Acadev Presentation

A c a d e m i c

D e v e l o p m e n t . . .

A c a D e v . C o m

Introduction

About Aca Dev.

Main Features

Academic Excellence Development.

Two in One (an Integrated system)

ADEQuATEs ©

ITIMAAD ©.

© A c a D e v . C o m

2 / 40

About A c a D e v

Academic Development is a software company.

Area of expertise: Academic Development,

Accreditation Projects Consultancy.

Products/services: software, consultancy, training and

system implementations

Targets: Education institutions

Purpose: accreditation and academic quality

development.

Products: ADEQuATEs © and ITEMAAD ©


3 / 40

Main Features

Web-based (intranet and internet)

Distributed and online application

Automated scheduling: tasks and courses

Automated Monitoring, moderating and task

controls.

Automated generation of Self Evaluation Scales

and Reports.


4 / 40

Main Features (continued)

Fully compatible with NCAAA formats and

requirements .

Fully compatible with ABET requirements.

Paperless environment: all reports, documents,

supporting proofs (analysis and results) are

uploaded to the system.

Trackable environment: The systems KNOWS

who did what and when by keeping histories of all

users' activities.


5 / 40


Developed by a talented team of academicians with:

proven experience in academia, (measured in decades),

accreditation project management,

software development.

Conducted a profound system analysis and requirement

Specification

Scalable data bases design:

the system can be applied to one department and then scaled up to one

faculty, then can grow to encompass a set of colleges.

Object oriented design and coding.


6 / 40


The Time issue

Current Problem

redundant communication via: fax, email, telephone, official and/or corridor

meetings,

a not-well-thought-of task assignment (unfair, unbalanced, , inconsistent,

black box, drown in a plethora of good-practices)

Acadev Completely eliminates the waste of time by:

A couple of meetings to set datelines, identify the task-forces and wisely

assign the tasks (good-practices)

All kind of users perform their assigned tasks online, with a priori fixed

datelines.

The system knows precisely the actual need for each and every good-practice

(a ratio, a number, a report, a questionnaire result, an argument, a

statement, etc...)


7 / 40


The quality issue:

Current Problem

unclear responsibility/accountability through unprofessional task

handling

Quality of jobs not good since difficult to monitor all the assignments

Tremendously promotes and enforces academic quality:

Users will be motivated to conduct their tasks on time and with quality since:

Clarity: tasks are formally specified in the system.

Efficient Tracking: Managers can access and check online who is behind

schedule.

Quality control: Managers evaluate the quality of the completed tasks

Inherent consequence: the system instils a “Healthy” competition among

users.


8 / 40


The black-box issue.

Current Problem

Unbalanced loads, unfair assignments, unrealistic deadlines.

Quality drops, because

assignment seen as a burden rather than a task, feels of injustice.

unclear responsibility/accountability through unprofessional task handling

difficult to monitor all the assignments

Enforce fairness and transparency in task assignment :

Users will be responsible and accountable for :

Transparency: Task-forces can see the status quo and the content of the

tasks undertaken by their peers.

System is trackable: managers knows who did what and when.


9 / 40


The money issue.

Current Problem

TONS of print out needed for report and scanned documents.

A need might arise to develop in-house applications that support your

accreditation projects and academic development

Save a lot of money:

All documents are uploaded into a repository of the system. Practically a pure

paperless system. However, we recommend to the need for some summary or

synthesizing reports to be archived as hard copies.

Pay once and No licences fees needed for the platform (OS, Server, etc)

that will run the system.(refer to the last slides)

New functionalities can be added in an effective, efficient and easy manner.


10 / 40


The Auditing issue.

Current Problem

MUST hire an independent reviewer to AUDIT the Tons of printed

documents

Freaking Time consuming

Frustration when he/she have a hell of time to find a specific

document

Affect his/her judgement

Cost a lot of money because of the audit effort and audit time


11 / 40


The Auditing issue.

What does the NEW System offer? The independent reviewer has a userID and a password

He/she logs on to the system and can navigate his way

seamlessly through every good-practice in the most

flexible way.

For each good-practice, a synopsis , what is required and

the attached proofs are one click away from him/her.

At the end of each good-practice, the reviewer can see :

Self Evaluation Scales Report

the internal assessment.

Then, he/she can enter his /her:

Independent Opinion and

Independent overall assessment


Auditing time

tremendously

reduced.

Reviewer gives

positive review

Reviewer costs

much less

money

12 / 40

Two in One - an Integrated system

ADeQuATES

Academic Development and Quality Assurance for Teaching and

Education system

Faculty Management Module

Department Management Module

Program Management Module

Course Management Module

Staff Management Module

Stakeholder Management Module

(alumni, employers, advisors)

Feedback/questionnaire Management Module


13 / 40

Two in One - an Integrated system

ITEMAAD

Integrated Teaching and Education Management for

Accreditation and Academic Development

Task Assignment Management Module

Task-forces/Committees Management Module

Moderation/monitoring/control Management Module

Reporting/Self-Evaluation Management Module


14 / 40

ADeQuATES Architecture

*

ADeQuATES ©

Ma

na

gers

Dean

Admin

HoD*

Sta

keh

old

ers

Alumni

Employers

Program

Advisers

Sta

ff Instructors

Course

Directors

Program

managers

Programs Courses

Faculty/

College

Department

Feedback

StakeHolders’

Responses

*HoD: Head of

Department


15 / 40

F A

C U

L T

Y

Dep

art

men

ts

Co

mm

itte

es

Dean

Sta

ffs



16 / 40

Complete information / details of a given

faculty/college

(name, dean, mission, vision, etc...)

Committees (faculty-level),

Departments and

staffs.



17 / 40


Dep

art

men

t

Pro

gra

ms

Co

mm

itte

es

Sta

ffs

HoD QA

Dean


18 / 40

Complete information

details of a given department (name, HoD, welcome

message, etc.)

Committees:

creating department-level committees.

Assigning committees chairs

Programs: creating programs

e.g., diploma, BSc, Postgraduate, etc.

Staffs: assigning academics



19 / 40

COURSE

DIRECTORS

INSTRUCTORS

DEAN

PAEC

HoD

Other

COMMITTEES

consult

Assig

n c

ou

rses

/mo

nit

or

Devise a program

Design course

syllabus

Deliver courses /

Courses Direct

Assessment

Support Design/

improve program,

Evaluate a program

Monitor

STUDENTS

EMPLOYERS

ALUMNI

(indirect)

Program

Assessment

as a whole

PROGRAM

ADVISORS

Courses Indirect

Assessment

Program Evaluation

Findings, recommendations

Program Evaluation

Findings, recommendations

Monitor



20 / 40

•course

1

Program

eg., BSc_CS

•Course Graded works

•Exit Forms

•Alumni feedback

•Employers feedback Course

directors

Instructors Alumni

•course2 •course51

PAEC

(Program Assessment

Evaluation Committee)

Students

•Program

Educational

Objectives

•PEO1,PEO2,

PEO3, PEO4,...

•ABET

•The 11 Student Outcomes

•SO1, …, SO11

•course1

…

Mapping Dom

Learns with PEOs

(NCAAA)

Mapping for each

course (Abet)

Employers

• NCAAA

•The 4 Learning Domains

•DL1, …, DL4

Mapping for each

course (NCAAA)

ACCREDITATION

BODY, NCAAA&

ABET

Map

pin

g D

om

Learn

s

wit

h P

EO

s (

Ab

et)



21 / 40

Complete Program Specification

100% conform to NCAAA format

Context, Program Educational Objectives (PEOs),

structure/organization, Learning Domains, mission,

policies, etc.

Curriculum detail (courses, codes, credit hrs etc)

Mapping matrix

done automatically – synthesized form the mappings of individual

courses

NCAAA Domains of Learning versus PEOs

Abet Student Outcomes versus PEOs



22 / 40

Complete Program Report

100% conform to NCAAA format

Generated Year to Year progression rates and some

pertinent statistics.

Automatic detection and generation of:

Courses with unusual results (e.g., grades <<low, >>high)

Courses with unusual stats (e.g., attendance <<low)

Automatic Performance result generation (Abet compliant)

Automatic detection of « problem courses » which help in

Decision Maker (e,g., action plan for improvements)



23 / 40

•course1

Co

urs

e

•Direct

Assessment •Exit Forms

•Student feedback

Course Report

Instance for each

(sem/year)

•Course Delivery

Instance for each

(sem/year)

Co

urs

e S

yllab

us

UN

VA

RIA

NT

*

Course Learning

Outcomes •CLO1,CLO2…CLOn

•TextBooks,

•References

•Teaching : Materials

Strategies

•Direct

Assessment (graded works )

•ABET

•The 11 Student Outcomes

•SO1, …, SO11

• NCAAA

•The 4 Learning Domains

•DL1, …, DL4

Course

directors

Instructors

Students

Mapping

with CLOs

Assessing

Designing

Assessing

UNVARIANT *: A course syllabus is static by default , i.e., instructors must abide by its content when

delivering it. The only instance when the syllabus changes is when the PAEC advises the curriculum

committee to revise the syllabus.


© A c a D e v . C o m 24

Complete Course Specification (syllabus)

For each semester, an Online course

assignment activity is undertaken- by HoD.

Once a course is assigned to course director

and instructors:

Automatically, two course instances (delivery and

report) are created

Automatically, the main data is pulled from the course

syllabus and fill the two course instances.



25 / 40

Course DELIVERY instance

For each semester, instructors:

Map course assessment scheme with CLOs

Enter marks. Then grades are generated automatically

For each assessment scheme,

a max, min, median graded work sample need to be

uploaded.

Automatic course performance calculation is triggered.

Automatic data are sent to the corresponding course

report instance.



26 / 40

Course REPORT instance

For each semester, Course directors:

Fill in course report.

Automatic generation of pertinent information (stats and

results)

Automatic detection/generation of:

deviation from Course week-by-week delivery scheme (as stated

in syllabus)

deviation from assessment scheme (as stated in syllabus)



27 / 40

P e

o p

l e

•management

HoD Dean

•Students

Admin

•Staff

•Stakeholders

•Alumni •Employers

•Program

Advisers

•management

People/Users Course Management Module


28 / 40

Administrator (or HoD/Dean) can:

Manage staff

Edit (create/update staff accounts and profile)

Assign roles and admin duties

Manage alumi

Edit (create/update Alumni students accounts and profiles)

Manage Employers

Edit (create/update Employers accounts and profile)

Manage Program Advisors

Edit (create/update Program Adviors accounts and profiles)

People/Users Course Management Module


29 / 40

F e

e d

b a

c k

•management

Feedback/

Questionnaire

Dynamic Design

•Questionnaire Responses From

•Alumni •Employers

•Program

Advisers

•management

Feedback & Questionnaire

Management Module

HoD Dean

Admin


30 / 40

Administrator (or HoD/Dean) can:

On the fly design a generic questionnaire

Set a dateline and assign it to a group of

responders

Monitor the responders feedback

Feedback & Questionnaire

Management Module


31 / 40

ITEMAAD Architecture

ITEMAAD©

Committees/

Task-forces Control/followup/

datelines

Document

Repository (scanned, proofs)

Man

ag

ers

Dean

Admin

HoD*

ADeQuATES ©

Reports, stats,

answers feedback


The NCAAA 2x11

Standards (institution and program levels)

32 / 40

Managers assign tasks to different task-forces and

committees)

Each task IS “good-practice” (NCAAA parlance)

assignment.

Allows flexibility of task assignment.

i.e. Instead of assigning a whole sub-standard to one team, a team

can work on similar good practices at different sub-standards .

Teams can :

Work independently

work cooperatively

check the status and the content of other tasks in the same sub-

standard.

ITEMAAD: Task Management Module


33 / 40

Each task has a start and end date.

Trigger events are awaken when datelines for task

completion are reached.

Report and feedback to the managers about the status quo

of tasks handling.

The system logs all activities of all users.

Each time a user update, upload, create, anything in the system, the

system will record all the pertinent information.

Managers can check what, when a particular user has done

something.

ITEMAAD: Moderation/monitoring/

control Management Module


34 / 40

An on-going automatic generation of Self-Evaluation

Scales Report for each sub-standard

Proofs of good practices can be :

scanned (soft-copy) documents uploaded to the systems,

report (programs and courses) automatically generated by

ADeQuATES

questionnaire results generated by ADeQuATES

Statistics data automatically fed by ADeQuATES

Arguments and explanations directly input by the responsible team

For each institution, an “independent” automatic “file

arborescence” that will harbor proofs of good-practices is

dynamically created.

ITEMAAD: Reporting/Self-Evaluation

Management Module


35 / 40

We used LAMP, HTML, CSS, Ajax and Javascript OS: Linux

Server: Apache

DATABASE: MySQL

Server Scripting: Php and Ajax

Client: scripting: Ajax and Javascript

Presentation: HTML and CSS

The main two advantages are the increased security and

the reduced cost of the end products as compared to

the licensing issues with Microsoft.

Technology and Development


36 / 40

Why LAMP technology?

Area LAMP ASP.NET

Performance Very good Often requires more expensive

hardware to perform well

Scalability Scales very well Can be difficult to scale

Administration Difficult: Often requires

reading

documentation and

editing text files

Easy: Often can be done through

point and click interface

Compatibility Very good: New versions

usually

backwards-compatible

Moderate: New versions often

break functionality

Configuration flexibility Extremely flexible Not very flexible



37 / 40

Why LAMP technology?

Area LAMP ASP.NET

Licensing cost No licensing cost Expensive licensing cost

Platform(s) Multiple Windows only

Hardware Costs

Runs on very inexpensive servers

Requires slightly more expensive servers

Staffing Somewhat difficult to find qualified people

Very easy to find qualified people

Security Very good Historically very bad, but improved recently



38 / 40

Please Visit: www.acadev.com

And/or contact the following:

Contact Contact Info Address

Mr. Randy Hill

CIO

Email: [email protected]

In IT Business since 1993

Dr. Hallam Nasreddine,

System Architect


In academia since 1993

70 W 36th Street New York,

NY 10018 Tel 1: 1-347 784 4742

Mr. Genois Julien, Software

Engineer



Mr LeBlanc, Marc, Database Administrator



Prof. Dr. Abou Elhassan Benyamina, Software Engineer



More details


39 / 40

http://www.acadev.com/

mailto:[email protected]





Please Visit: www.acadev.com

And/or contact the following:

Contact Contact Info Address

Dr. Benyamina Djohara,

Software Engineer, server

administrator



Mrs Sara Aw, Software Engineer



70 W 36th Street New York,

NY 10018 Tel 1: 1-347 784 4742

Mrs Iris Boardman, secretary Sarah Djani

BI


[email protected]

Business Intelligence

More details


40 / 40

http://www.acadev.com/





Documents

Acadev Presentation