1. Program faculty members regularly review the curriculum through the course review process. At the end of each semester, faculty members conduct a comprehensive review and provide recommendations for curricular improvements.

2. To propose curricular changes, the course faculty member submits a non-substantive change form (G5 application) via the AUE’s LMS. This submission includes proposals for curricular changes, which undergo review and approval by the Department Chair or the Program Director.

3. The proposal with non-substantive curricular change is reviewed by the Department Chair/Program Director, the department has appropriate resources to offer the curricula and meet accreditation requirements. The proposal would either be approved, or reverted to the faculty for amendment, or rejected.

4. It is to be noted that proposal with non-substantive curricular changes affecting General Education courses, will be reviewed by the General Education Committee for approval, then College of Education Council for endorsement.

1. After the Department Chair/Program Director’s approval, the proposal with non-substantive curricular changes is reviewed and discussed by the Curriculum Improvement Committee.

2. The Curriculum Committee may take one of the following actions on minor revisions (a) vote in favor of the proposal, (b) send the proposal back to the corresponding department for revision or (c) reject the proposal. 

3. If approved by the Curriculum Committee members, the committee chair approves the submitted non-substantive change forms.

4. It is to be noted that proposals with changes in textbooks would require aligning the weekly outline of topics with the new textbook accordingly. An expedited process for approval of G5 applications would follow that only requires Curriculum Committee Chair approval. Textbooks can only be revised every two years, unless a requirement from an accrediting agency or an emergency necessitates otherwise. 5. Following Curriculum Improvement Committee approval, the proposals are then passed on to the Academic Council for their endorsement.

6. The Institutional Effectiveness Department verifies and implements the changes in the system.

7. For inclusion in the subsequent year’s catalogue, proposals should be approved by Curriculum Committee’s approval in May the latest.  b)   Program Level Improvement (Non-Substantive) Non-substantive program-level improvements may encompass the addition of new courses, merging existing courses, updating credit hours of courses (without impacting program length), mandating workshops, and modifying admission criteria. The steps for nonsubstantive changes in the curriculum are listed as follows:

1. To suggest a non-substantive alteration to the program, a faculty member submits a written proposal of the change to the Department Chair/Program Director for review and approval. The proposal should include a rationale for the suggested change and outline any potential impacts it may have.

2.  The proposal would either be approved, or reverted to the faculty for amendment, or rejected.

3. It is to be noted that proposal with non-substantive program level changes affecting General Education courses, will be reviewed by the General Education Committee for approval, then College of Education Council for endorsement. 

4. If a proposal is initiated by the Department Chair/Program Director, it will proceed directly to the college-level approval steps outline below.

1. Upon approval of the proposal at the department level, the College Council reviews the proposal of the non-substantive program level changes for further review and deliberations.
2. The proposal would either be approved, rejected, or reverted to the department for amendment. 

1. After the College Council approval, the proposal with non-substantive program-level changes is reviewed and discussed by the Curriculum Improvement Committee.
2. The Curriculum Committee may take one of the following actions on minor revisions (a) vote in favor of the proposal, (b) send the proposal back to the corresponding college for revision or (c) reject the proposal.
3. If approved by the Curriculum Committee members, the committee chair approves the submitted non-substantive change proposal.
4. Following Curriculum Improvement Committee approval, the proposals are then passed on to the Academic Council for their endorsement.
5. The Institutional Effectiveness Department verifies and implements the changes on the system.
6. For inclusion in the subsequent year’s catalogue, proposals should be approved by Curriculum Committee’s approval in May the latest.  c)  Educational Program Assessment The program learning outcomes are assessed based on a two-year cycle of assessment. This assessment approach applies to both Undergraduate and Graduate level programs. The program assessment includes both direct measures of coursework as well as indirect measures based on program key performance indicators (KPIs) as well as input from program key stakeholders. All educational programs are assessed over a two-year cycle as per the following:

Direct Measure: Program Learning outcomes assessment serve as the main direct indicator for assessing student competencies. Indirect Measures Indirect measures contribute to program assessment since they allow to identify concerns in depth and solicit opinion and feedback from program key stakeholders. Indirect measures can be in form of surveys, interviews, focus groups or program KPIs.

Educational programs are required to follow the assessment framework specified in this procedure. However, they have the flexibility to plan the distribution of Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) assessments across the program assessment cycle. – Each program must develop an assessment plan that includes connections between the Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) and the cornerstone courses designated for assessing these outcomes, based on the mapped courses tied to each PLO.

Program Assessment Framework of Indirect Measures: All educational programs must adhere to the following assessment framework as an indirect method of indirectly evaluating the program throughout the two-year assessment cycle.

The results of student satisfaction surveys are integral to the assessment cycle as they provide valuable insights into the program’s effectiveness, faculty performance, and the overall quality of university services. By systematically collecting feedback through surveys focused on program courses, faculty, and university services, the program gains a comprehensive understanding of students’ experiences and perceptions. This information is crucial for identifying areas of improvement, implementing targeted enhancements, and fostering continuous program development. Integrating student satisfaction results into the assessment cycle enables the alignment of the program and university services with student expectations, contributing to a positive and enriching educational experience.

Enrollment Rate The enrollment rate is included in the assessment cycle to gauge the program’s popularity and demand among students. This metric provides insights into the program’s competitiveness and helps in allocating resources effectively. Monitoring enrollment trends informs strategic planning, ensuring programs remain attractive and aligned with student needs.

The retention rate is integrated into the assessment cycle to evaluate the program’s effectiveness in retaining enrolled students. By tracking the percentage of students who continue their studies within the program, the program gains valuable insights into its ability to meet students’ expectations and maintain their academic engagement. Analyzing retention rates helps identify areas for improvement and implement targeted strategies to enhance student satisfaction and success.

The graduation rate is included in the assessment cycle to assess the program’s overall success in guiding students to successful completion. By monitoring the percentage of students who successfully graduate within the expected timeframe, it gauges the program’s ability to provide the necessary resources, support, and academic rigor for student success. Analyzing graduation rates informs strategic planning to enhance program quality and ensure students achieve their educational goals efficiently.

Suggestions for improvements will be collected for implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Once every 2 years Alumni Input Alumni suggestions for improvements will be collected. Alumni surveys will be analyzed and any identified areas for improvements will be addressed according to the program’s priority. Once every 2 years Employers Input Employers’ suggestions for improvements will be collected. Employers’ surveys will be analyzed and any identified areas for improvements will be addressed according to the program’s priority. Once every 2 years.

A primary benchmarking exercise of the program will be conducted  every two years to ensure meeting international norms and keep pace with the developments of the specialization.

The results of the benchmarking exercise will be analyzed to apply improvements according to program priorities and to keep abreast of developments in the program field.

The percentage of students dropping out of the program is incorporated to assess and analyze the reasons for the dropout and to develop improvement plans to retain students in the program. The program’s success rates for previous years will be collected to analyze and develop mechanisms to ensure the program’s sustainability.

The graduates’ employability rate is included to assess the effectiveness of the program in graduating qualified cadres compatible with specialization needs in the market. The program’s success rates for previous years will be collected to analyze and develop mechanisms to ensure the program’s sustainability. Once every 2 years.

The number of students at risk is incorporated to develop improvement plans for the students to be able to graduate as per their study plans. The program’s success rates for previous years will be collected to analyze and develop mechanisms to ensure the program’s sustainability.

Lesson Observations conducted by the program director and the dean to evaluate the teaching methods in the classroom are included in addition to the Students’ Satisfaction with faculty and courses, to analyze and assess the teaching effectiveness.

Annually Assessed

At the conclusion of the two-year assessment cycle, every program must produce a comprehensive, consolidated assessment report. This report should comprise summary findings, recommendations for improvement, and the progress made in implementing these improvements. Strategic Review of Educational Programs All educational programs at the AUE undergo a six-year strategic review of the program at the conclusion of three program assessment cycles. This approach allows for adaptability to changing educational landscapes, evidence-based decision-making, stakeholder engagement, and transparency. Through strategic program review assessments, the AUE ensures continuous monitoring, affirmation of its programs’ viability, and alignment with evolving educational needs, industry, and market demands.