Key Recommendation for Improvement 28, 29 & 30

We feel that there must be a significant misunderstanding regarding the ongoing monitoring of program. We will therefore, respond comprehensively to the recommendations listed by the panel. Global University maintains a systematic program assessment process, which includes collecting data from student performance indicators, surveys, and curriculum analyses. This data is analyzed regularly and used to modify programs accordingly to maximize student learning, educational outcomes, and stakeholder satisfaction. It should be noted that GIT’s programs are GU’s programs. Clearly, GU’s program assessment efforts are applied to the benefit of GIT-Malta. The data GU uses in assessing programs includes all information gathered from Maltese stakeholders via all data collection mechanisms. Therefore, GIT’s programs are being assessed and its stakeholders represented in this process. In addition to the ongoing systematic program assessment, GIT and GU collaborate to assess programs specifically as they impact Maltese stakeholders when this is indicated by stakeholders. An excellent example of GIT initiating a program assessment in collaboration with GU is provided by the counseling certificate. GU’s discontinued this certificate in the recent past as part of its program review process. However, Maltese students made known to the GIT director their desire and vocational need for this program. The director initiated consultation with GU representatives regarding this stakeholder need. GU then initiated tasks to reactivate this program, including coordinating with GU’s USA regional accreditation body. See correspondence here: Students that completed the Christian Counselling certificate suggested that more modules covering other areas of Christian counselling would be added to the certificate but keeping the same number of credits. This was done in to the satisfaction of the students. Although we cannot provide all the necessary documents, the needs and requests of the students are being met. This event reflects an informal, simple program review process; yet it is proportionally sophisticated to the size of GIT’s operation in Malta. In other words, the system is proportional in complexity and sophistication to that of the school. As the school increases in numbers of students and other stakeholders, the systems will increase proportionally in sophistication and complexity. At this time, the excellent results demonstrate that the current approach to program assessment and quality assurance is effective and dependable. It is difficult to understand this recommendation KR28. GIT courses’ surveys are forwarded to GU automatically with the online exam results. GU conducts graduation and five-year follow up surveys directly with students. Consequently, already GU has data of GIT’s students. GIT does not need to provide this data, since both on the on the Scranton sheet (if exam is taken by pencil and paper), or online in the evaluation made by student after each module are collected by GU. This information can be easily produced. GU conducts regular, systematised programme reviews using student survey data. This data includes both the course satisfaction surveys, programme completion (graduation) surveys, and the five-year follow up surveys. All of this data contributes to programme reviews. In addition, at levels 5 and 6, the pre- and post-test data contributes significant insight in programme effectiveness, especially in terms of learning outcomes. Furthermore, although GIT is not required by GU to do its own surveying, GIT did an exhaustive student satisfaction survey for each lesson of each course in the undergraduate certificate of the Christian counseling certificate. As stated by the panel in the report, these surveys were available in the audit. The surveys showed nothing that was alarming and believe that overall the students were well satisfied with program as the post survey demonstrates. Therefore, the comment “For instance, the institution does not have in place measures to ensure that the views of all stakeholders are fully taken into consideration as part of this process” is not correct. Please see SAR Standard 4.c It is our understanding that KR29 and KR30 are stating the same thing. However, we believe that the fact is that we have an SAR that is quite open with GIT weaknesses. It is by addressing these weaknesses that we can monitor feed back on the overall operation of GIT. Furthermore, GU is also monitoring GIT’s operation and students feedback as stated above.