 Maintaining the academic calendar like taking classes and exams 73 37.4 regularly and timely. Use of modern technologies like projector, micro phone, etc. in the 26 13.3 classroom Teacher’s behavior and teaching style is good 24 12.3 Teachers and students are very cooperative 20 10.3 Teachers are very sincere towards the students 12 6.2 Recreational facilities like sports, picnic, study tours, etc. are arranged for 11 5.6 the students Rules-regulation and punctuality are always maintained 10 5.1 Class attendance is taken regularly 9 4.6 The presence of semester system is very helpful 5 2.6 An updated and improved syllabus with relevant courses 5 2.6 The governance system is very good 4 2.1 Taking extra classes is according to the student's requirement 1 0.5 Total 280 143.6
15.1.2 Recommendation 2: Needs Improvement
The current students were asked what is needed to be improved. The recommendations are presented in Table 42. They recommended that their classrooms facilities need to be improved (36.1%), the computer labs need to be improved and internet connection needs to be fast (22.1%), field works and research facilities should be enhanced (20.2%). They also added that 84 | P a g e
regular teacher's assessment should be taken (19.2%), results should be published timely (11.1%), etc.
Table 42: Percent Distribution of the Current Student’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved.
Needs Improvement Responses Percent of Cases Classroom facilities should be increased 75 36.1 The computer labs need to be improved, and internet connection needs 46 22.1 to be fast Field works and research facilities should be enhanced 42 20.2 Regular teacher's assessment should be taken 40 19.2 Teachers should be recruited through merit list and wisely 29 13.9 The syllabus needs to be updated and improved 26 12.5 Results should be published timely 23 11.1 There should be workshop regarding presentation skills 17 8.2 Staff's behavior towards students should be improved 14 6.7 Library facilities should be increased 14 6.7 The teacher-student relationship should be improved 13 6.3 Teachers need more training 12 5.8 The overall curriculum should be in English 8 3.8 Facilities for physically disabled students should be present 5 2.4 Exams should be taken in English 2 1 There should be thesis for graduate students 2 1 Gender equity needs to be ensured 2 1 Scholarships programs should be arranged for students 1 0.5 Student coordinators need to be more active 1 0.5 Total 372 178.8
15.1.3 Recommendation 3: Courses that should be included to improve the quality of graduates
The students were also asked what kind of courses they would like to include increasing the quality of their education. The results are presented in Table 43. According to them, courses like ICT, Math, Economics, General Knowledge, History, English, etc. should be included (64.1%) and also contemporary issues in courses should be there(45.3%). They also recommended including practical courses in the curriculum (13%), language courses like English, Arabic, etc. should be present in the syllabus (6.8%), and internship facilities need to be increased (3.6%).
85 | P a g e
Table 43: Percent Distribution of the Current Students’ Recommendations on Courses That Should to be included to Improve the Quality of Graduates.
Courses that should be included to improve the quality of Responses Percent graduates of Cases Including ICT, Math, Economics, General Knowledge, History 123 64.1 Including contemporary issues in courses 87 45.3 Including practical courses in the curriculum 25 13 Research related courses should be included 16 8.3 Courses related to International Affairs should be included 16 8.3 Language courses like English, Arabic, etc. should be present in the 13 6.8 syllabus Courses related to BCS, Islamic banking, jobs should be introduced 10 5.2 Internship facilities need to be increased 7 3.6 There should be courses about comparative religion 5 2.6 Total 302 157.3
15.2 Alumni
15.2.1 Recommendation 1: Existing Best Practices of the Department
Regarding the existing best practices of the program alumni member’s (n=91) statements are given in the following Table 44. Around 40.9% alumni opined that academic calendar is maintained properly in the department. Classes are taken using modern technologies are asserted by 12.1% alumni members. Again, 24.2% alumni stated that there exists a good relationship between teacher and student and recreational facilities are arranged for students are also stated by 9.1% alumni.
Table 44: Percent Distribution of the Alumni’s Recommendations on Best Practices of the Department
Best Practices of the Department Responses Percent of Cases Academic calendar is maintained properly in the department 27 40.9 There exists good relationship between teacher and student 16 24.2 Classes are taken using modern technologies 8 12.1 Recreational facilities are arranged for students 6 9.1 Students are taught to practice moral teaching and mental development 4 6.1 Semester system is present 4 6.1 Provision for regular seminars, debates, weekly feedback are present 3 4.5 Courses related to Quran and hadiths are present 3 4.5 Intra-disciplinary courses are present to build perspective, skill 3 4.5 Student coordinator gives advice in time of need 2 3 Teachers are not involved in politics 1 1.5
86 | P a g e
Students are involved in BNCC and extracurricular activities 1 1.5 There are improved library facilities 1 1.5 Total 79 119.7
15.2.2 Recommendation 2: Practices of the program need to be improved
Alumni members expressed their opinion regarding improvement in the practices of the program in the following Table 45.Most of the alumni (24.5%) recommended making full curriculum in English. Around 18.9% alumni opined to develop IT sector and 11.3% alumni recommended facilitating research and fielding work for students. Again, 15.1% alumni stated to appoint guest teachers in viva board.
Table 45: Percent Distribution of the Alumni’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved.
Needs Improvement Responses Percent of Cases The full curriculum should be made in English 13 24.5 IT sector should be developed accordingly 10 18.9 Guest teachers should be appointed for Viva 8 15.1 Facilities for research and field work for students should be increased 6 11.3 Classroom facilities should be improved 4 7.5 Exams should be taken in English 3 5.7 Teacher-student relationship should be improved 3 5.7 Updated syllabus should be made 3 5.7 Staff's behavior towards students should be improved 3 5.7 Provision for using modern equipment’s and technologies should be made 3 5.7 Facilities for graduate research should be enhanced 2 3.8 Teacher recruitment process should be improved 1 1.9 Student's participation in decision making should be increased 1 1.9 Guest teacher should be included in Viva 1 1.9 Total 61 115.1
15.2.3 Recommendation 3: Courses need to be included to improve the quality of graduates
In the following Table 46 alumni members recommended about the courses, need to include in the program. To most of the alumni (67.6%), courses like English, General Knowledge, IT, Math needs to be included to improve the quality of graduates. Introducing more contemporary issues in course curriculum is recommended by 45.6% alumni. Around 10.3% alumni assented to make the syllabus modernized, and to 8.8% alumni recommended to increase the internship facilities.
87 | P a g e
Table 46: Percent Distribution of Alumni’s Recommendation on Courses That Need to Be Included to Improve the Quality of Graduates
Courses need to be included to improve the quality of graduates Responses Percent of Cases English, General knowledge, IT, Math courses should be included 46 67.6 More contemporary issues should be added to course curriculum 31 45.6 Syllabus should be modernized 7 10.3 Internship facilities should be increased 6 8.8 Practical and productive education courses should be included 3 4.4 Comparative study should be taught 1 1.5 Total 94 138.2
15.3 Academicians
15.3.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses
The academicians (n=22) were asked about the major weaknesses that are present in the department. The results are presented in Table 47. According to them some of the major weaknesses are lack of knowledge of Arabic and English Language(22.2%), students don't do library work (11.1%), there are lack of research funds(11.1%), the students do not read textbooks(16.7%), there are lack of classrooms(11.1%). They also said that there is a lack of hardship (16.7%) and regular feedback is not provided (5.6%).
Table 47: Percent Distribution of the Academician’s Recommendations on the Major Weaknesses of the Department.
Major weaknesses Responses Percent of Cases There is lack of knowledge of Arabic and English Language 4 22.2 The students do not read textbooks 3 16.7 There is lack of hardship 3 16.7 The students are inattentive 3 16.7 There are not enough classroom, teachers, and stuff 3 16.7 Students don't do library work 2 11.1 There are lack of classrooms 2 11.1 There is lack of education-friendly environment 2 11.1 The students don’t have much knowledge about the language 2 11.1 They have lack of research funds 2 11.1 Language skill deficiency is present 1 5.6 Fundamental Islamic knowledge is absent 1 5.6 There should be assessment/evaluation of system ( different for courses 1 5.6 if needed) There is lack of documentations 1 5.6
88 | P a g e
There are lack of seats in the classroom 1 5.6 Students have lack of real life studies 1 5.6 Modern technology is not used to take classes 1 5.6 Regular feedback is not provided 1 5.6 The students do not study properly 1 5.6 The students do not practice much 1 5.6 The students do not have access to internet connection 1 5.6 Political engagement is present there 1 5.6 There are no training for teachers 1 5.6 Total 39 216.7
15.3.2 Recommendation 2: Needs Improvement
In Table 48, the recommendations of the academicians on what needs to be improved are presented. They recommended that courses on Arabic language and Islamic knowledge should be started ( 18.8%), the students need to read textbooks (12.5%), there should be research funding and teacher's training (25%), the environment for education should be improved (12.5%), classrooms should be improved and accommodated (18.8%), morality and proper religious activities among the students should be developed (6.3%) etc.
Table 48: Percent Distribution of the Academician’s Recommendations on What Needs to Be Improved.
Needs Improvement Responses Percent of Cases There should be research funding and teacher's training 4 25 Courses on Arabic language and Islamic knowledge should be started 3 18.8 Classrooms should be improved and accommodated 3 18.8 The students need to read textbooks 2 12.5 The environment for education should be improved 2 12.5 The facilities of the classrooms should be increased 2 12.5 Some new courses should be introduced 1 6.3 The students need to study 1 6.3 There should be practical teaching of fundamentals of Islam 1 6.3 The seating capacity should be decreased 1 6.3 The number of students should be decreased to maintain a class properly 1 6.3 Self-assessment needs to be done 1 6.3 By evaluating the top ranked universities, the curriculum should be upgraded 1 6.3 The students need advising 1 6.3 The syllabus should be improved 1 6.3 Intra-departmental programs should be arranged for recreation 1 6.3 The students should leave student politics 1 6.3 More teachers are needed in the department 1 6.3 Evaluation of the department should be done 1 6.3
89 | P a g e
M A programs should be introduced. 1 6.3 Internet asses should be given 1 6.3 Morality and proper religious activities among the students should be developed 1 6.3 Library facilities should be increased 1 6.3 Total 33 206.3
15.4 Non-academic
15.4.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses
Here the non- academician's (n=5) recommendations about the major weaknesses are presented in Table 49. According to them, the major weaknesses are a shortage of classrooms (60%), the number of teachers and seats in the teacher’s rooms are less (40%), stuffs behavior are inappropriate (20%), the number of computer labs is less (20%), etc.
Table 49: Percent Distribution of the Non-Academicians’ Recommendations on the Major Weaknesses of the Department.
Major weaknesses Responses Percent of Cases There are shortage of classrooms 3 60 The number of teachers and seats in the teacher’s rooms are less 2 40 The number of stuff is less than the demand 1 20 There are no major weakness in this entity 1 20 The teacher's room and chairman's room are not decorated 1 20 Stuffs behavior are inappropriate 1 20 There are no multimedia classroom 1 20 The number of computer labs is less 1 20 The infrastructure of the department is poor 1 20 Total 12 240
15.4.2 Recommendation 2: Needs improvement
Table 50 represents the recommendations of the non-academicians on what needs to be improved. They recommended that the classrooms and Teachers should be increased and improved (100%), the teaching-learning environment should be improved (25%). They also added that there should be training for the new teachers (25%), seminars workshops and training need to be arranged (25%).
90 | P a g e
Table 50: Percent Distribution of the Non-Academicians’ Recommendations on What Need to be Improved.
Needs improvement Responses Percent of Cases The classrooms and Teachers should be increased and improved 4 100 The seat numbers for the students should be reduced 1 25 More tools according to syllabus is needed 1 25 There should be training for the new teachers 1 25 The computer labs should be modernized 1 25 Handbook should be made for the department 1 25 The teaching-learning environment should be improved 1 25 Seminars, workshops, and training needs to be arranged 1 25 Total 11 275
15.5 Employer
15.5.1 Recommendation 1: Major weaknesses you have observed in the Graduates of Program University working at your organization
The employers were asked to say about the major weaknesses the department have according to them. The results are shown in Table 51. According to them, some major weaknesses are the research works very slow (15.8%), there is a lack of leadership quality (15.8%), there is a lack of knowledge about latest affairs (5.3%). They also added that teachers and students lack IT- based knowledge (21.1%), teachers are not efficient in teaching Hadith and Quran and don’t know who Madrasa education (5.3%) had, the staffs neglect to perform their duties (10.5%), etc.
Table 51: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Recommendation on the Major Weaknesses of the Department.
Major weaknesses of the department. Responses Percent of Cases The students are inefficient in English writing and speaking 4 21.1 Teachers and students lack IT-based knowledge 4 21.1 The research works are very slow 3 15.8 Cooperation from everyone is missing 3 15.8 There is lack of leadership quality 3 15.8 The staffs neglect to perform their duties 2 10.5 The students lack fluency in English speaking and writing 1 5.3 There are lack of initiatives 1 5.3 There is lack innovative knowledge 1 5.3 There is lack of knowledge about latest affairs 1 5.3 There is less specialization in major field of research 1 5.3
91 | P a g e
The students lack in creative knowledge 1 5.3 The department has lack of information, analyze problems and solving 1 5.3 capacity is less There should be six month periodic job training 1 5.3 Teachers are not efficient in teaching Hadith and Quran, who had no 1 5.3 Madrasa education The students get involved in rough arguments 1 5.3 The students lack in leadership attitude 1 5.3 There is no adaptableness 1 5.3 The students don’t have knowledge about banking business 1 5.3 The students don’t have general knowledge and world scenario 1 5.3 There is no coordinating power among theoretical and real life 1 5.3 Teachers do not continue contemporary issues in education system 1 5.3 Total 35 184.2
15.5.2 Recommendation 2: Do you provide any training just after recruitment before assigning any responsibility: Yes/No. If yes, please specify
The employers were asked if any training is provided after recruitment. If yes then they were asked to specify. Among all respondents 71.4% said yes. When they were asked to specify the type of training, the results are shown in Table 52. They said that GTI training is provided (11.8%), foundation training course is given (41.2%), governmental training is given to the teachers (5.9%), academic and research skill development training are also provided (5.9%), 47th senior security course is provided to the teachers (5.9%) etc.
Table 52: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Recommendation If They Give Training after Recruitment before Assigning Responsibility.
If they give training after recruitment before assigning Responses Percent responsibility of Cases Foundation training course is given 7 41.2 GTI training is provided 2 11.8 Training on behavior and departmental rules regulations are given to the 1 5.9 teachers Training on IBTRA, Dhaka is given 1 5.9 Academic and research skill development training are also provided 1 5.9 Basic training courses are given to the teachers 1 5.9 Teachers are trained on creative method 1 5.9 Governmental training is given to the teachers 1 5.9 Law and administration training course is provided 1 5.9 Departmental basic training is given to the teachers 1 5.9 47th senior security course is provided to the teachers 1 5.9 Total 18 105.9 92 | P a g e
15.5.3 Recommendation 3: General Comments (Please make additional comments or suggestions, which you think would help to strengthen our academic programs for the improvement the quality of graduates).
The employers were asked to give any suggestions, which they think would help to strengthen our academic programs for the improvement the quality of graduates shown in Table 53. The suggestions that they gave were more importance should be given to learning English (17.4%), academic ICT training should be arranged (52.1%), English and Arabic courses should be enlarged (4.3%), Islamic Economics and Banking courses should be introduced (4.3%), knowledge about moral life and life hereafter should be developed (4.3%). They also added that necessary initiatives should be taken for increasing IT knowledge.
Table 53: Percent Distribution of Employer’s Suggestions Which They Think Would Help to Strengthen Our Academic Programs for the Improvement the Quality of Graduates.
Suggestions for the improvement the quality of graduates Responses Percent of Cases Academic ICT training should be arranged cause IT knowledge should be 12 52.1 increased Importance of learning English should be given 4 17.4 Importance of writing and speaking English should be given 2 8.7 Moral values should be practiced 2 8.7 More training should be provided 1 4.3 Teachers should persuade students to read textbooks and appreciating 1 4.3 Training programs for teachers should be arranged 1 4.3 English and Arabic courses should be enlarged 1 4.3 The courses should be designed combining general knowledge 1 4.3 More emphasis should be given on writing and speak English 1 4.3 Updated banking knowledge should be infused 1 4.3 Islamic Economics and Banking courses should be introduced 1 4.3 Academic program should be introduced in English 1 4.3 Arabic knowledge should be strengthened 1 4.3 There should be specialization in Islamic selective field and subject 1 4.3 Knowledge about moral life and life hereafter should be developed 1 4.3 Leadership quality, presentation skill, problem-solving capacity should be 1 4.3 increased Self-confidence should be strengthened 1 4.3 Outdoor visits and seminars should be arranged 1 4.3 Office management courses should be introduced 1 4.3 Inspiring for general knowledge and fundamental research work 1 4.3 Necessary initiatives should be taken for academic development 1 4.3 The innovative techniques should be improved 1 4.3 The students should connect with updated world 1 4.3 Total 40 173.9 93 | P a g e
CHAPTER 16: CONCLUSION
Islamic Studies has become a subject of strategic importance in our multicultural society. Department of Islamic Studies is an old department of the Dhaka University. The Islamic Studies Department established in 1921 was known as the Arabic and Islamic Studies Department until 1980. From its inception, it has contributed significantly towards education and culture. Through the years, notable Islamic thinkers, intellectuals and social reformers from this department have made significant contributions in a wide range of fields. Islamic studies are the academic study of Islam and Islamic culture. Despite having some limitations, the present self-assessment helps through bringing a lot of veiled information to maintain and enhance the quality of higher education of this department. This will certainly help teachers, staffs, students, alumni and especially the concerned authority to respond appropriately to improve the quality of education in Islamic Studies program. Moreover, this department needs special financial support to enhance its quality of education including improvement of student support mechanism and lab facilities. We urge that the UGC will carry on this assessment initiative on a regular basis and the findings of the assessment are taken under serious considerations in all decision-making concerning university affairs especially in selecting students for admission, recruiting teachers, and approving new departments or programs in a university.
94 | P a g e
APPENDIX – A: LIST OF THE HEADS AND CHAIRMEN
Department of Islamic Studies
University of Dhaka
Established in: 1921
Department of Arabic And Islamic Studies Heads of the Department No Name Duration 01 Shamsul Ulama Abu Nasar Md. Wahid 01.07.1921 – 30.06.1923 02 Khan Bahadur Fida Ali Khan 01.07.1923 – 30.10.1924 03 Abdus Sattar Siddiqi, M.A, Ph.D 31.10.1964 – 30.10.1928 04 Khan Bahadur Fida Ali Khan 01.07.1928 – 30.01.1931 05 J.W. Fuik, M.A, Ph.D 01.12.1931 - 30.11.1935 06 Sayyed Muazzam Hossain, M.A, Ph.D 01.12.1935 – 25.09.1948 07 Serajul Haque, M.A, Ph.D 26.09.1948 – 30.06.1970 08 Muhammad Ishaq, M.A, Ph.D 01.07.1970 – 30.06.1973 Chairmen 09 Muhammad Ishaq, M.A, Ph.D 01.07.1973 – 30.06.1976 10 Sayeed Lutful Haq, M.A, Ph.D 01.07.1976 – 30.06.1979 11 Muhammad Ishaq, M.A, Ph.D 01.07.1979 – 04.07.1980 Department of Islamic Studies Chairmen 12 ABM Habibur Rahman Chowdhury, M.A, Ph.D 05.07.1980 – 04.07.1983 13 Muhammad Abdul Mannan Khan, M.A, B.Ed 05.07.1983 – 04.07.1986 14 Muhammad Abdus Satter, M.A, Ph.D 05.07.1986 – 04.07.1989 15 ANM Raisuddin, M.A, Ph.D 05.07.1989 – 04.07.1992 16 Muhammad Abdul Malek, M.A, MM 05.07.1992 – 04.07.1995 17 Muhammad Abdul Baqi, M.A, Ph.D 05.07.1995 – 15.08.1998 18 ARM Ali Haider, M.A, Ph.D 16.08.1998 – 15.08.2001 19 AHM Mujtaba Hossain, M.A, Ph.D 16.08.2001 - 15.08.2004 20 Muhammad Ruhul Amin, M.A, Ph.D 16.08.2004 – 15.08.2007 21 Muhammad Ansar Uddin, M.A, Ph.D 16.08.2007 – 17.02.2008 22 Muhammad Abdul Latif, M.A, Ph.D 18.02.2008 – 17.02.2011 23 Muhammad Shafiq Ahmed, M.A, Ph.D 18.02.2011 – 17.02.2014 24 Muhammad Abdur Rashid, M.A, Ph.D 18.02.2014 – 17.02.2017 25 Muhammad Shafiqur Rahman, M.A, Ph.D 18.02.2017 –
95 | P a g e
APPENDIX – B: FACULTY MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ISLAMIC STUDIES
List of the Faculty Members of the Department of Islamic Studies
No Name of the Teachers Educational Designations Qualification 01 Muhammad Abdul Baqi M.A. Ph.D. Professor 02 Muhammad Abdul Latif M.A. Ph.D. Professor 03 Muhammad Shafiq Ahmed M.A. Ph.D. Professor 04 Muhammad Abdur Rashid M.A. Ph.D. Professor 05 Muhammad Shafiqur Rahman M.A. Ph.D. Professor & Chairman 06 Md. Shamsul Alam M.A. Ph.D. Professor 07 Md. Sanaullah M.A. Ph.D. Professor 08 Md. Akhteruzzaman M.A. Ph.D. Professor 09 Muhammad Yousuf M.A. Ph.D. Professor 10 Md. Musleh Uddin M.A. Ph.D. Professor 11 Md. Masud Alam M.A. Ph.D. Professor 12 Md. Yousuf M.A. Ph.D. Associate Professor 13 Hafiz Muztaba Riza Ahmed M.A. Ph.D. Associate Professor 14 Muhammad Zhahirul Islam M.A. Ph.D. Assistant Professor 15 Muhammad Zahidul Islam M.A. Ph.D. Assistant Professor 16 Mustafa Monjur M.A. M.Phil. Pg.D. Assistant Professor 17 Md. Rafiqul Islam M.A. Ph.D. Assistant Professor 18 Amir Hossan M.A. Assistant Professor 19 Quazi Farjana Afrin M.A. Lecturer 20 Zahidul Islam Sana M.A. Lecturer 21 Mohammad Imaul Huq Sarkar M.A. Lecturer 22 S.M. Masum Baki Billah M.A. Lecturer 23 A.R.M. Ali Haider M.A. Ph.D. Supernumerary Professor 24 Muhammad Abdul Malek M.A. M.M. Honorary Professor 25 A.B.M. Habibur Rahman M.A. Ph.D. Honorary Professor Chowdhury
96 | P a g e
APPENDIX – C: BRIEF SYLLABUS FOR B.A. (HONS), M.A. AND M.PHIL. PROGRAMME
A. The Syllabus for the B.A.(Honors) Programme
(Semester and Letter Grade System)
B.A. (Honors) degree is Islamic Studies is a four year programme consisting of eight semesters. There will be twenty three core courses and five area courses of a total value of 120 credits consisting of 3000 marks. Each and every course contains 100 marks and 4 credit hours. A brief list of these courses are given below-
No Year Semester Course No Course Title 01 101 Introduction to Islam and Islamic Dawah 02 102 Introductory Knowledge of the Quran and 1st Principles and History of Tafsir Literature 03 Semester 103 Al-Sirat al Nabawiyyah and History of the Caliphs st 04 1 2nd 104 Bengali 05 Year Semester 105 Economy, Finance, Banking and Insurance in Islam 06 106 English 07 3rd 201 Quranic Studies 08 Semester 202 Social System, Family Welfare and Aesthetics in 2nd Islam 09 Year 203 Sociology and Anthropology 10 4th 204 Sunnah in Practical Life 11 Semester 205 Political Science 12 206 Political System and Human Rights in Islam 13 301 Study of al-Tafsir 14 302 Study of al-Kalam and Muslim Philosophy and Philosophers 15 303 Sufism and Some Prominent Sufis and Their th 5 Contribution 16 Semester 304 Introduction to Islamic Law, Personal Law and
Law of Inheritance in Islam 17 305 International Relations in Islam, Islam and
Contemporary Issues
18 306 Computer Literacy 19 307 (a) Arabic Literature, Grammar, Translation and th 6 Composition Semester Or
97 | P a g e
20 3rd 307 (b) Islamic Civilization and Culture, Ethics and Values Year in Islam 21 308 Modern History of the Muslim World and Organizations 22 401 Study of Hadith 23 402 Principles of Economics and the Economy of Bangladesh 24 403 History of Muslim Spain and Muslim Contribution th 7 to Science and Technology 25 Semester 404 Bangladesh Studies
26 405 Principles and History of Hadith Literature
27 406 Study of Religions 28 407 Principles and History of Islamic Jurisprudence 29 408 (A) History of Islam (Umayyad, Abbasiyyad, Fatimid 4th 8th Year Or and Uthmania Period) 30 Semester 408 (B) Lives and Thought of Muslim Thinkers of the World
B. The Syllabus for the M.A. Programme
(Semester and Letter Grade System)
M.A. Degree is a one year academic programme consisting of 1st & 2nd Semester. There are two separate groups of 'A' Group and 'B' Group. Students shall be required to choose either Group 'A' or Group 'B'. In each group there will be eight courses of 34 credits consisting of 850 marks. Each and every course contains 100 marks and 4 credit hours. A list of these courses are given below-
M.A. Group A No Semester Course Course Title No 01 Study of al-Tafsir Part- A Tafsir al-Baidawi: Surah al-Fatiha and Surah al- ISM Baqara, 1-5 Ruku (from verse 1 to 46) 501 Part- B Tafsir al-Baidawi: Surah-al-Baqara, 6-16 Ruku (from verse 47 to 141) 02 Study of al-Hadith
Part- A : Sahih al-Bukhari: Bab al-Wahi, Kitab al-Magazi and Kitab al-Riqaq
98 | P a g e
ISM Part-B Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman, Kitab al-Imarat and 502 Kitab al-Zuhd 03 Study of al-Hadith Part- A Jam'i al-Tirmidhi: Abwab al-Taharat, Abwab al-'IIm ISM and Abwab al-Manaqib 503 Part- B Sunan al-Nasayi: Kitab al-Salat, Kitab Manasik al-
Hajj and Kitab Adab al-Qada 04 ISM Ulum al-Quran (Sciences of the Quran)
504 Part- A Al-Itqan: Chapters- 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 35, 42 & 43 or Part- B Al-Itqan: Chapters- 47, 64, 65, 66, 67,69, 72, 77, 78, 1st 79 & 80 05 Semester ISM Teaching and Research Methodology 505 Part- A Teaching Methodology Part- B Research Methodology 06 ISM Study of al-Tafsir 506 Part- A Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Surah al-Nisa, 1-10 Ruku (from verse 1 to 76) Part- B Tafsir Ibn Kathir: Surah al- Ma-ieda, 1-10 Ruku (from verse 1 to 77) 07 ISM Study of al-Hadith
507 Part- A Sunan Abu Daud : Kitab al-Sawm and Kitab al- Zakat
Part-B Al-Tahawi : Kitab al-Buyu, Kitab al Hiba wa al- Sadaqat and Kitab al-Ziyadat 08 Study of al-Hadith Part- A Al-Muatta: Kitab al-Nuzur wal Aiman, Kitab al- ISM Nikah, Kitab al-Talaq, Kitab al-Shufa and Kitab al- 2nd 508 Jami' Semester Part- B : Sunan Ibn Majah: Kitab al-Luqta, Kitab al-Hudud, Kitab al-Diyat and Kitab al-Fitan 09 ISM Da'wah in the Quran and Sunnah 509 Part- A Da'wah in the Quran and Sunnah Part- B Da'wah in Modern World or 10 Evolution and Philosophy of Religion and Comparative Religion ISM Part- A Evolution and Philosophy of Religion 510 Part- B Comparative Religion (Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Zoroastrianism)
99 | P a g e
M.A Group B No Semester Course Course Title No 01 Study of al-Tafsir Part- A Tafsir al-Baidawi: Surah al-Fatiha and Surah al-Baqara, 1- ISM 5 Ruku (from verse 1 to 46) 501 Part- B Tafsir Ibn Kathir : Surah al-Nisa, 1-10 Ruku (verse 1- 76) 02 Study of al-Fiqh
Part- A : Al-Hidaya : Kitab al-Taharat, Kitab al-Salat and Kitab ISM al-Sawm
502 Part-B Al-Hidaya : Kitab al-Hajj, Kitab al-Buyu and Kitab al-
Wasiyat 03 Communication, Planning and Development in Islam ISM Part- A Communication in Islam 503 Part- B Planning and Development in Islam 04 ISM Teaching and Research Methodology 504 Part- A Teaching Methodology Part- B Research Methodology or 05 ISM Psychology and Public Administration in Islam 1st 505 Part- A Psychology in Islam Semester Part- B Public Administration in Islam 06 ISM Study of al-Hadith 506 Part- A Sahih al-Bukhari: Bab al-Wahi, Kitab al-Magazi and Kitab al-Riqaq Part- B Sahih Muslim: Kitab al-Iman, Kitab al-Imarat and Kitab al-Zuhd 07 ISM Evolution and Philosophy of Religion and Comparative
507 Religion Part- A Evolution and Philosophy of Religion
Part- B Comparative Religion (Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Zoroastrianism) 08 History of Sufism in Bangladesh and Some Prominent Sufis (1201 - up to the Date) ISM Part- A History of Sufism in Bangladesh and Some 2nd 508 Prominent Sufis (1201 - 1800) Semester Part- B : Some Prominent Sufis of Bangladesh (1 801 - up to the date),
100 | P a g e
09 ISM Trade, Commerce and Business Studies in Islam 509 Part- A Trade and Commerce in Islam Part- B Business Studies in Islam Or 10 ISM Scientific Indications in the Holy Quran and Hadith 510 Part- A Scientific Indications in the Holy Quran and Hadith Part- B Scientific Indications in the Holy Quran and Hadith
C. The Syllabus for the M.Phil. Programme
M.Phil in Islamic Studies is a two year academic programme, one year course work of 300 marks (200 written and 100 for viva voce) and another one year for research and thesis writing. Students have to take 02 courses among 14 courses. A list of these courses are given below-
No Course No Course Title 01 601 Ulum al-Quran (Quranic Sciences) 02 602 Al-Tafsir 03 603 Al-Hadith (Principles and History of Hadith Literature) 04 604 Principles and History of Islamic Jurisprudence 05 605 Islamic Philosophy 06 606 History of Islam 07 607 Muslim Renaissance 08 608 Comparative Religion 09 609 Islamic Ideology 10 610 Sufism 11 611 Modern History of Muslim World & Organizations 12 612 Schools of Thought in Islam 13 613 Muslim Contribution to Science &Technology 14 614 Islamic Da'wah
101 | P a g e
APPENDIX – D: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYER
Annexes
A few templates, guidelines and concept notes included here have been developed in accordance with the international QA practices. The templates and guidelines are essential for carrying out the self-assessment exercise in Bangladesh’s universities. However, it has to be borne in mind that these are samples. Universities and program offering entities may customize these templates depending on their individual and specific requirements and context.
Program Self-Assessment SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYER
The purpose of this survey is to obtain employers’ input on the quality of education of Islamic Studies program of University of Dhaka. The survey is with regard to the graduates of Dhaka University employed at your organization. Your sincere cooperation would enable us to improve the quality of our graduates as per your requirements. (GB Rwi‡ci D‡Ïk¨ n‡jv XvKv wek¦we`¨vj‡qi BmjvwgK ÷vwWR †cÖvMÖv‡gi wkÿvi gvb m¤ú‡K© PvKziwi`vZv‡`i g~j¨vqb msMÖn| GwU Avcbvi cÖwZôv‡b Kg©iZ XvKv wek¦we`¨vj‡qi BmjvwgK ÷vwWR †cÖvMÖv‡gi ¯œvZK‡`i m¤úwK©Z| Avcbvi m‡PZb mn‡hvwMZv Avcbv‡`i cÖ‡qvRb gvwdK ¯œvZK‡`i ¸YMZ gvb Dbœq‡b Avgv‡`i mvnvh¨ Ki‡e|) Name of the Institute/Organization: ______- ______Corporate Office Address______Email:______Web:______
Nature: Please put tick (√) in appropriate box (cÖK…wZ: mswkøó Kjv‡gi cv‡k wUK wPý (√) cÖ`vb Kiæb|) Academic Research Business Enterprise Others______
1. Experience Requirement for Entry Level Employees Please put tick (√) in appropriate box: (cÖv_wgK ¯Í‡ii PvKzwi wb‡qv‡Mi †ÿ‡Î AwfÁZvi cÖ‡qvRbxqZv|) Highly Experienced (my`xN© AwfÁZvm¤úbœ) Experience for few years (wKQz w`‡bi AwfÁZv) Fresh(AwfÁZvi cÖ‡qvRb †bB) Cannot be generalized (mvaviYxKiY bq) 2. Please rate the following dimensions of quality of graduates according to importance in recruitment using the following rating scale: (wb‡qvM cÖwµqvi ¸iæZ¡vbyhvqx ¯œvZK‡`i ¸YMZ gvb wba©vi‡Y wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jv cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx g~j¨vqb Kiæb|) 5 = extremely important, 4=very important, 3= important, 2=less important, and 1=not at all important
102 | P a g e
No. Dimensions of Quality (¸YMZ w`Kmg~n) Rating
A. Knowledge (Ávb)
2.1 Job knowledge (knowledge on the subject matter) (PvKzwiiZ wel‡q Ávb)
2.2 IT Knowledge (Z_¨ cÖhyw³i Ávb)
2.3 Innovative knowledge (D™¢veb kw³)
B. Communication Skills (‡hvMv‡hvM `ÿZv)
2.4 Oral communication (evPwbK †hvMv‡hvM)
2.5 Written communication (wjwLZ †hvMv‡hvM)
2.6 Presentation skills (Dc¯’vcb `ÿZv)
C. Interpersonal Skills (AvšÍe¨w³K `ÿZv)
2.7 Ability to work in teams (`jxqfv‡e KvR Kivi mÿgZv)
2.8 Leadership (‡bZ…Z¡)
2.9 Empathy (mnvbyf~wZ)
2.10 Motivation ability (cÖ‡Yv`bv mÿgZv)
2.11 Reliability (wbf©i‡hvM¨Zv)
2.12 Appreciation of ethical values (‰bwZK g~j¨‡ev‡ai g~j¨vqb)
2.13 Adaptability (gvwb‡q †bqvi ‡hvM¨Zv)
D. Work Skills (Kvh© `ÿZv)
2.14 Time management (mgq e¨e¯’vcbv)
2.15 Judgment (wePvwiK `ÿZv)
2.16 Problem formulation, solving and decision making skills (mgm¨v wPwýZKiY, mgvavb cÖ`vb I wm×všÍ MÖn‡Y `ÿZv)
2.17 Collecting and analyzing appropriate data (h_vh_ Z_¨ msMÖn I we‡køl‡Yi `ÿZv)
2.18 Ability to link theory to Practice (ZË¡ I ev¯ÍeZvi mgš^q mva‡bi `ÿZv)
2.19 Discipline (wbqgvbyewZ©Zv)
2.20 Sense of Responsibility (`vwqZ¡‡eva)
3. Please evaluate the following dimensions of competence of graduates Islamic Studies program of 103 | P a g e
University of Dhaka based on their performance at your organization using the following scale: cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx Avcbvi cÖwZôv‡b Kg©iZ XvKv wek¦we`¨vj‡qi BmjvwgK ÷vwWR †cÖvMÖv‡gi ¯œvZK‡`i wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jvi ‡hvM¨Zvi gvÎv g~j¨vqb Kiæb| 5 – Excellent 4 – Very Good 3 – Good 2 – Fair 1 – Poor
No. Dimensions of Quality (¸YMZ w`Kmg~n)
E. Knowledge (Ávb)
3.1 Job knowledge knowledge on the subject matter (PvKzwiiZ wel‡q Ávb)
3.2 IT Knowledge (Z_¨ cÖhyw³i Ávb)
3.3 Innovative knowledge (D™¢veb kw³)
F. Communication Skills (‡hvMv‡hvM `ÿZv)
3.4 Oral communication (evPwbK †hvMv‡hvM)
3.5 Written communication (wjwLZ †hvMv‡hvM)
3.6 Presentation skills (Dc¯’vcb `ÿZv)
G. Interpersonal Skills (AvšÍe¨w³K `ÿZv)
3.7 Ability to work in teams (`jxqfv‡e KvR Kivi mÿgZv)
3.8 Leadership (‡bZ…Z¡)
3.9 Empathy (mnvbyf~wZ)
3.10 Motivation ability (cÖ‡Yv`bv mÿgZv)
3.11 Reliability (wbf©i‡hvM¨Zv)
3.12 Appreciation of ethical values (‰bwZK g~j¨‡ev‡ai g~j¨vqb)
3.13 Adaptability (gvwb‡q †bqvi ‡hvM¨Zv)
H. Work Skills (Kvh© `ÿZv)
3.14 Time management (mgq e¨e¯’vcbv)
3.15 Judgment (wePvwiK `ÿZv)
3.16 Problem formulation, solving and decision making skills (mgm¨v wPwýZKiY, mgvavb cÖ`vb I wm×všÍ MÖn‡Y `ÿZv)
3.17 Collecting and analyzing appropriate data (h_vh_ Z_¨ msMÖn I we‡køl‡Yi `ÿZv)
3.18 Ability to link theory to Practice (ZË¡ I ev¯ÍeZvi mgš^q mva‡bi `ÿZv)
104 | P a g e
3.19 Discipline (wbqgvbyewZ©Zv)
3.20 Sense of Responsibility (`vwqZ¡‡eva)
4. Major weaknesses you have observed in the graduates of Islamic Studies program of University of Dhaka working at your organization XvKvwek¦we`¨vj‡qi BmjvwgK ÷vwWR †cÖvMÖv‡gi ¯œvZK‡`i cÖavb `ye©jZvmg~n hv Avcwb Avcbvi cÖwZôv‡b KvR Kivi mgq jÿ¨ K‡i‡Qb: 5. Do you provide any training just after recruitment before assigning any responsibility: Yes/No (Avcwb wK wb‡qv‡Mi ci †Kvb `vwqZ¡ e›U‡bi c~‡e© †Kvb cÖKvi cÖwkÿ‡Yi e¨e¯’v K‡i‡Qb? n¨uv/bv) If yes, please specify: nu¨v n‡j wbw`©ó Kiæb ______General Comments (Please make additional comments or suggestions, which you think would help to strengthen our academic programs for the improvement the quality of graduates). mvaviY gšÍe¨ (AbyMÖn K‡i ¯œvZK‡`i ¸YMZ gvb Dbœq‡b Avgv‡`i GKv‡WwgK †cÖvMÖvg kw³kvjxKi‡Y Avcbvi gšÍe¨ ev mycvwik D‡jøL Kiæb) ______
105 | P a g e
APPENDIX – E: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ALUMNI
Program Self-Assessment SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ALUMNI
(To be filled by the Graduates)
This form includes statements for self-assessment at program level. You as a graduate are requested to give your sincere comment against each of the statements by putting a tick (√) mark. Your sincere evaluation will be helpful for correct assessment of the program so that next improvement plan may be undertaken. (GB di‡g wefvM (Kg©m~Px) ch©v‡q †mjd A¨v‡mm‡g‡›Ui (¯^g~j¨vq‡bi) Rb¨ wKQz wee„wZ AšÍfz©³ Av‡Q| wefv‡Mi GKRb mv‡eK ¯œvZK wkÿv_©x wn‡m‡e cÖwZwU wee„wZi cv‡k wUK wPý (√) w`‡q h_vh_ gšÍe¨ cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ Avcbv‡K Aby‡iva Kiv n‡”Q| Avcbvi AvšÍwiK g~j¨vqb wefv‡Mi cieZx© Dbœqb cixKíbv MÖn‡Yi †ÿ‡Î wefv‡Mi h_vh_ gvb wba©vi‡Y mnvqK n‡e|)
Name of the entity (Faculty/Department/Discipline/Institute): Islamic Studies University: University of Dhaka Degree and service Information: 1. Current status: a) Searching Job (PvKzix cÖZ¨vkx) b) Employed in an organization (‡Kvb cÖwZôv‡b Kg©iZ) c) Engaged with own business (wbR¯^ e¨emvq wb‡qvwRZ) If the answer is b or c Name of present organization ______Designation: ______Address: ______2. Year of passing/graduation:
3. Time taken to get the first employment: (cÖ_g PvKzwi jv‡fi ‡ÿ‡Î AwZevwnZ/AwZµvšÍ mgq) Year Month
4. Recruitment process you faced to get in your present organization (eZ©gvb cÖwZôv‡b wb‡qv‡Mi †ÿ‡Î Avcwb †h wb‡qvM c×wZi m¤§yLxb n‡qwQ‡jb)
Direct Offer (mivmwi cÖ¯Íve)
Direct Oral Interview (mivmwi †gŠwLK mvÿvrKvi)
106 | P a g e
Written & Oral Interview (wjwLZ I †gŠwLK mvÿvrKvi)
Other (Pls. Specify) (Ab¨vb¨| `qv K‡i D‡jøL Kiæb) 5. Evaluate the following aspects of the program in terms of capacity to provide quality education by marking “√” in the box of corresponding column according to the scale given: 5–Strongly agree; 4–Agree; 3–Undecided; 2–Disagree; 1–Strongly disagree; (gvbm¤§Z wkÿv cÖ`v‡bi mÿgZvi `„wó‡Z wefv‡Mi wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jv g~jvqb Kiæb| cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx mswkøó Kjv‡gi cv‡ki ev‡· wUK wPý (√) cÖ`vb Kiæb|) [5- m¤ú~Y© GKgZ; 4- GKgZ; 3- wØavwš^Z; 2-GKgZ bB; 1-m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c wØgZ ‡cvlY Kwi|] (Note: The figures in the parentheses indicate standards under the assessment criteria) A. Governance (cwiPvjb c×wZ)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are clearly stated (1.1) (wefv‡Mi wfkb,wgkb I D‡Ïk¨¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e ewY©Z|)
2. Academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency (1.2) (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK wm×všÍ¸‡jv mZZv I ¯^”QZvi mv‡_ MÖnY Kiv nq|)
3. The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy the stated mission and objectives of the entity (1.4) (ÔDwÏó wkLb djÕ ewY©Z jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Y h‡_ó|)
4. The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives (1.5) (jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Yi Rb¨ wefv‡M ch©vß AeKvVv‡gv i‡q‡Q|)
5. Academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity (1.5) (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK K¨v‡jÛvi K‡Vvifv‡e AbymiY Kiv nq|)
6. Results are published timely in compliance with the ordinance (1.5) (wek¦we`¨vj‡qi Aa¨v‡`k Abyhvqx mgqgZ dj cÖKvk Kiv nq|) The entity reviews its policy and procedures periodically for further improvement 7. (1.6)
(AwaKZi DrKl© mva‡bi Rb¨ wbw`©ó mgq ci ci wefvM Zvi bxwZ I Kg©bxwZ ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i|)
8. Codes of conduct for the students and employees are well communicated (1.7) (wkÿv_©x I Kg©Pvix‡`i Rb¨ wba©vwiZ AvPiYwewa fv‡jvfv‡e AewnZ Kiv nq|)
9. Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly defined and well circulated (1.7) (k„•Ljv wewa I cÖweavb¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e wbiƒwcZ, msÁvwqZ I cÖPvwiZ|) 10 Website is updated properly (1.8) . (wefv‡Mi I‡qemvBU h_vh_fv‡e Avc‡WU Kiv nq|)
11 The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance by . means
of a brochure/handbook (1.9) (wefvM KZ…©K mgwš^Z wb‡`©wkKv wn‡m‡e wkÿv_©x‡`i Av‡Mfv‡MB eªwkqvi (ÿz`ªcy¯ÍK) ev n¨vÛeyK mieivn
107 | P a g e
Kiv nq|)
12 The entity ensures a conductive learning environment (1.12) . (wefvM KZ©„K wkL‡bi mnvqK cwi‡ek wbwðZ Kiv nq|) 13 Student’s opinion regarding academic and extra-academic matters are addressed . properly (1.13) (GKv‡WwgK I mn-cvV¨µwgK wel‡q wkÿv_©x‡`i gZvgZ h_vh_fv‡e ¸iæZ¡ †`qv nq|)
B. Curriculum: content, design and review (cvVµg: welqe¯‘ , cwiKíbv I ch©v‡jvPbv)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
Courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are consistently arranged 1. (2.3)
(wb¤œ †_‡K D”P ch©vq ch©šÍ cvVµ‡gi †Kvm©¸‡jv avivevwnKfv‡e mvRv‡bv|) 2. Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the curriculum (2.3) (cvVµ‡g wkÿv`v‡bi †KŠkj¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) 3. Assessment strategies are explicit in the curriculum (2.3) (cvVµ‡g g~j¨vq‡bi †KŠkj¸‡jv cwi®‹vifv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) 4. Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no pressure (2.4) (cvVµ‡gi †evSv (†jvW) m‡šÍvlRbKfv‡e Kvg¨ Ges Zv †Kvb Pvc cÖ‡qvM K‡i bv|) The curriculum is effective in achieving day-one skill (which happens right at the 5. beginning in the first day at job place) (2.5).
(KvwiKzjvg, †W-Iqvb `ÿZv (hv Kg©‡ÿ‡Î cÖ_g w`e‡mi m~Pbvq n‡q _v‡K) AR©‡b KvwiKzjvg Kvh©Ki|)
C. Student Entry Qualifications, Admission procedure, Progress and Achievements (wkÿv_©x fwZ©i †hvM¨Zv, fwZ© cÖwµqv, AMÖMwZ I AR©b)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Admission policy ensures entry of quality students (3.1).
(fwZ©bxwZ †hvM¨ wkÿv_©x fwZ© wbwðZ K‡i|) Commitment among students is observed to ensure desired progress and 2. achievement
(3.2) (Kvw•ÿZ AMÖMwZ I AR©b wbwðZKi‡Y wkÿv_©x‡`i A½xKvi ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|)
3. Admission procedure is quite fair (3.3) (fwZ© cÖwµqv h‡_ó ¯^”Q|)
4. Students’ progress are regularly recorded and monitored (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ wbqwgZfv‡e msiÿY I ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|)
108 | P a g e
5. Teachers provide regular feedback to the students about their progress (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ m¤ú‡K© wkÿKMY Zv‡`i‡K wbqwgZfv‡e wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb K‡ib|) 6. The entity maintains individual student’s records properly (3.8) (wefvM c„_Kfv‡e cÖ‡Z¨K wkÿv_©xi †iKW© h_vh_fv‡e msiÿY K‡i|)
D. Structures and facilities (AeKvVv‡gv I my‡hvM-myweav)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring effective learning (4.1). (‡kÖYxK‡ÿi my‡hvM-myweav Kvh©Ki wkL‡bi Rb¨ Dchy³|) Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical teaching-learning (4.1) 2. (e¨envwiK wkLb †kLv‡bvi Rb¨ Dchy³ j¨ve‡iUwi myweav we`¨gvb|) Facilities for conducting research are adequate (4.1) 3. (M‡elYv Kvh©µ‡gi Rb¨ ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav Av‡Q|) The library has adequate up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the 4. academic & research needs (4.1) (wkÿv I M‡elYvi cÖ‡qvRb c~i‡Yi j‡ÿ¨ jvB‡eªwi‡Z ch©vß cvV¨ I †idv‡iÝ DcKiY Av‡Q|) 5. Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate (4.1) (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi wPwKrmv myweav ch©vß|) 6. There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and outdoor ) (4.1) [wefv‡M †Ljv-ayjvi ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi)] 7. Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough (4.1) (we`¨gvb wRg‡bwkqvg myweav h‡_ó fvj|) 8. Access to internet facilities with sufficient speed are available (4.2) (h‡_ó MwZm¤úbœ B›Uvi‡bU e¨env‡ii my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb|)
E. Teaching learning and assessment (wkLb †kLv‡bv I g~j¨vqb) E.1: Teaching-learning (wkLb †kLv‡bv)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Teaching-learning is interactive and supportive (5.1) (wkLb-‡kLv‡bv wg_w¯Œq I mnvqKg~jK|) Class size is optimum for interactive teaching learning (5.1) 2. (K¬v‡mi AvKvi (QvÎmsL¨v) B›Uv‡iw±f wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi Rb¨ h‡_ó AbyK~j|) Entity provides adequate opportunities for practical exercises to apply in real life
situation. (5.2) 3. (ev¯Íe Rxe‡bi wewfbœ cwiw¯’wZ‡Z cÖ‡qv‡Mi myweav‡_© wefvM e¨envwiK Abykxj‡bi ch©vß my‡hvM cÖ`vb K‡i|)
109 | P a g e
4. Students attained additional practical ideas apart from class room teaching (5.3) (†kÖYxK‡ÿ †kLv‡bv QvovI QvÎ-QvÎxiv AwZwi³ e¨envwiK aviYv AR©b K‡i|) 5. Modern devices are used to improve teaching-learning process(5.5) (wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi cÖwµqvi DbœwZweav‡b AvaywbK miÄvg e¨envi Kiv nq|)
6. Diverse methods are practised to achieve learning objectives (5.5) (wkLb jÿ¨ AR©‡bi Rb¨ wewfbœ c×wZ PP©v Kiv nq|) 7. Lesson plans/course outlines are provided to the students in advance (5.6) (cvV cwiKíbv I †Kv‡m©i iƒc‡iLv Av‡Mfv‡MB wkÿv_©x‡`i cÖ`vb Kiv nq|)
E.2: Learning Assessment (wkLb g~j¨vqb)
Aspects of Evaluation(g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
Assessment systems are duly communicated to students at the outset of the 1. term/semester (5.7).
(Uvg©/‡mwg÷v‡ii ïiæ‡ZB wkÿv_©x‡`i g~j¨vqb c×wZ AewnZ Kiv nq|) Assessment procedures meet the objectives of the course (5.8) 2. (g~j¨vqb cÖwµqv †Kv‡m©i jÿ¨ c~iY K‡i|) Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies are 3. followed (5.8). (g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î MVbvZ¥K †KŠkj (KzBR, A¨vmvBb‡g›U, Uvg©‡ccvi, Ae¨vnZ g~j¨vqb, †cÖ‡R‡›Ukb) I me©vZ¥K g~j¨vqb †KŠkj (dvBbvj cixÿv) `y‡UvB AbymiY Kiv nq|)
4. Diverse methods are used for assessment (5.9). (g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î wewfbœ c×wZ e¨envi Kiv nq|) 5. The students are provided feedback immediately after assessment (5.10). (g~j¨vq‡bi Ae¨ewnZ c‡iB wkÿv_©x‡`i `ªæZ wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb Kiv nq|)
F. Student Support Services (wkÿv_x© mnvqZv †mev) Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
There is an arrangement in the entity to provide an academic guidance and 1. counseling
(6.1). (wefv‡M GKv‡WwgK wb‡`©kbv I civgk©`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) Financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship (6.1) 2. (A¯^”Qj wkÿv_©x‡`i Rb¨ ch©vß Avw_©K Aby`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) The entity provides co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students 3. (6.3) (wefvM wkÿv_©x‡`i mn-cvVµg I cvVµg ewnf~©Z G·‡cvRvim cÖ`vb K‡i|) 4. There is an organized and supportive alumni association (6.5). (wefv‡M mymsMwVZ I mnvqK ÔcÖv³b QvÎ-mwgwZÕ Av‡Q|) 110 | P a g e
The entity collects alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the 5. program
(6.6) (wefv‡Mi wkLb-dj nvjbvMv` Kivi j‡ÿ¨ cÖv³b Qv·`i gZvgZ msMÖn Kiv nq|) 6. There are opportunities to be involved with community services (6.8). (wkÿv_©x‡`i KwgDwbwU †mevi m‡½ hy³ nIqvi my‡hvM Av‡Q|)
G. Research and Extension Services (M‡elYv I m¤úªmviY †mev) Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. The entity has a well defined research and development policy (8.1) (wefv‡Mi mywbw`©ó M‡elYv I Dbœqb bxwZ Av‡Q|) Mechanism exists for engaging the students in research and development (8.1) 2. (M‡elYv Dbœq‡b wkÿv_©x‡`i m¤ú„³ Kivi Kvh©mvab c×wZ we`¨gvb|) The entity has a community service policy (8.3) 3. (wefv‡Mi GKwU mgvR‡mev bxwZ Av‡Q|)
Other aspects: (Ab¨vb¨ w`Kmg~n) 1.What are the best practices of the program? (wefv‡M me‡P‡q fvj †Kvb c×wZ¸‡jv Abykxjb Kiv nq ?) ______
2. What practices of the program need to be improved? (‡cÖvMÖv‡gi †Kvb welqwUi Dbœqb cÖ‡qvRb?) ______
3. What courses need to be included to improve the quality of graduates? (¯œvZK‡`i ¸YMZ gvb Dbœq‡b †Kvb †Kvm©wU AšÍf©~³ Kiv cÖ‡qvRb?) a. ______b. ______c. ______
111 | P a g e
APPENDIX – F: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS
Program Self-Assessment SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (To be filled by the Existing Students)
This form includes statements for self-assessment at program level. You as a graduating student are requested to give your sincere comment against each of the statements by putting a tick (√) mark. Your sincere evaluation will be helpful for correct assessment of the program so that next improvement plan may be undertaken. (GB di‡g wefvM (Kg©m~Px) ch©v‡q †mjd A¨v‡mm‡g‡›Ui (¯^g~j¨vq‡bi) Rb¨ wKQz wee„wZ AšÍfz©³ Av‡Q| wefv‡Mi GKRb eZ©gvb ¯œvZK wkÿv_©x wn‡m‡e cÖwZwU wee„wZi cv‡k wUK wPnè (√) w`‡q h_vh_ gšÍe¨ cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ Avcbv‡K Aby‡iva Kiv n‡”Q| Avcbvi AvšÍwiK g~j¨vqb wefv‡Mi cieZx© Dbœqb cixKíbv MÖn‡Yi †ÿ‡Î wefv‡Mi h_vh_ gvb wba©vi‡Y mnvqK n‡e|) Name of the entity (Faculty/Department/Discipline/Institute): Islamic Studies University: University of Dhaka
1. Evaluate the following aspects of the program in terms capacity to provide quality education by marking “√” in the box of corresponding column according to the scale given: 5–Strongly agree; 4–Agree; 3–Undecided; 2–Disagree; 1–Strongly disagree; [¸YMZ (gvbm¤§Z) wkÿv cÖ`v‡bi mÿgZvi `„wó‡Z wefv‡Mi wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jv g~jvqb Kiæb| cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx mswkøó Kjv‡gi cv‡ki ev‡· wUK wPnè (√) cÖ`vb Kiæb|] [5- m¤ú~Y© GKgZ; 4- GKgZ; 3- wØavwš^Z; 2-GKgZ bB; 1-m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c wØgZ ‡cvlY Kwi|] A. Governance (cwiPvjb c×wZ)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are clearly stated (1.1) (wefv‡Mi wfkb,wgkb I D‡Ïk¨¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e ewY©Z|)
2. Academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency (1.2) (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK wm×všÍ¸‡jv `„pZv I ¯^”QZvi mv‡_ MÖnY Kiv nq|) The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy the stated mission and objectives 3. of the entity (1.4)
(ÔDwÏó wkLb djÕ ewY©Z jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Y h‡_ó|)
4. The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives (1.5) (jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Yi Rb¨ wefv‡M ch©vß AeKvVv‡gv i‡q‡Q|)
5. Academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity (1.5) (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK K¨v‡jÛvi K‡Vvifv‡e AbyKiY Kiv nq|)
112 | P a g e
6. Results are published timely in compliance with the ordinance (1.5) (wek¦we`¨vj‡qi Aa¨v‡`k Abyhvqx mgqgZ dj cÖKvk Kiv nq|) The entity reviews its policy and procedures periodically for further 7. improvement (1.6)
(AwaKZi DrKl© mva‡bi Rb¨ wbw`©ó mgq ci ci wefvM Zvi bxwZ I Kg©bxwZ ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i|)
8. Codes of conduct for the students and employees are well communicated (1.7) (wkÿv_©x I Kg©Pvix‡`i Rb¨ wba©vwiZ AvPiYwewa fv‡jvfv‡e AewnZ Kiv nq|)
9. Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly defined and well circulated (1.7) (k„•Ljv wewa I cÖweavb¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e wbiƒwcZ, m½vwqZ I cÖPvwiZ|) 10. 10. Website is updated properly (1.8) (wefv‡Mi I‡qemvBU h_vh_fv‡e Avc‡WU Kiv nq|)
11. The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance by means of a brochure/handbook (1.9) (wefvM KZ…©K mgwš^Z wb‡`©wkKv wn‡m‡e wkÿv_©x‡`i‡K Av‡Mfv‡MB eªvwkqvi (ÿz`ªcy¯ÍK) ev n¨ÛeyK mieivn Kiv nq|)
12. The entity ensures a conducive learning environment (1.12) (wefvM KZ©„K wkL‡bi mnvqK cwi‡ek wbwðZ Kiv nq|) 13. Students’ opinion regarding academic and extra-academic matters are addressed properly (1.13) (GKv‡WwgK I mn-cvV¨µwgK wel‡q wkÿv_©x‡`i gZvgZ h_vh_fv‡e ¸iæZ¡ †`qv nq|)
B. Curriculum: content, design and review (cvVµg: welqe¯‘ , cwiKíbv I ch©v‡jvPbv)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are consistently arranged (2.3) (wb¤œ †_‡K D”P ch©vq ch©šÍ cvVµ‡gi †Kvm©¸‡jv avivevwnKfv‡e mvRv‡bv|)
Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the curriculum (2.3) 2. (cvVµ‡g wkÿv`v‡bi †KŠk¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) Assessment strategies are explicit in the curriculum (2.3) 3. (cvVµ‡g g~j¨vq‡bi †KŠkj¸‡jv cwi®‹vifv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) 4. Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no pressure (2.4) (cvVµ‡gi †evSv (†jvW) m‡šÍvlRbKfv‡e Kvg¨ Ges Zv †Kvb Pvc cÖ‡qvM K‡ibv|)
113 | P a g e
C. Student Entry qualifications, Admission procedure, Progress and Achievements (wkÿv_©x fwZ©i †hvM¨Zv, fwZ© cÖwµqv, AMÖMwZ I AR©b)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Admission policy ensures entry of quality students (3.1). (fwZ©bxwZ †hvM¨ wkÿv_©x fwZ© wbwðZ K‡i|) 2. Commitment among students is observed to ensure desired progress and achievement (3.2) (Kvw•ÿZ AMÖMwZ I AR©b wbwðZKi‡Y wkÿv_©x‡`i A½xKvi ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|) 3. Admission procedure is quite fair (3.3) (fwZ© cÖwµqv h‡_ó ¯^”Q|) 4. Students’ progress are regularly recorded and monitored (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ wbqwgZfv‡e msiÿY I ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|) 5. Teachers provide regular feedback to the students about their progress (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ m¤ú‡K© wkÿKMY Zv‡`i‡K wbqwgZfv‡e wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb K‡ib|) 6. The entity maintains individual student’s records properly (3.8) (wefvM c„LKfv‡e cÖ‡Z¨K wkÿv_©xi †iKW© h_vh_fv‡e msiÿY K‡i|)
D. Structures and facilities (AeKvVv‡gv I my‡hvM-myweav)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring effective learning (4.1). (‡kÖYxK‡ÿi my‡hvM-myweav Kvh©Ki wkL‡bi Rb¨ Dchy³|) Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical teaching-learning (4.1) 2. (e¨envwiK wkLb †kLv‡bvi Rb¨ Dchy³ j¨ve‡iUwi myweav we`¨gvb|) Facilities for conducting research are adequate (4.1) 3. (M‡elYv Kvh©µ‡gi Rb¨ ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav Av‡Q|) The library has adequate up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the 4. academic & research needs (4.1) (wkÿv I M‡elYvi cÖ‡qvRb c~i‡Yi j‡ÿ¨ jvB‡eªwi‡Z ch©vß cvV¨ I †idv‡iÝ DcKiY Av‡Q|) 5. Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate (4.1) (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi wPwKrmv myweav ch©vß|) 6. There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and outdoor ) (4.1) wefv‡M †Ljv-ayjvi ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi) 7. Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough (4.1) (we`¨gvb wRg‡bwkqvg myweav h‡_ó fvj|) 8. Access to internet facilities with sufficient speed are available (4.2) (h‡_ó MwZm¤úbœ B›Uvi‡bU e¨env‡ii my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb|)
114 | P a g e
E. Teaching learning and assessment E.1: Teaching-learning (wkLb †kLv‡bv)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Teaching-learning is interactive and supportive (5.1) wkLb-‡kLv‡bv wg_w¯Œq I mnvqKg~jK| 2. Class size is optimum for interactive teaching learning (5.1) K¬v‡mi AvKvi (QvÎmsL¨v) B›Uv‡iw±f wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi Rb¨ h‡_ó AbyK~j| 3. Entity provides adequate opportunities for practical exercises to apply in real life situation. (5.2) ev¯Íe Rxe‡bi wewfbœ cwiw¯’wZ‡Z cÖ‡qv‡Mi myweav‡_© wefvM e¨envwiK Abykxj‡bi ch©vß my‡hvM cÖ`vb K‡i| 4. Modern devices are used to improve teaching-learning process(5.5) wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi cÖwµqvi DbœwZweav‡b AvaywbK miÄvg e¨envi Kiv nq| 5. Diverse methods are practised to achieve learning objectives (5.5) wkLb jÿ¨ AR©‡bi Rb¨ wewfbœ c×wZ PP©v Kiv nq| 6. Lesson plans/course outlines are provided to the students in advance (5.6) cvV cwiKíbv I †Kv‡m©i iƒc‡iLv Av‡Mfv‡MB wkÿv_©x‡`i cÖ`vb Kiv nq| E.2: Learning Assessment (wkLb g~j¨vqb)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 Assessment systems are duly communicated to students at the outset of the 1. term/semester (5.7).
(Uvg©/‡mwg÷v‡ii ïiæ‡ZB wkÿv_©x‡`i g~j¨vqb c×wZ AewnZ Kiv nq|) Assessment procedures meet the objectives of the course (5.8) 2. (g~j¨vqb cÖwµqv †Kv‡m©i jÿ¨ c~iY K‡i|) Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies are 3. followed (5.8).
(g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î MVbvZ¥K †KŠkj (KzBR, A¨vmvBb‡g›U, Uvg©‡ccvi, Ae¨vnZ g~j¨vqb, †cÖ‡R‡›Ukb) I me©vZ¥K g~j¨vqb †KŠkj (dvBbvj cixÿv) `y‡UvB AbymiY Kiv nq|)
4. Diverse methods are used for assessment (5.9). (g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î wewfbœ c×wZ e¨envi Kiv nq|) 5. The students are provided feedback immediately after assessment (5.10). (g~j¨vq‡bi Ae¨ewnZ c‡iB wkÿv_©x‡`i `ªæZ wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb Kiv nq|)
F. Student Support Services (wkÿv_x© mnvqZv †mev)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
115 | P a g e
There is an arrangement in the entity to provide an academic guidance and 1. counseling
(6.1). (wefv‡M GKv‡WwgK wb‡`©kbv I civgk©`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) Financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship (6.1) 2. (A¯^”Qj wkÿv_©x‡`i Rb¨ ch©vß Avw_©K Aby`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) The entity provides co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students 3. (6.3)
(wefvM wkÿv_©x‡`i mn-cvVµg I cvVµg ewnf~©Z G·‡cvRvim cÖ`vb K‡i|) 4. There is an organized and supportive alumni association (6.5). (wefv‡M mymsMwVZ I mnvqK ÔcÖv³b QvÎ-mwgwZÕ Av‡Q|) The entity collects alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the 5. program
(6.6) (wefv‡Mi wkLb-dj nvjbvMv` Kivi j‡ÿ¨ cÖv³b Qv·`i gZvgZ msMÖn Kiv nq|) 6. There are opportunities to be involved with community services (6.8). (wkÿv_©x‡`i KwgDwbwU †mevi m‡½ hy³ nIqvi my‡hvM Av‡Q|)
G. Research and Extension Services (M‡elYv I m¤úªmviY †mev)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. The entity has a well defined research and development policy (8.1) (wefv‡Mi mywbw`©ó M‡elYv I Dbœqb bxwZ Av‡Q|) Mechanism exists for engaging the students in research and development (8.1) 2. (M‡elYv Dbœq‡b wkÿv_©x‡`i m¤ú„³ Kivi Kvh©mvab c×wZ we`¨gvb|) 3. The entity has a community service policy (8.3) (wefv‡Mi GKwU mgvR‡mev bxwZ Av‡Q|)
Other aspects: (Ab¨vb¨ w`Kmg~n) 1. What are the best practices of the program? (wefv‡M me‡P‡q fvj †Kvb c×wZ¸‡jv Abykxjb Kiv nq ?) ______
2. What practices of the program need to be improved? (wefv‡Mi †Kvb welqwUi Dbœqb cÖ‡qvRb ?) ______3. What courses need to be included to improve the quality of graduates? (¯œvZK‡`i gv‡bvbœq‡b †hme †Kvm© AšÍf~³ Kiv cÖ‡qvRb|) a. ______b. ______
116 | P a g e
APPENDIX – G: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON- ACADEMIC
Program Self-Assessment SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NON-ACADEMICS (To be filled by the non-academic staffs)
This form includes statements for self-assessment at program level. As a non-academic staff you are requested to give your sincere comment against each of the statements by putting a tick (√) mark on appropriate grade-column. Your sincere evaluation will be helpful for correct assessment of the program so that next improvement plan may be undertaken. (GB di‡g wefvM (Kg©m~Px) ch©v‡q †mjd A¨v‡mm‡g‡›Ui (¯^g~j¨vq‡bi) Rb¨ wKQz wee„wZ AšÍfz©³ Av‡Q| wefv‡Mi GKRb bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷vd wn‡m‡e cÖwZwU wee„wZi cv‡k wUK wPý (√) w`‡q h_vh_ gšÍe¨ cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ Avcbv‡K Aby‡iva Kiv n‡”Q| Avcbvi AvšÍwiK g~j¨vqb wefv‡Mi cieZx© Dbœqb cixKíbv MÖn‡Yi †ÿ‡Î wefv‡Mi h_vh_ gvb wba©vi‡Y mnvqK n‡e|)
Name of the entity (Faculty/Department/Discipline/Institute): Islamic Studies University: University of Dhaka
1. Evaluate the following aspects of the program in terms capacity to provide quality education by marking “√” in the box of corresponding column according to the scale given: 5–Strongly agree; 4–Agree; 3–Undecided; 2–Disagree; 1–Strongly disagree; [¸YMZ (gvbm¤§Z) wkÿv cÖ`v‡bi mÿgZvi `„wó‡Z wefv‡Mi wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jv g~jvqb Kiæb| cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx mswkøó Kjv‡gi cv‡ki ev‡· wUK wPý (√) cÖ`vb Kiæb|] [5- m¤ú~Y© GKgZ; 4- GKgZ; 3- wØavwš^Z; 2-GKgZ bB; 1-m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c wØgZ ‡cvlY Kwi|]
A. Governance: (cwiPvjb c×wZ) Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are clearly stated (1.1) (wefv‡Mi wfkb,wgkb I D‡Ïk¨¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e ewY©Z|) Academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency 2. (1.2)
( wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK wm×všÍ¸‡jv `„pZv I ¯^”QZvi mv‡_ MÖnY Kiv nq|) The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy the stated mission and 3. objectives of the
entity (1.4)
(ÔDwÏó wkLb djÕ ewY©Z jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Y h‡_ó|) The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives 4. (1.5)
(jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Yi Rb¨ wefv‡M ch©vß AeKvVv‡gv i‡q‡Q|)
117 | P a g e
Academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity (1.5) 5. (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK K¨v‡jÛvi K‡Vvifv‡e AbyKiY Kiv nq|) Results are published timely in compliance with the ordinance (1.5) 6. ( wek¦we`¨vj‡qi Aa¨v‡`k Abyhvqx mgqgZ dj cÖKvk Kiv nq|) The entity reviews its policy and procedures periodically for further 7. improvement (1.6)
(AwaKZi DrKl© mva‡bi Rb¨ wbw`©ó mgq ci ci wefvM Zvi bxwZ I Kg©bxwZ ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i|) 8. Codes of conduct for the students and employees are well communicated (1.7) (wkÿv_©x I Kg©Pvix‡`i Rb¨ wba©vwiZ AvPiYwewa fv‡jvfv‡e AewnZ Kiv nq|) Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly defined and well circulated 9. (1.7)
(k„•Ljv wewa I cÖweavb¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e wbiƒwcZ, m½vwqZ I cÖPvwiZ|) 10. Website is updated properly (1.8) (wefv‡Mi I‡qemvBU h_vh_fv‡e Avc‡WU Kiv nq|) The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance by 11. means of a brochure/handbook (1.9) (wefvM KZ…©K mgwš^Z wb‡`©wkKv wn‡m‡e wkÿv_©x‡`i‡K Av‡Mfv‡MB eªvwkqvi (ÿz`ªcy¯ÍK) ev n¨ÛeyK mieivn Kiv nq|)
B. Staff and Facilities: Recruitment and staff development (÷vd I my‡hvM-myweav: ÷vd wb‡qvM I Dbœqb)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Recruitment policy and practices are good enough for recruitment of competent academic and non-academic staff (7.1) (wb‡qvM bxwZ I Gi cÖ‡qvM `ÿ GKv‡WwgK I bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷vd wb‡qv‡Mi Rb¨ h‡_ó gvbm¤§Z|) 2. Salary and incentives are attractive enough to retain the academic and non- academic staff (7.2). (GKv‡WwgK I bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷vd a‡i ivLvi Rb¨ ch©vß †eZb I DÏxcK cÖ`vb Kiv nq|) 3. Good team spirit exists among different non-academic staff (7.4). (wewfbœ ch©v‡qi bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷v‡di gv‡S mgwš^Z cÖ‡Póv (wUg w¯úwiU) we`¨gvb|) A congenial atmosphere prevails to enhance professional knowledge through 4. research and higher studies (7.5) (M‡elYv I D”Pwkÿvi gva¨‡g †ckvMZ Ávb e„w×i AbyK~j cwi‡ek weivRgvb|) 5. Academics have enough opportunity to take part in different seminar/workshop/training programs for skill development (7.7) (`ÿZv Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ wkÿKM‡Yi wewfbœ †mwgbvi/IqvK©kc/cÖwkÿY †cÖvMÖv‡g AskMÖn‡Yi h‡_ó my‡hvM 118 | P a g e
i‡q‡Q|)
6. Non-academics have enough opportunity to take part in different training programs for skill development (7.7) (`ÿZv Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ Kg©Pvix-Kg©KZ©v‡`i wewfbœ cÖwkÿY †cÖvMÖv‡g AskMÖn‡Yi my‡hvM i‡q‡Q|) 7. The entity has a policy to provide mentoring/continuous guidance for new academic staff.(7.8) (bZzb wkÿK‡`i civgk©`v‡bi/Ae¨vnZ wb‡`©kbv cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ wefv‡M h_vh_ e¨e¯’v we`¨gvb |) The entity practices seminars and workshops to share knowledge and experience 8. among the faculty members (7.11) (wkÿKM‡Yi gv‡S Ávb I AwfÁZv wewbg‡qi Rb¨ wefvM †mwgbvi I IqvK©k‡ci Av‡qvRb K‡i _v‡K|)
9. The entity has a performance award policy to inspire academic staff (7.12) (wkÿK‡`i‡K Drmvn cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ wefv‡M ÔK…wZZ¡-cyi¯‹vi bxwZ (cvidi‡gÝ GIqvW© cwjwm)Õ i‡q‡Q|) 10. Performance indicators are the criteria for promotion/up-gradation (7.12) (Kg©m¤úv`b m~PK¸‡jv (cvidi‡gÝ BbwW‡KUim) c‡`vbœwZi/Avc‡MÖ‡Wk‡bi gvb`Û wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ nq|)
Other aspects: (Ab¨vb¨ w`Kmg~n) 1. What are the major weaknesses you have observed in the entity? (wefv‡M cÖavb cÖavb ‡hme `ye©jZv Avcwb ch©‡eÿY K‡i‡Qb|) ______- ______
2. What are your suggestion(s) to improve the teaching learning environment? (wkLb I †kLv‡bv cwi‡ek Dbœq‡b Avcbvi civgk©mg~n|)
______- ______
119 | P a g e
APPENDIX – H: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ACADEMIC
Program Self-Assessment SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE FOR ACADEMICS (To be filled by the faculty members)
This form includes statements for self-assessment at program level. You as a teacher are requested to give your sincere comment against each of the statements by putting a tick (√) mark on appropriate grade-column. Your sincere evaluation will be helpful for meaningful assessment of the program so that next improvement plan may be undertaken.
(GB di‡g wefvM (Kg©m~Px) ch©v‡q †mjd A¨v‡mm‡g‡›Ui (¯^g~j¨vq‡bi) Rb¨ wKQz wee„wZ AšÍfz©³ Av‡Q| wefv‡Mi GKRb wkÿK wn‡m‡e cÖwZwU wee„wZi cv‡k wUK wPý (√) w`‡q h_vh_ gšÍe¨ cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ Avcbv‡K Aby‡iva Kiv n‡”Q| Avcbvi AvšÍwiK g~j¨vqb wefv‡Mi cieZx© Dbœqb cwiKíbv MÖn‡Yi †ÿ‡Î wefv‡Mi h_vh_ gvb wba©vi‡Y mnvqK n‡e|) Name of the entity (Faculty/Department/Discipline/Institute): Islamic Studies University: University of Dhaka
1. Evaluate the following aspects of the program in terms capacity to provide quality education by marking “√” in the box of corresponding column according to the scale given: 5–Strongly agree; 4–Agree; 3–Undecided; 2–Disagree; 1–Strongly disagree; [¸YMZ (gvbm¤§Z) wkÿv cÖ`v‡bi mÿgZvi `„wó‡Z wefv‡Mi wb¤œwjwLZ w`K¸‡jv g~jvqb Kiæb| cÖ`Ë †¯‹j Abyhvqx mswkøó Kjv‡gi cv‡ki ev‡· wUK wPý (√) cÖ`vb Kiæb|] [5- m¤ú~Y© GKgZ; 4- GKgZ; 3- wØavwš^Z; 2-GKgZ bB; 1-m¤ú~Y©iƒ‡c wØgZ ‡cvlY Kwi|]
A. Governance(cwiPvjb c×wZ)
Aspects of Evaluation(g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
Vision, mission and objectives of the entity are clearly stated (1.1) 1. (wefv‡Mi wfkb,wgkb I D‡Ïk¨¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e ewY©Z|)
Academic decisions are taken by the entity with fairness and transparency (1.2) 2. (wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK wm×všÍ¸‡jv `„pZv I ¯^”QZvi mv‡_ MÖnY Kiv nq|)
The intended learning outcomes (ILOs) satisfy the stated mission and 3. objectives of the entity (1.4) (ÔDwÏó wkLb djÕ ewY©Z jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Y h‡_ó|) The entity has adequate infrastructures to satisfy its mission and objectives 4. (1.5)
(jÿ¨ I D‡Ïk¨ c~i‡Yi Rb¨ wefv‡M ch©vß AeKvVv‡gv i‡q‡Q|) 5. Academic calendars are maintained strictly by the entity (1.5)
120 | P a g e
(wefvM KZ©„K GKv‡WwgK K¨v‡jÛvi K‡Vvifv‡e AbyKiY Kiv nq|)
6. Results are published timely in compliance with the ordinance (1.5) (wek¦we`¨vj‡qi Aa¨v‡`k Abyhvqx mgqgZ dj cÖKvk Kiv nq|) The entity reviews its policy and procedures periodically for further 7. improvement (1.6) (AwaKZi DrKl© mva‡bi Rb¨ wbw`©ó mgq ci ci wefvM Zvi bxwZ I Kg©bxwZ ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i|)
8. Codes of conduct for the students and employees are well communicated (1.7) (wkÿv_©x I Kg©Pvix‡`i Rb¨ wba©vwiZ AvPiYwewa fv‡jvfv‡e AewnZ Kiv nq|)
9. Disciplinary rules and regulations are explicitly defined and well circulated (1.7) (k„•Ljv wewa I cÖweavb¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e wbiƒwcZ, m½vwqZ I cÖPvwiZ|)
10. Website is updated properly (1.8) (wefv‡Mi I‡qemvBU h_vh_fv‡e Avc‡WU Kiv nq|) 11. The entity provides comprehensive guidelines to the students in advance by means of a brochure/handbook (1.9) (wefvM KZ…©K mgwš^Z wb‡`©wkKv wn‡m‡e wkÿv_©x‡`i‡K Av‡Mfv‡MB eªvwkqvi (ÿz`ªcy¯ÍK) ev n¨ÛeyK mieivn Kiv nq|)
Documentations (decisions of committees, class attendance registers, questions, 12. answer scripts, marks, examination results, students’ progress etc) are
maintained
properly (1.10)
[ WKy‡g›Umg~n(KwgwUmg~‡ni wm×všÍ, nvwRivi †iwR÷ªvi, cÖkœcÎ, DËicÎ, b¤^icÎ, cixÿvi djvdj, wkÿv_x©‡`i AMÖMwZ) h_vh_fv‡e msiÿY Kiv nq|]
13. Decision making procedure in the entity is participatory (1.11) (wefv‡Mi wm×všÍMÖnY cÖwµqv AskMÖnYg~jK) 14. The entity ensures a conducive learning environment (1.12) (wefvM KZ©„K wkL‡bi mnvqK cwi‡ek wbwðZ Kiv nq|) Students’ opinion regarding academic and extra-academic matters are 15. addressed
properly (1.13)
(GKv‡WwgK I mn-cvV¨µwgK wel‡q wkÿv_©x‡`i gZvgZ h_vh_fv‡e ¸iæZ¡ †`qv nq|)
B. Curriculum Design and Review (cvVµg: welqe¯‘ , cwiKíbv I ch©v‡jvPbv)
Aspects of Evaluation(g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
121 | P a g e
1. Curriculum is reviewed and updated at regular intervals in compliance with the rules of the universities (2.1) (wek¦we`¨vjqmg~‡n cÖPwjZ wbq‡gi Av‡jv‡K wbqwgZ weiwZ‡Z KvwiKzjvg ch©v‡jvPbv I nvjbvMv` Kiv nq|) 2. Opinions from the relevant stakeholders (students, teachers, employers and alumni) are duly considered during review of the curriculum (2.2) [KvwiKz¨jvg ch©v‡jvPbv Kivi mgq mswkøó mK‡ji (wkÿv_©x, wkÿK, PvKzwi`vZv, cÖv³b wkÿv_©x) gZvgZ h_vh_fv‡e we‡ePbv Kiv nq|]
3. Courses in the curriculum from lower to higher levels are consistently arranged (2.3) (wb¤œ †_‡K D”P ch©vq ch©šÍ cvVµ‡gi †Kvm©¸‡jv avivevwnKfv‡e mvRv‡bv|) 4. Teaching strategies are clearly stated in the curriculum (2.3) (cvVµ‡g wkÿv`v‡bi †KŠk¸‡jv my¯úófv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) 5. Assessment strategies are explicit in the curriculum (2.3) (cvVµ‡g g~j¨vq‡bi †KŠkj¸‡jv cwi®‹vifv‡e D‡jøL Kiv n‡q‡Q|) 6. Curriculum load is optimum and exerts no pressure (2.4) (cvVµ‡gi †evSv (†jvW) m‡šÍvlRbKfv‡e Kvg¨ Ges Zv †Kvb Pvc cÖ‡qvM K‡ibv|) 7. Curriculum addresses the program objectives and program learning outcomes (2.4) (KvwiKzjv‡g ‡Kv‡m©i D‡Ïk¨ I wkLbdj cÖwZdwjZ nq|) 8. The curriculum is effective in achieving day-one skill (which happens right at the beginning in the first day at job place) (2.5). [KvwiKyjvg, †W-Iqvb `ÿZv (hv Kg©‡ÿ‡Î cÖ_g w`e‡mi m~Pbvq n‡q _v‡K) AR©‡b KvwiKzjvg Kvh©Ki|] 9. Classes are taken according to curriculum (KvwiKzjv‡gi Av‡jv‡K cvV`vb Kiv nq|)
C. Student Entry qualifications, Admission procedure, Progress and Achievements (wkÿv_©x fwZ©i †hvM¨Zv, fwZ© cÖwµqv, AMÖMwZ I AR©b) Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Admission policy ensures entry of quality students (3.1). (fwZ©bxwZ †hvM¨ wkÿv_©x fwZ© wbwðZ K‡i|) 2. Commitment among students is observed to ensure desired progress and achievement (3.2) (Kvw•ÿZ AMÖMwZ I AR©b wbwðZKi‡Y wkÿv_©x‡`i A½xKvi ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|) 3. Admission procedure is quite fair (3.3) (fwZ© cÖwµqv h‡_ó ¯^”Q|) 4. Students’ progress are regularly recorded and monitored (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ wbqwgZfv‡e msiÿY I ch©‡eÿY Kiv nq|)
122 | P a g e
5. Teachers provide regular feedback to the students about their progress (3.7) (wkÿv_©x‡`i AMÖMwZ m¤ú‡K© wkÿKMY Zv‡`i‡K wbqwgZfv‡e wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb K‡ib|) 6. The entity maintains individual student’s records properly (3.8) (wefvM c„LKfv‡e cÖ‡Z¨K wkÿv_©xi †iKW© h_vh_fv‡e msiÿY K‡i|)
D. Structure and Facilities (AeKvVv‡gv I my‡hvM-myweav)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 Classroom facilities are suitable for ensuring effective learning (4.1). 1. (‡kÖYxK‡ÿi my‡hvM-myweav Kvh©Ki wkL‡bi Rb¨ Dchy³|) Laboratory facilities are congenial for practical teaching-learning (4.1) 2. (e¨envwiK wkLb †kLv‡bvi Rb¨ Dchy³ j¨ve‡iUwi myweav we`¨gvb|) Facilities for conducting research are adequate (4.1) 3. (M‡elYv Kvh©µ‡gi Rb¨ ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav Av‡Q|) The library has adequate up-to-date reading and reference materials to meet the 4. academic & research needs (4.1)
(wkÿv I M‡elYvi cÖ‡qvRb c~i‡Yi j‡ÿ¨ jvB‡eªwi‡Z ch©vß cvV¨ I †idv‡iÝ DcKiY Av‡Q|)
5. Indoor and outdoor medical facilities are adequate (4.1) (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi wPwKrmv myweav ch©vß|) 6. There are adequate sports facilities (indoor and outdoor ) (4.1) wefv‡M †Ljv-ayjvi ch©vß my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb (Bb‡Wvi I AvDU‡Wvi) 7. Existing gymnasium facilities are good enough (4.1) (we`¨gvb wRg‡bwkqvg myweav h‡_ó fvj|) 8. Office equipment are adequate to support the student’s need (4.1) (wkÿv_©x‡`i cÖ‡qvRb c~i‡Yi Rb¨ Awd‡mi DcKiY h‡_ó) 9. Entity has competent manpower to run the academic affairs (4.1) (GKv‡WwgK Kvh©µg cwiPvjbvi Rb¨ wefv‡M `ÿ Rbkw³ Av‡Q|) 10. Access to internet facilities with sufficient speed are available (4.2) (h‡_ó MwZm¤úbœ B›Uvi‡bU e¨env‡ii my‡hvM-myweav we`¨gvb|)
E. Teaching learning and assessment E.1: Teaching Learning (wkLb †kLv‡bv)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Teaching-learning is interactive and supportive (5.1) (wkLb-‡kLv‡bv wg_w¯Œq I mnvqKg~jK|)
123 | P a g e
2. Class size is optimum for interactive teaching learning (5.1) (K¬v‡mi AvKvi (QvÎmsL¨v) B›Uv‡iw±f wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi Rb¨ h‡_ó AbyK~j|) 3. Entity provides adequate opportunities for practical exercises to apply in real life situation. (5.2) (ev¯Íe Rxe‡bi wewfbœ cwiw¯’wZ‡Z cÖ‡qv‡Mi myweav‡_© wefvM e¨envwiK Abykxj‡bi ch©vß my‡hvM cÖ`vb K‡i|) 4. Teaching-learning process encompasses co-curricular activities to enrich student’s personal development (5.4) (wkÿv_©x‡`i e¨w³MZ Dbœqb mg„× Kivi j‡ÿ¨ wkLb-‡kLv‡bv cÖwµqv mn-cvVµwgK Kg©KvÛ Øviv cwie¨ß) 5. Modern devices are used to improve teaching-learning process(5.5) (wkLb-‡kLv‡bvi cÖwµqvi DbœwZweav‡b AvaywbK miÄvg e¨envi Kiv nq|) 6. Diverse methods are practised to achieve learning objectives (5.5) (wkLb jÿ¨ AR©‡bi Rb¨ wewfbœ c×wZ PP©v Kiv nq|) 7. Lesson plans/course outlines are provided to the students in advance (5.6) (cvV cwiKíbv I †Kv‡m©i iƒc‡iLv Av‡Mfv‡MB wkÿv_©x‡`i cÖ`vb Kiv nq|)
E.2: Learning Assessment (wkLb g~j¨vqb)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1
1. Assessment systems are duly communicated to students at the outset of the term/semester (5.7). (Uvg©/‡mwg÷v‡ii ïiæ‡ZB wkÿv_©x‡`i g~j¨vqb c×wZ AewnZ Kiv nq|) 2. Assessment procedures meet the objectives of the course (5.8) (g~j¨vqb cÖwµqv †Kv‡m©i jÿ¨ c~iY K‡i|) 3. The assessment system is reviewed at regular intervals (5.8) (wbqwgZ weiwZ‡Z g~j¨vqb e¨e¯’v ch©v‡jvPbv Kiv nq|) 4. Both formative (quizzes, assignments, term papers, continuous assessments, presentations etc.) and summative assessment (final examination) strategies are followed (5.8). (g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î MVbvZ¥K †KŠkj (KzBR, A¨vmvBb‡g›U, Uvg©‡ccvi, Ae¨vnZ g~j¨vqb, †cÖ‡R‡›Ukb) I me©vZ¥K g~j¨vqb †KŠkj (dvBbvj cixÿv) `y‡UvB AbymiY Kiv nq|) 5. Diverse methods are used for assessment (5.9). (g~j¨vq‡bi †ÿ‡Î wewfbœ c×wZ e¨envi Kiv nq|) 6. The students are provided feedback immediately after assessment (5.10). (g~j¨vq‡bi Ae¨ewnZ c‡iB wkÿv_©x‡`i `ªæZ wdWe¨vK cÖ`vb Kiv nq|) 7. Fairness and transparency is maintained in assessment system (5.9) (g~j¨vqb e¨e¯’vq wbi‡cÿZv I ¯^”QZv eRvq ivLv nq|)
124 | P a g e
F. Students Support Services (wkÿv_x© mnvqZv †mev)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. There is an arrangement in the entity to provide an academic guidance and counseling (6.1). (wefv‡M GKv‡WwgK wb‡`©kbv I civgk©`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) 2. Financial grants are available to the students in case of hardship (6.1) (A¯^”Qj wkÿv_©x‡`i Rb¨ ch©vß Avw_©K Aby`v‡bi e¨e¯’v Av‡Q|) 3. The entity provides co-curricular and extra-curricular exposures to the students (6.3) (wefvM wkÿv_©x‡`i mn-cvVµg I cvVµg ewnf~©Z G·‡cvRvim cÖ`vb K‡i|) 4. There is an organized and supportive alumni association (6.5). (wefv‡M mymsMwVZ I mnvqK ÔcÖv³b QvÎ-mwgwZÕ Av‡Q|) 5. The entity collects alumni feedback to update the learning outcomes of the program (6.6) (wefv‡Mi wkLb-dj nvjbvMv` Kivi j‡ÿ¨ cÖv³b Qv·`i gZvgZ msMÖn Kiv nq|) 6. There are opportunities to be involved with community services (6.8). (wkÿv_©x‡`i KwgDwbwU †mevi m‡½ hy³ nIqvi my‡hvM Av‡Q|)
G. Staff and Facilities: Recruitment and staff development (÷vd I my‡hvM-myweav: ÷vd wb‡qvM I Dbœqb)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. Recruitment policy and practices are good enough for recruitment of competent academic and non-academic staff (7.1) (wb‡qvM bxwZ I Gi cÖ‡qvM `ÿ GKv‡WwgK I bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷vd wb‡qv‡Mi Rb¨ h‡_ó gvbm¤§Z|) 2. Salary and incentives are attractive enough to retain the academic and non-academic staff (7.2). (GKv‡WwgK I bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷vd a‡i ivLvi Rb¨ ch©vß †eZb I DÏxcK cÖ`vb Kiv nq|) 3. Good team spirit exists among different non-academic staff (7.4). (wewfbœ ch©v‡qi bb-GKv‡WwgK ÷v‡di gv‡S mgwš^Z cÖ‡Póv ¯ú„nv (wUg w¯úwiU) we`¨vgvb|) 4. A congenial atmosphere prevails to enhance professional knowledge through research and higher studies (7.5) (M‡elYv I D”Pwkÿvi gva¨‡g †ckvMZ Ávb e„w×i AbyK~j cwi‡ek weivRgvb|) 5. Academics have enough opportunity to take part in different seminar/workshop/training programs for skill development (7.7) (`ÿZv Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ wkÿKM‡Yi wewfbœ †mwgbvi/IqvK©kc/cÖwkÿY †cÖvMÖv‡g AskMÖn‡Yi h‡_ó my‡hvM i‡q‡Q|)
125 | P a g e
6. Non-academics have enough opportunity to take part in different training programs for skill development (7.7) (`ÿZv Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ Kg©Pvix-Kg©KZ©v‡`i wewfbœ cÖwkÿY †cÖvMÖv‡g AskMÖn‡Yi my‡hvM i‡q‡Q|) 7. The entity has a policy to provide mentoring/continuous guidance for new academic staff.(7.8) (bZzb wkÿK‡`i civgk©`v‡bi/Ae¨vnZ wb‡`©kbv cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ wefv‡M h_vh_ e¨e¯’v we`¨gvb |) 8. The entity practices seminars and workshops to share knowledge and experience among the faculty members (7.11) (wkÿKM‡Yi gv‡S Ávb I AwfÁZv wewbg‡qi Rb¨ wefvM †mwgbvi I IqvK©k‡ci Av‡qvRb K‡i _v‡K|)
9. The entity has a performance award policy to inspire academic staff (7.12) (wkÿK‡`i‡K Drmvn cÖ`v‡bi Rb¨ wefv‡M ÔK…wZZ¡-cyi¯‹vi bxwZ (cvidi‡gÝ GIqvW© cwjwm)Õ i‡q‡Q|) 10. Performance indicators are the criteria for promotion/up-gradation (7.12) (Kg©m¤úv`b m~PK¸‡jv (cvidi‡gÝ BbwW‡KUim) c‡`vbœwZi/Avc‡MÖ‡Wk‡bi gvb`Û wn‡m‡e we‡ewPZ nq|)
H. Research & Extension Services (M‡elYv I m¤úªmviY †mev)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. The entity has a well defined research and development policy (8.1) (wefv‡Mi mywbw`©ó M‡elYv I Dbœqb bxwZ Av‡Q|) 2. Mechanism exists for engaging the students in research and development (8.1) (M‡elYv Dbœq‡b wkÿv_©x‡`i m¤ú„³ Kivi Kvh©mvab c×wZ we`¨gvb|) 3. Teachers always take initiative to hunt research fund for smooth running of the research (8.1) (gm„Yfv‡e M‡elYv cwiPvjbvi Rb¨ wkÿKMY me©`v M‡elYv dvÛ A‡š^l‡Y D‡`¨vM MÖnY K‡ib|) 4. The entity has a community service policy (8.3) (wefv‡Mi GKwU mgvR‡mev bxwZ Av‡Q|)
I. Process Control Internal (Quality Assurance and Continuous quality Improvement)
Aspects of Evaluation (g~j¨vq‡bi w`Kmg~n) 5 4 3 2 1 1. The entity always acts in compliance with the decision of the university regarding continuous quality improvement (9.1) (Ae¨vnZ gvb Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ wefvM me©`v wek¦we`¨vj‡qi wm×v‡šÍi Av‡jv‡K KvR K‡i|) 2. The entity embraces the spirit of continual quality improvement (9.2). (wefvM Ae¨vnZ gvb Dbœq‡bi †PZbv mvMÖ‡n MÖnY K‡i|) 3. Academic programs are reviewed by the entity for the enhancement students’ learning (9.3). (wkÿv_©x‡`i wkLb e„w×i Rb¨ wefvM GKv‡WwgK ‡cÖvMÖvgmg~n ch©v‡jvPbv K‡i|)
126 | P a g e
4. The entity ensures a usual practice for students’/ Alumni’s feedback as a culture (9.3) [ wefvMHwZn¨MZfv‡e wkÿv_©x/cÖv³b wkÿv_©x‡`i wdWe¨vK (cÖwZwµqv) wbwðZ K‡i|]
Other Aspects: 1. Major weaknesses you have observed in the quality of graduates (¯œvZK‡`i gvb/`ÿZvi †ÿ‡Î Avcwb †hme `ye©jZv ch©‡eÿY K‡i‡Qb) ______
2. Enlist your suggestion(s) to improve the quality of graduates(¯œvZK‡`i gvb Dbœq‡bi Rb¨ Avcbvi civgk© wjwce× Kiæb|) ______
127 | P a g e