The Dean of the College chairs this committee. Should the Dean be unavailable, a department head or an esteemed faculty member distinguished in study plans and curricula would be chosen. The committee’s responsibilities include:
3.1 Coordinating efforts among all stakeholders in the domain of academic plans and curricula to ensure optimal execution, emphasizing:
- 3.1.1 Outlining the vision, missions, and objectives of the programs.
- 3.1.2 Implementing mechanisms to ensure the execution of academic plans and curricula and achieve desired objectives.
- 3.1.3 Meeting all the educational quality requirements for all programs, according to the standards set by the National Center for Evaluation and Accreditation, the university's development and quality plan, and the standards of the curriculum unit.
- 3.1.4 Analyzing the results at the end of each academic term.
- 3.1.5 Continually refining and enhancing execution mechanisms.
3.2 Reviewing and evaluating program outcomes within the college every two academic years, considering labor market needs.
3.3 Proposing new programs based on comprehensive analyses and labor market demands.
3.4 Making benchmark comparisons with reputable local, regional, and international universities with accredited quality programs to determine whether to continue, revise, or introduce programs.
3.5 Proposing both local and international reviewers for revamped and new programs.
3.6 Evaluating any issues forwarded by the Dean or the Vice Dean of Educational and Academic Affairs to the committee, and making appropriate recommendations or decisions within the granted or delegated authority.
Performance Indicators:
1. Number of programs evaluated internally and externally within a year.
2. Number of programs developed based on annual evaluations.
3. Number of programs introduced based on labor market needs annually.
4. Number of developed and/or newly introduced programs in a year.
5. Percentage of programs conducting outcome evaluations annually.
6. Percentage of study courses evaluated and compared with similar courses in benchmark universities in terms of content, textbooks, teaching methods, expected outcomes, and evaluation mechanisms.
7. Percentage of courses developed based on annual evaluations.
8. Percentage of courses using e-learning systems (e.g., Blackboard) annually.
9. Average satisfaction rate of those benefiting from the committee's activities.