Higher Education Review Unitmoedu.gov.bh/hec/UploadFiles/Inst-Review-En/NYITE1.pdf · 2015-07-27 · QAAET - Institutional Review Report - New York Institute of Technology- Bahrain,

Higher Education Review Unit

Institutional Review Report

New York Institute of Technology

Kingdom of Bahrain

Dates Reviewed: 10 – 13 May 2009

Table of Contents

1. The Institutional Review Process ............................................................................................ 1

2. Overview of NYIT-Bahrain ....................................................................................................... 1

3. Mission, Planning and Governance ....................................................................................... 1

4. Academic Standards ................................................................................................................... 5

5. Quality Assurance and Enhancement ................................................................................. 13

6. Quality of Teaching and Learning ........................................................................................ 17

7. Student Support ......................................................................................................................... 19

8. Human Resources ...................................................................................................................... 21

9. Infrastructure, Physical and Other Resources ................................................................... 26

10. Research ........................................................................................................................................ 28

11. Community Engagement ........................................................................................................ 29

12. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 30

© Copyright Quality Assurance Authority for Education and Training Bahrain ,2010

QAAET - Institutional Review Report - New York Institute of Technology- Bahrain, 10-13 May 2009 1

1. The Institutional Review Process

The review of NYIT-Bahrain (henceforth referred to as NYIT-Bahrain or the University) was

conducted by the Higher Education Review Unit (HERU) of the Quality Assurance Authority

for Education and Training (QAAET) in terms of its mandate to ‘review the quality of the

performance of education and training institutions in light of the guiding indicators developed

by the Authority’ (Royal Decree No 32 of May 2008 amended by the Royal Decree No 6 of 2009).

This report provides an account of the HERU institutional review process and the findings of

the Expert Review Panel based on the Self-Evaluation Report (SER), appendices (AP), and

supporting materials (SM) submitted by the University, the supplementary documentation

requested from the institution, and interviews and observation made during the review site

visit.

2. Overview of NYIT-Bahrain

NYIT was founded in 1955 as a non-profit, non-secular, independent private institution of

higher learning. It has students at campuses in New York (Long Island and Manhattan), online

and sites in a number of countries including the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Bahrain.

NYIT-Bahrain was licensed by the Higher Education Council (HEC) in Bahrain on 17 May 2003.

The Bahrain campus, which comprised the former American Embassy building in Adliya, was

inaugurated in 2005 and has subsequently expanded with the addition of seven renovated

buildings across the campus.

3. Mission, planning and governance

NYIT-Bahrain is one of the Middle East campuses of New York Institute of Technology (NYIT)

licensed by the Ministry of Education, Higher Education Council Office in 2003. The license

envisages an institution vested with authority to make financial and management decisions.

Such authority enables it to ‘conduct its business with autonomy, independent from the other

business interests of a financial sponsor or owner’. The institution’s own Self-Evaluation Report

reveals that the Bahrain campus does not own such authority. This was confirmed during


interviews with the senior management at the local (Bahrain), regional (Middle East) and global

level (New York).

There is however a degree of awareness from senior management at the global level (in New

York) that such an arrangement is inadequate to meet the managerial requirement expected

from a licensed institution. At present, the Bahrain campus can best be described as a delivery

site of the Global programmes of NYIT. In order to address this inadequacy, attempts have

been made to establish governance structures such as a local Board of Trustees, and local

officials’ titles have recently been adjusted in an attempt to comply with the requirements of the

Higher Education Council (HEC). The Panel nevertheless heard during the interviews that the

local officials are not vested with the authority to make any academic or management decisions;

for example, the Panel heard from senior management that full-time academic appointments

and student admissions are done in New York.

As part of the global family of NYIT, NYIT-Bahrain is expected to meet the same standards,

follow the same curriculum, meet the same graduation requirements, award the same diplomas,

and be governed by the same policies as those at NYIT-New York. The Panel is of the view that

the present structural and organizational arrangements militate against a scenario in which

NYIT-Bahrain could influence and shape deliberations and decisions taken at the institution’s

central office in New York. Firstly, reporting arrangements as indicated in the organizational

chart give the Campus Dean (local president) little influence or authority to shape the academic

strategic plan as envisaged in the licensing arrangement. In real terms his/her role is at best

supervisory as it relates to Program Coordinators. He/she facilitates and coordinates activities

between Program Coordinators and Deans in New York. At the same time he/she is expected to

play a facilitative role in relation to the Campus Manager whose role is to ensure that logistical

and infrastructural support is available regarding the provision of instruction.

Recommendation 1

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain establish effective

governance structures that would enable it to conduct its business with autonomy in accordance

with the terms of the licence under which it operates.

There are no local structures such as a formalized local senate and faculty boards. This raises

three concerns:

(i) It is a deviation from (if not violation of) the licensing requirements.


(ii) Local senate and faculty committees play an important oversight role in ensuring the

integrity and meaningful contextualisation of the academic project. Their absence is an

ever present risk for the maintenance of academic standards. Any deviation or failure to

comply with the challenge of meeting the same standards of academic provision

envisaged by NYIT-New York cannot be immediately addressed. Committees such as

the Quality Assurance Committee and the Committee on Teaching, Learning and

Assessment have been hurriedly put together to respond to the institutional review.

They were not part of an envisaged and on-going institutional practice.

(iii) The absence of local deliberative structures limits the influence of Program Coordinators

in shaping the content and direction of the academic project. In other words, local staff

members do not have a credible platform to initiate and review programs, to inform and

review practice in teaching, learning and research. In the present circumstances,

Program Coordinators and Campus Deans are reduced to mere ‘transmitters’ whose role

is limited to relaying information to New York.

Recommendation 2

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain establish appropriate

committees such as Senate and Faculty Boards, and ensure that these committees, including the

Quality Assurance Committee and the Committee on Teaching, Learning and Assessment, are

empowered to ensure the integrity and meaningful contextualisation of the academic project.

In addition, the Panel found no evidence of arrangements to enable students to participate in

decision-making through a student association or representation on relevant governance and

management committees. The only structure representing students, namely the Student Life

Organization, is responsible for social functions.

Recommendation 3

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain put in place appropriate

mechanisms for including students in decision-making processes at various organisational levels.

The Panel is satisfied that the present organizational arrangement is at the heart of NYIT-

Bahrain’s failure to meet the expected institutional challenge and its failure to provide quality

higher education. On the one hand, NYIT-Bahrain has an academic model whose authority is

located in NYIT-New York. On the other hand, it has a business model that is driven from a


different centre via the Middle East Executive Chair. It is quite clear that the imperatives

imposed by the business model are different from those of the academic model.

This model creates an unhealthy tension that becomes self-evident when the Panel explored the

division of responsibilities at a campus level. The Campus Dean, for example, handles the

academic side of the operations and reports to the Global Vice President: Academic Affairs.

Matters relating to administration, infrastructure, recruitment, etc. are however handled

through the NYIT local partner, the Middle East Executive Chair. The different reporting lines

undermine effective coordination and leadership across the institution, especially among senior

management. It also undermines the limited authority of the local president.

Recommendation 4

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology rationalise the reporting lines

between New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain and the head office in New York as well as

the Middle East office to ensure effective coordination and leadership at the Bahrain campus, and

in particular at the senior management level.

NYIT’s vision and mission statements reflect a primary focus on higher education and

maintenance and enhancement of academic standards. The evidence provided to the Panel and

their experience at its Bahrain campus does not encourage the view that the mission is being

delivered.

The lack of authority at NYIT-Bahrain was evident when the Panel perused the document that

was entitled ‘a strategic plan’. The strategic plan is little more than a bundling together of

statements from the NYIT Global Strategy and the Bahrain 2030 vision of Economic

Development. There is no evidence to suggest that an exploration of even the most elementary

thought about strategy was undertaken. Questions of how the institution compares with its

competitors, where it will be in five to ten years, what changes are required to achieve its

strategic objectives, and what changes to the structure and financing will be required are not

articulated in the plan. An analysis of the internal and external drivers would help to provide

insights into the sustainability of the project. Strategic analysis becomes even more critical if one

considers that NYIT faces fierce competition from large and well-established institutions in a

small country like Bahrain. The institution has failed to show how the mission, performance

indicators and annual targets will be achieved. Nothing in the SER gives a sense that enough

thought has been given to a teaching and learning strategy and plan, a research plan, and an

enrolment plan.


Recommendation 5

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop a meaningful

strategic plan that shows how the institution’s mission and performance indicators will be

achieved, and that this should encompass a well-thought through teaching and learning plan, an

enrolment plan and a research plan.

NYIT-Bahrain has a register of all policies and procedures. While these are consistent with the

Higher Education Council (HEC) licensing regulations, the Panel found that they were

generated in New York and still need to be contextualized. These policies seem not to be

understood by all staff and do not seem to have been applied consistently. The lopsided relation

between NYIT-Bahrain and NYIT-New York and the absence of appropriate local structures

frustrate the effective application of these policies. Furthermore, there is no evidence to suggest

that the local campus has ever participated in processes that lead to consideration and approval

of policies.

Recommendation 6

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain urgently engage the local

campus in an all- inclusive process to contextualise the suite of available policies and procedures.

Efforts should also be made to ensure that these policies are applied consistently across the

institution.

4. Academic standards

All NYIT’s academic programmes are required to meet the registration requirements of the

New York State Education Department (NYSED), as well as those of various professional

accrediting bodies in the case of professional programmes. The NYSED has a comprehensive

approval process for the registration of new programmes which requires information on the

programme structure and credit hours. Programmes offered at NYIT-Bahrain are aligned with

those offered at the main campus, and thus adhere to the registration standards of the NYSED

and the various professional accreditation bodies. The NYIT programmes offered at the Bahrain

campus are also approved by the HEC in Bahrain. The Panel found evidence from the

undergraduate and postgraduate catalogues, and the NYIT-Bahrain brochure for 2008-2009, that

suggests that NYIT’s programmes at its Bahrain campus have an appropriate number of total

credit hours, that information on progression and credit transfer requirements is clearly


conveyed, and that the programme structures present a coherent body of knowledge in

appropriate academic fields.

The School and Senate Curriculum Committees are the key structural mechanisms for ensuring

consistency in terms of programme design. The Procedures and Rules for the NYIT Senate

Curriculum Committee broadly delineates the role that this committee and its subcommittees

play in the development and approval of core courses and programme learning outcomes. All

proposals for new programmes are required to be submitted in terms of a prescribed format

provided in the New Program Guidelines. Following discussion in the School Curriculum

Committee, programme proposals are reviewed by the Senate Curriculum Committee and

approved by Senate. In terms of formal structures, it appears that NYIT has an effective

programme approval system. The Procedures and Rules for the NYIT Senate Curriculum Committee

do not clearly set out its terms of reference while the Panel was not provided with information

on the status and terms of reference of School Curriculum Committees. In order to explain

clearly its systems for assuring the standards of its academic programmes, NYIT needs to

document formally the terms of reference of its Senate and School Curriculum Committees, and

clearly delineate the relationship between these committees and the Bahrain campus.

During interviews with faculty members, the Panel was informed that the programme chairs at

NYIT-Bahrain are members of their respective School Curriculum Committees, and are

involved in the discussion of the programme structure and credit hours within the faculty

context. However, the Panel was not provided with any evidence, such as the approved

membership of the School Curriculum Committees, to support this statement. Furthermore, the

Procedures and Rules for the NYIT Senate Curriculum Committee do not clearly set out its

membership in a manner that explains how this committee takes the views and

recommendations of the Schools at the Bahrain Campus into account in considering the

standards of the academic programmes that are offered at NYIT-Bahrain.

Recommendation 7

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain ensure that the Procedures

and Rules for its Senate and School Curriculum Committees clearly set out their membership in

order to explain their role in assuring programme standards across all its global campuses,

including the New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain campus. This should include

arrangements for faculty at the New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain campus to participate

meaningfully in the setting of the standards of the academic programmes that are offered at the

Bahrain campus.


The Panel notes with concern that faculty in at least some Schools receive little guidance with

respect to the nature and requirements of the institutionally approved syllabi that they are

appointed to teach at the NYIT-Bahrain campus. Furthermore, there do not appear to be

appropriate measures in place to ensure that faculty adhere to the requirements of the approved

syllabi. As a result, it is not possible to state with confidence that the delivery of academic

programmes at NYIT-Bahrain adheres to the required standards in terms of their structure and

credit hours, and consequently that students at NYIT-Bahrain receive the same degree as those

at the New York main campus.

Recommendation 8

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain implement appropriate

measures to ensure that faculty in all Schools are fully informed of, and understand, the

requirements of the approved syllabi that they are appointed to teach, and implement monitoring

and review systems to ensure that programme delivery adheres to approved standards in terms of

their structure and credit hours.

The Panel notes that during the past few years, the Senate Curriculum Committee has devoted

considerable attention to the development of a ‘core curriculum’ at NYIT. The debate on this

topic has the potential to impact positively on programme standards, by means of the

systematic integration of the key graduate competencies that students should attain into the

design of all NYIT’s academic programmes, including those offered at the NYIT-Bahrain

campus.

NYIT-Bahrain’s admission criteria are published in the Student Undergraduate and Postgraduate

Catalogues, which are available on the NYIT-Bahrain website, and which contain explicit

admission requirements. The marketing brochure for the NYIT-Bahrain campus also provides

clear information on admission requirements for both undergraduate and graduate students.

These admission requirements refer to various standards of achievement in the final high school

examinations (GPA, Tawjihi, IGSCE) for undergraduate students and in undergraduate studies

(GPA, proof of degree) for postgraduate students, as well as official TOEFL results. With regard

to undergraduate study, the specified admission standards are relatively low. The Panel

suggests that the University should consider the appropriateness of these standards in relation

to the academic demands of their study programmes. The admission requirements for

postgraduate study, and for language proficiency at both the undergraduate and postgraduate

level, are appropriate.


Recommendation 9

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain consider the appropriateness

of the standards that it sets for admission to undergraduate studies in terms of achievement in the

final high school examinations (GPA, Tawjihi, IGSCE) in order to ensure that students are able

to address the academic requirements of their study programmes.

In order to ensure the consistent application of admissions criteria, the Panel was informed that

the Admissions/Enrolment Office at the NYIT-Bahrain campus screens all applications in terms

of the prescribed admission criteria, and then sends all applications to the Admissions Office at

the NYIT main campus where final admissions decisions are made. Technically, therefore, the

Admissions Office at NYIT-Bahrain functions as a recruitment office. Effective measures appear

to be in place to validate the accuracy of student academic records. While conditional

acceptance may be granted where a student does not fully meet matriculation requirements, it

was stated during the interviews that very few students are admitted on probation, and then

only for one semester. The Panel was provided with lists of students who are admitted on

probation to confirm this statement.

All undergraduate students who do not meet the necessary English language requirements in

terms of their TOEFL scores, are required to take the ‘Accuplacer test’ (on-line) to be placed in

the appropriate ELI level (ELI 1-4). The Panel was provided with statistics on the placement of

students in the ELI programme for the 2006/7 – 2008/9 triennium which indicate that a relatively

large number of NYIT-Bahrain students take part in this programme. Between 40-50% of these

students participate in the level 4 programme, which suggests that they have good prospects for

developing the required level of English language proficiency for meeting the demands of

higher education study.

The Panel is, however, not convinced that the admission criteria are applied in a consistent

manner at the Bahrain campus. It is not clear that students who are admitted on probation are

refused permission to continue with their studies if they do not achieve matriculation status

within the prescribed time-frame, nor is it clear that the ELI programme is managed in a

manner that ensures that students actually demonstrate the required English language

competence. Some of the students who were interviewed stated that admission criteria at both

the undergraduate and postgraduate levels are not stringently enforced, while some students

also confirmed that they were provided with almost immediate admission decisions, which

suggests that the decision is made at the local campus level rather than in the Central

Admissions Office. It is not clear to the Panel that admission criteria, including requirements for


English language proficiency, are applied in a consistent manner, or that the institution’s own

protocols for ensuring the integrity of the admissions process are consistently observed.

Recommendation 10

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain implement effective

measures to ensure that its protocols and requirements for admission, including those relating to

probation for non-matriculated students and English language proficiency for students who do

not achieve the required TOEFL scores, are stringently enforced at its Bahrain campus.

The Panel heard in interviews with various staff members that the Admissions/Enrolment

Office at NYIT-Bahrain reports to the Campus Manager/ Registrar for the Middle East, who in

turn reports to the Executive Chairman for the Middle East. This arrangement contradicts the

information that was provided in the NYIT-Bahrain organization chart according to which the

Director of Admissions reports to the Associate Campus Dean and through this office to the

Campus Dean. The integrity of the admissions process requires oversight at the level of

academic management, so that in terms of governance structures the Office of the Campus

Dean should serve as the integrative point that ensures the consistent application of NYIT

admissions protocols.

Recommendation 11

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain reconsider the de facto

reporting line of the Director of Admissions to the Campus Manager/Registrar for the Middle

East, in order to ensure the integrity of the admissions process.

All the academic programmes that NYIT offers at its Bahrain campus are standard institutional

programmes that are offered across all NYIT’s global campuses. The Undergraduate Catalogue

indicates that NYIT provides its students with a clear understanding of the relationship

between the programmes offered at the Bahrain Campus and its main campus in New York.

NYIT policy states that programme specific goals and objectives must be clearly stated and that

there must be an accompanying matrix that demonstrates where the objectives are distributed

among the courses of the various programmes. The site-visit established that, within the

University as a whole, the process of redesigning academic programmes around the

achievement of both core and programme-specific learning outcomes, with appropriate

underlying course outcomes, is a relatively new initiative that has been underway over the past


two to three years. The process is being driven through the Global Assessment Committee, and it is

the responsibility of each School to ensure the integration of programmatic and course-level

learning outcomes into its programmes and courses.

As stated in the self-evaluation report, the supplementary material provides examples of well-

formulated programme and course level learning outcomes. However, with respect to the

Bahrain campus, there is sufficient evidence to indicate that such well-designed learning

outcome statements are the exception rather than the norm. Firstly, the Panel learned from

interviews with various categories of staff that the process of developing learning outcomes at

the Bahrain campus is only in an initial phase, with the workshop conducted by the Dean for

Global Operations, Assessment and Accreditation in April 2009 serving as a significant catalyst

in this regard. Various Schools at the Bahrain campus are currently embarking on faculty-

driven initiatives in relation to the development of learning outcomes.

Secondly, based on a sample of the course files provided to the Panel, current practice with

respect to the formulation of course learning outcomes varies widely. There are cases where

outcomes are explicit, and seem to support the programme outcomes – though this connection

is not clarified in the course outlines or syllabi. However, there are other cases where the

outcomes lack or have no specificity, and provide little or no guidance to the students, and

many more in which no learning outcomes have been formulated. Clearly the requirements for

course syllabi as set down by NYIT in the Staff Handbook are not consistently followed. Thirdly,

while the Senate Assessment Committee has the mandate to ensure that all NYIT programmes

have appropriately formulated learning outcomes, the Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Committee at the NYIT-Bahrain campus has only just been constituted and has no defined role

in ensuring consistency of practice with respect to the formulation of programme- and course-

level learning outcomes.

Recommendation 12

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain set in motion a systematic

process that would ensure that all programmes and courses offered at the New York Institute of

Technology-Bahrain campus have appropriate and explicitly formulated learning outcomes.

Recommendation 13

HERU recommends that the terms of reference of the Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Committee clearly describe its relationship to the Senate Assessment Committee and its role in


overseeing the process of learning outcome formulation at the New York Institute of Technology-

Bahrain campus.

At an institutional level, NYIT-Bahrain seems to be taking appropriate steps to review and

improve the effectiveness of its assessment processes. As described in the Institutional

Assessment Plan, NYIT has established a systematic and comprehensive process across all its

programmes to review the extent to which learning outcomes are appropriate, assessment

methods are effective, and assessment results present an accurate reflection of the achievement

of learning outcomes. In terms of the annual ‘Faculty Assessment Cycle’, all faculties submit

assessment plans relating to the achievement of learning outcomes to the Senate Assessment

Committee, conduct an analysis of assessment results, and develop an improvement plan. The

Senate Assessment Committee thereafter prepares an annual report on the status of student

learning outcomes for consideration by Senate. The Review Report can only comment on this

process on a conceptual level as the Panel was not provided with any examples of the manner

in which it is being implemented. Nevertheless, this recent initiative has significant potential to

introduce systematic reflection on effective approaches to teaching, learning and assessment

that are appropriate to programme and course level learning outcomes.

In addition, the Panel was able to access some examples of completed Online Faculty

Assessment Reports (OFAR) that demonstrate the manner in which faculty at NYIT-Bahrain

reflect on the appropriateness of their chosen assessment methods and the extent to which

students have achieved the learning outcomes. The Panel notes that, according to the self-

evaluation report, the Department of Computer Science has formed an examination committee

to review and monitor the assessment process in the department. Despite these positive

developments in the area of assessment, NYIT-Bahrain has not yet developed a formally

approved assessment policy that documents the institution’s procedures with respect to the

assessment of student learning outcomes at the programme and course level.

Recommendation 14

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop for itself an

assessment policy that outlines its approach to the assessment of student learning outcomes, and

ensure a consistent application of this policy across its programmes.

The Panel could find no evidence that NYIT’s protocols for assuring the integrity of the

assessment process are being applied at its Bahrain campus. It was not clear that faculty were


required to fill out the OFAR. There is also no evidence that faculty members have begun to

participate in the Faculty Assessment Cycle as described in the Institutional Assessment Plan. In

addition, the members of the Teaching, Leaning and Assessment Committee at NYIT-Bahrain

have been provided with no information on how their role relates to that of the Senate

Assessment Committee, and what their role in overseeing the implementation of NYIT

assessment protocols at NYIT-Bahrain may be.

Recommendation 15

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain take immediate steps to

ensure that the assessment protocols that have been established at New York Institute of

Technology are implemented at the campus. This includes i) participation by all Schools at the

campus in the annual Faculty Assessment Cycle; and ii) ensuring that all faculty members

regularly complete the Online Faculty Assessment Reports.

Furthermore, the Panel is concerned that various practices at the Bahrain campus pose a serious

threat to the integrity of the assessment process. Firstly, the Panel understands that, at least in

some Schools, there is an over-dependence on multiple choice questions which, while a

legitimate assessment method, is not appropriate for assessing the achievement of certain

learning outcomes. Secondly, the Panel was informed by both faculty members and students

that grade inflation occurs on a wide-scale.

Recommendation 16

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain take urgent action to

address the integrity of its assessment processes by addressing the problem of grade inflation.

Student data, such as registration details, enrolments (overall and per programme), student

degree maps, academic performance, and students placed on probation, is captured on the

student information system. This information is captured and supplied by the Registrar’s Office

at the NYIT main campus in New York, so that local ICT staff plays no role in this process.

During the site visit, the Panel was provided with a demonstration of how student data can be

accessed on the ‘NYIT-Connect’ portal. The Panel is satisfied that the portal provides reliable

access to student data, and that the nature of the data captured on the student information

system is adequate to monitor students’ academic profile.


However, on the basis of the interviews conducted during the site visit, the Panel is of the

impression that the use of such student data to monitor and improve student performance, and

to implement strategies to support at-risk students, is largely left to the initiative of programme

chairs and individual faculty members. While some information on aggregated student data,

such as retention statistics per programme and average GPA scores per programme, were made

available in the evidence, there does not appear to be a systematic process of supplying regular

standard reports on student performance to academic Schools. The absence of an effective

framework for the regular provision of management information impedes the extent to which

reliable data is used for institutional planning at NYIT-Bahrain. Furthermore, meaningful

information, which could be used in identifying and providing support for at-risk students, for

tracking success rates across Schools and programmes, and for advising individual students, is

not readily available. Thus, while some form of evaluation using data takes place, the absence of

a reliable management information system for the purpose of the consistent monitoring of

performance across the faculties is an area of concern.

Recommendation 17

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop an effective

management information system in order to support institutional planning, the monitoring,

review and improvement of student performance, and the provision of effective student support,

including the student advising system.

While effective security measures appear to be in place to ensure the safety of student data, the

institution should consider whether the current arrangements for sending the hard copy

versions of student records to the New York campus for electronic capturing constitute a threat

for maintaining the integrity of student records.

5. Quality assurance and enhancement

In its Self-Evaluation Report, NYIT-Bahrain identified the following elements of its quality

assurance framework:

• Award of BS EN ISO 9001:2000.

• Quality Manual and Quality Procedures (available May 2009).


While ISO 9001 may be an effective and appropriate tool for developing a general platform for

quality management, it is less obvious that it is sufficient and/or appropriate as an instrument

for quality assurance and enhancement of learning and teaching. The Panel considers that ISO

9001 cannot serve as a substitute for the quality assurance processes that are required to

safeguard the quality of students’ learning experiences.

The SER states that ‘the requirements to document, implement and maintain a QMS and

continually improve its effectiveness are contained in the Quality Manual’. The Panel was,

however, neither shown a Quality Manual nor any Quality Procedures, and therefore cannot

judge whether the processes and procedures which the manual contains would provide

effective quality management of learning and teaching. It was also not obvious that faculty

members knew of such a manual, and they did not refer to it. A copy of the NYIT Global

Academic Programs: Policies and Procedures Manual 2008-9 was made available, but this did

not make any special reference to programmes delivered in Bahrain. And while it included

sections on grading, it did not constitute a comprehensive description of procedures which

could be used to monitor and enhance quality.

NYIT (including the Bahrain campus) is accredited by the Commission on Higher Education of

the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (CHEMSA) , and as stated in the SER, the

Commission’s one-day site visit during 2008 found that ‘…all aspects of the campus and its

programs are consistent with the Commission’s standards as described in Characteristics of

Excellence.’ The standards used by CHEMSA are similar to those used by HERU in its reviews,

although there is no standard relating to quality assurance and enhancement per se.

Nevertheless, the evidence used in the NYIT submission for accreditation could have provided

assurance to the Panel that the institution has policies and procedures in place to assure quality

and standards. No such evidence was made available to the Panel. The detailed accreditation

self-study available on the NYIT website includes a section on Global Campuses. This

document is, on the whole, descriptive but it does enumerate several key recommendations.

One of these, for global campuses, is to ‘Develop and implement a formal quality assurance

plan’. As far as teaching and learning at the Bahrain campus is concerned, the Panel could see

little evidence that this has been implemented.

A two page report by CHEMSA on the NYIT-Bahrain campus gave little further evidence for

the Commission’s findings but did point out certain challenges facing the campus, such as the

increasing faculty workload, desire for more administrative support and support for research,

more academic support for students, opportunities for faculty communication and exchange


between NYIT’s global campuses and better communication across the Bahrain campus. The

Panel heard that these observations were being followed up by the Office of the Provost.

The Panel explored the understanding of quality with senior members of the University and the

mechanisms they saw as key in assuring academic standards and the quality of the student

experience. Faculty and staff pointed out a number of indicators of quality and to other factors

contributing to quality assurance.

The Panel found that the indicators do not form an articulated set of policies or procedures, but

simply reflect what individual staff and faculty felt were important indicators of quality. In

pursuing some of the above indicators further, the Panel found, for example, that faculty reviews

were carried out for the first time in 2007. Although feedback was given to faculty, it was not

apparent to the Panel whether the information was used, either in Bahrain or New York, for

quality management and enhancement purposes.

Student evaluations were also obtained from NYIT-Bahrain campus students and sent to the

New York campus for analysis. The Panel heard that these evaluations were not analysed in

such a way that made comparisons across Schools or programmes possible, so again this source

of information was not used locally to assure or enhance quality.

The Panel came to the conclusion that many of the mechanisms identified above are used

sporadically, and only in certain Schools. The mechanisms do not appear to stem from any

overall common understanding of quality assurance and are not based on a strategic approach

to quality assurance; neither are they implemented in any consistent manner across the campus.

This is surprising since the NYIT Institutional Assessment Plan (which was revised in January

2009) indicates that the institution has a comprehensive strategy for quality assurance. This is

an example of how mechanisms in operation at the New York campus do not seem to have

visibility in Bahrain.

Recommendation 18

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain engage in a process of debate

across the campus, with all stakeholders, through which a common understanding of quality can

be developed.


In addition the Panel was concerned that certain mechanisms that might be expected in an

effective quality assurance framework were not mentioned by faculty and did not appear to

operate at all in NYIT-Bahrain, chief amongst these are periodic review and annual monitoring

of programmes. The Panel heard during interviews with a range of staff that there have been no

regular reviews of programmes at the Bahrain campus, except for professional body

accreditation purposes.

It was evident to the Panel that there are no deliberative structures at the Bahrain campus which

deal with matters relating to quality assurance. The Panel heard that the Provost, in

consultation with relevant colleagues, is responsible for key quality assurance instruments such

as faculty evaluations and student evaluations. The Panel heard that a Quality Assurance

Committee (QAC), Teaching and Learning Centre and Assessment Committee have recently

been established, but the latter has not so far met.

The Quality Assurance Committee was established to help the Bahrain campus prepare for the

HERU review. The Panel considers that the setting up of these two committees is a positive

development. However, it also considers that the committees will achieve very little if they are

not placed within a transparent and clearly-articulated structure for decision-making.

Recommendation 19

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop a framework of

appropriate policies and procedures that would ensure the quality of teaching and learning at the

University, and set up structured mechanisms for their implementation and monitoring at the

Bahrain campus.

Recommendation 20

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain set out the terms of reference

of the Quality Assurance Committee and other related committees, such as the Teaching,

Learning and Assessment Committee, and ensure that such committees are properly constituted,

empowered to function effectively and fit within a clearly articulated quality assurance

framework .


Recommendation 21

HERU recommends that the New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain should pay due attention

to allowing for participation by the student body, so that the student voice can be clearly heard

within the institution.

6. Quality of teaching and learning

The SER notes that NYIT-Bahrain uses the following vehicles for assuring sound academic

standards:

• Program Portfolio Review

• Curriculum development procedures

• Review and approval by the Bahraini Ministry of Education.

In exploring these procedures, the Panel found that the Program Portfolio Review process was a

once-off exercise that was conducted in September 2006 with the objective to ‘eliminate certain

programmes with falling enrolment’. As such, it does not constitute an ongoing review across

continuing programs.

The Panel heard a clear description of the curriculum development procedures from various

faculty and staff but was not able to see any documentation which supported this process. The

process enables Faculty and Programme Coordinators at Bahrain to ‘propose course or program

modifications and transmit their recommendations to the appropriate Program Coordinator in

New York. However, the final decision on programme approval is taken by the New York

campus. There is no obvious element of externality, such as the use of suitably qualified

academic peers in the programme approval process, except in the case of professional body

accreditation for certain programmes, which will give some guarantee of national (Bahraini)

standards.

Recommendation 22

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain introduce appropriate

procedures to ensure that all of its programmes meet Bahraini standards. In particular, New

York Institute of Technology-Bahrain should put in place periodic review mechanisms that would

involve the local faculty and other external stakeholders in Bahrain to ensure they satisfy Bahrain

labour market requirements.


NYIT-Bahrain has no specific teaching or learning plan. However, its mission includes aims

related to teaching and learning, and in particular ‘to provide career oriented professional

education’. The University states that it is also committed to ‘integrating technology into all

teaching and learning and to develop and disseminate information about technology-based

education’. Although the challenges faced by the campus are clearly set out in the section of the

University’s strategic plan, and suggestions for action to address them are given, it was not

clear to the Panel what structures are in place in Bahrain for ensuring that the appropriate

actions are implemented and monitored. For example, the Panel heard that the Learning Centre

and Career Centre have not yet been set up at the Bahrain campus, and that implementation of

these developments would depend on ‘advocacy or championing by individual faculty

members’.

The SER noted the work of the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) in supporting faculty to

improve their teaching skills. However, it became apparent to the Panel that most of the CTL’s

activities are provided at the NYIT-New York campus, and the activities provided on-line were

limited. Besides, a considerable number of staff was unaware of the existence of the CTL.

While the University considers that Global Campuses would have the benefit of on-line

resources such as ‘Blackboard’ and ‘Turnitin’, the staff whom the Panel interviewed indicated

that uptake of these resources was variable. One school had held training sessions for the use of

the ‘Blackboard’ and was intending to make it compulsory for lecturers to use it in the next

semester.

Recommendation 23

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain make effective use of the

Centre for Teaching and Learning to train all faculty members on the use its on-line learning

resources.

The Panel saw and heard examples of a variety of learning methods in use, ranging from formal

lectures and classes to workshops and case-study sessions. The faculty whom the Panel met

were enthusiastic about their programmes and about their students’ work. It was obvious that

in parts of the NYIT-Bahrain campus students were encouraged to develop an independent

approach to their learning.

In terms of student satisfaction, the Panel heard that student evaluations are systematically

carried out and used (though variably) for ‘instructor personal development’. Results of

student evaluations are, however, not used at a local level to assure or enhance quality.


Students who met the Panel indicated that they do not feel that their voice was heard, or that

issues they raised in these evaluations are given any attention. ‘Lacklustre’ student satisfaction

was identified by the University as long ago as May 2006 in the NYIT Vision 2030, yet progress

to improve this appears to be almost non-existent at the Bahrain campus. The Panel learned

during interviews with both staff and students that neither the staff nor the students at the

Bahrain campus are aware of the various survey instruments that are listed on page 29 of the

Self-Evaluation report.

Recommendation 24

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain ensure that course

evaluation questionnaires and other student satisfaction surveys are considered at a central level

of the local campus with a view to enhancing quality and improving student satisfaction.

7. Student support

The Panel found that academic staff show concern for their students and students appear to

have a good level of interaction with them. The Panel was shown a small number of course

surveys for courses for bachelor degree students. The results of this small sample showed the

overall satisfaction level of NYIT-Bahrain students to be higher than average. The Panel could

not verify if this is consistent with all other surveys as data were not provided by the

University.

In respect of academic advising at NYIT-Bahrain, the Panel heard that the role of advisors is

limited to the registration period where faculty are required to sign the registration form for the

students. The Panel heard during interviews with students that this has resulted in many cases

where students were left to rely on each other without timely academic advice on pre-requisite

requirements and optimum course pathways. This is seen by the Panel as a serious weakness in

the information and advice provided to the students by the University. The Panel heard that

proposals for the re-organisation of the registration/advising system had been presented at the

campus level, but that these had not ultimately been approved. The Panel strongly advises the

University to activate its academic advising practice in a more practical and effective way.


Recommendation 25

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain implement appropriate

academic advising mechanisms to ensure that students receive advice on matters such as pre-

requisite requirements and optimal course pathways.

Whilst NYIT has stated that the average “Tawjihi” score for its admitted students in

undergraduate programmes is as low as 70% and its minimum requirements for entry into

Master Programmes is an average of “C” in the bachelor degrees, the University has not

developed a mechanism to monitor and identify students who are at-risk of failure. Moreover,

even if an ‘at-risk’ student is identified, NYIT-Bahrain has not provided support mechanisms

for such students. The Panel encourages the University to develop and implement policies and

procedures to identify and support academically weak students.

The SER states that NYIT has an Office for Career Services. The Panel, however, learned that

this Office is not visible at the Bahrain campus, nor are students aware of the services it

provides. The Panel noted that NYIT-Bahrain does not provide many of the typical student

support services that are expected from an institution of higher learning, such as counselling,

career planning, health services, and internship placement at the Bahrain campus. Neither were

students whom the Panel met aware of any formal complaints or academic appeals procedures.

Recommendation 26

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain provide the necessary

student support services, including professional counselling services, to students to contribute to

their academic and well-being and prepare them for life-long success.

While there is a Student Life Organisation (SLO), this is primarily a group which organises

social and charitable events. There is no student representation on the Council. The Panel

encourages NYIT-Bahrain to appoint a student representative to serve on this body. The

institution should also consider strengthening student participation on key committees within

the University. This would ensure that the needs of students are taken into account in formal

decision-making processes.


Recommendation 27

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain provide for student

participation on the governing body as well as other appropriate committees within the

institution.

8. Human resources

The Panel faced many challenges in identifying the exact number of full-time faculty currently

working at NYIT-Bahrain. The University provided confusing and conflicting information. This

is symptomatic of inefficiency of the NYIT-Bahrain management information system.

Recommendation 28

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain maintain accurate records of

its teaching faculty and update them on a semester basis. The institution should, furthermore,

make use of appropriate indicators such as student-staff ratios to determine the sufficiency of the

academic staff to ensure the quality of teaching and learning.

It is the Panel’s view that the numbers given by the local Deans and most closely confirmed by

the list of faculty with their teaching loads is the most reliable one, namely 26. If faculty with a

full-teaching load is only counted this puts into question the numbers reported to the HEC for

compliance purposes. The Panel noted with great concern that, by their own admission, NYIT-

Bahrain falls short of fulfilling the HEC requirements with regard to the provision of faculty in

the various programmes, but was encouraged to learn that efforts are being made to meet this

important requirement.

As stated in the SER, there are four different types of faculty with the 4 categories operating side

by side and fulfilling different contractual obligations. Other than the usual Part-time/Fulltime

split which is found in most universities, NYIT distinguishes itself through local vs. New York

contracts for faculty, and two types of full-time New York faculty, namely: ‘visitors’ and

‘Bahrain permanent’. The Panel found that the contractual conditions including teaching loads

are more favourable for New York faculty than the local faculty, which means that teaching

loads generally exceed 10 courses for the latter. Moreover, permanent Bahrain faculty are

attached to the Bahrain campus and not included in the NYIT faculty handbook.


Recommendation 29

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain create one category of

faculty and ensure that all faculty members are subjected to the same working conditions.

The Associate Chairs (or Local Deans) of the four schools in Bahrain evaluate their faculty at the

end of the year upon submission of their annual report. However, only ‘class visitations’ are

included as the evaluation component for teaching, with no input from the student evaluations.

In several meetings with faculty, the Panel was told that there was no systematic feedback from

the student evaluations. Students also confirmed that they received no feedback on action that

was taken in response to their evaluations.

Recommendation 30

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain put in place a transparent

faculty evaluation system with clear performance indicators and criteria for contract renewal and

other rewards. Retention decisions, both positive and negative, should be duly justified and based

on facts drawn from the faculty files.

Faculty recruitment is initiated locally with advertising positions in the region. Pre-selection

and interview of candidates is done in New York through a videoconference link and final

decisions are made in New York. The Bahrain campus does not have a search committee per se,

and involvement of local faculty in the recruitment process is very limited. Moreover faculty

recruitment happens late in the academic year.

Faculty resumés, both for full-time and part-time, were provided during the site visit and

overall they showed that NYIT-Bahrain’s faculty are appropriately qualified in their respective

disciplines. In the School of Management where the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools

of Business (AACSB) accreditation is a strategic objective, faculty are also required to be

qualified professionally. This was verified in the faculty annual reports wherein some faculty

members were reminded of the necessity of obtaining professional qualifications to keep their

contracts. The Panel nevertheless heard about instances of ‘low quality teaching’ by some of the

faculty members. Both students and staff characterised some of the faculty members as ‘easy

graders’, more particularly among the part-time faculty.


Recommendation 31

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain put in place mechanisms to

ensure an acceptable quality of teaching delivery by all categories of faculty, with a particular

focus on the part-time faculty who teach on a recurrent basis.

Faculty in Bahrain do not participate in the NYIT Senate because the faculty in New York are

unionized, and this is a requirement for membership of the Senate. The Panel heard from

interviews with the senior management that there is a move to register the Bahrain faculty with

the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which is expected to pave the way

for their participation in the Senate. The Panel encourages the institution to give this matter

urgent attention.

NYIT-Bahrain has no clear teaching load policy, but the Panel learned during interviews with

staff that the New York Full-time faculty carry a load of 10 courses whereas Bahrain full-time

faculty carry a load of 12 courses. Regarding teaching conditions for faculty, faculty reported

class sizes ranging from 35 to 40, and even more in the School of Management.

Part-time faculty appeared to be the most dissatisfied as there seems to be no commitment to

them from the institution. They had no offices, were not set up on NYIT Blackboard, and did

not have the level of access to University resources that they require to carry out their academic

work in a way that provides students with a quality learning experience. Moreover they are

always unsure whether their contracts would be renewed. The Panel also heard that there are

no formal orientation programmes for this category of NYIT-Bahrain faculty.

Recommendation 32

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain introduce a formal

orientation programme for all staff members as part of its staff development programme.

The Panel had the impression of an overloaded and demoralised faculty that enjoyed little

recognition for performing their teaching duties. The Panel heard with great concern of

interference with grades from the registration department, and cases of student unruliness not

appropriately dealt with by the University, both of which could compromise negatively on

academic standards. Though these instances were not individually investigated by the Panel,

such matters were reported by several people and frequently and consistently enough to raise

concerns in the Panel. However the University showed little evidence that these matters have


been officially investigated and dealt with. The Panel recommends that the University

investigate these matters with a view to identifying the potential risks that they represent and

develop a strategy for dealing with such matters appropriately.

Recommendation 33

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain urgently investigate

potential risks from practices undermining the integrity of the academic process and develop a

strategy to put an end to such practices.

NYIT-Bahrain faculty are afforded limited opportunities to avail themselves of professional

development grants. The Panel heard that some faculty have benefitted from partial funding

for conference attendance provided they have a paper accepted for presentation. However,

these are limited to ‘nearby and moderately priced destinations’.

A new professional development fund is being made available for activities that would be

undertaken during the summer for which a global amount of US$ 20,000 has been earmarked.

While this amount seems to be very limited for a global venture like NYIT with a large faculty

body, this could constitute the beginning of a positive initiative.

Affirmation 1

HERU affirms the initiative of New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain to make funds

available for the professional development of its faculty, and encourage the University to increase

the funding level for this initiative.

The biggest stumbling block to faculty development at NYIT-Bahrain is the excessive teaching

load of faculty. While it can be understood that the core activity of the University is teaching, a

system of release time for research purposes needs to be put in place to support the

development of scholarship.

The institution seems to encourage faculty to move through its global campus network as it

relies on faculty visits from one campus to the other to provide both students and faculty with a

positive experience.


The Centre of Teaching and Learning (CTL) is supposed to provide faculty with the means to

develop themselves not only pedagogically but also by developing a scholarship of teaching

and learning. Despite the claims in the SER that some faculty in NYIT-Bahrain have benefitted

from the services of the CTL, not a single faculty member (among a sample of more than 20

faculty members) seemed to be cognizant of the existence of this centre. A recent visit by the

Dean of Operations, Assessment and Accreditation from New York tried to engage faculty into

a path of quality teaching. She visited faculty during class sessions and held a workshop to

discuss issues related to implementing Quality Assurance in the teaching process. However

this does not seem to be part of a sustainable strategy to develop faculty at NYIT-Bahrain.

Recommendation 34

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain provide more practical

mechanisms for staff to develop themselves as teachers and scholars of teaching and learning.

Other than remote access to the resources of the CTL in New York, a local teaching and learning

centre needs to be created to further this objective.

The grievance procedure outlined in the faculty handbook merely amounts to lodging a

complaint with no assurance of due process or due diligence. It specifies that faculty may lodge

any grievance to the local campus Dean, and if unhappy with the outcome then onto the VP for

Global Academic Programs and finally onto the Provost for final settlement. However no

distinction is made between routine complaints and faculty grievances that are of a more

serious nature.

Recommendation 35

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain introduce formal grievance

procedures that would specify both process and outcomes, and ensure the involvement of relevant

staff at the Bahrain campus in the process.

The number of administrative staff is approximately 100, with half of them being security and

maintenance personnel. The Panel learned that academic support services such as student

admission and registration are under the control of the Campus Manager who also acts as the

local registrar. Although the local organisational chart provided as part of the supporting

material for the SER showed a reporting line to the Campus Dean, the Panel found that this was

not the case. Faculty consistently complained about a lack of responsiveness and bottlenecks in

the admissions and registration processes.


Recommendation 36

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain give due regard to the

admissions and registration processes as important academic support functions and ensure that

the local Campus Dean, and not the Campus Manager, has functional responsibility in this area.

9. Infrastructure, physical and other resources

NYIT-Bahrain is currently housed in a rented building and has adapted the facilities to meet its

immediate requirements for teaching, learning and research activities as well as administrative

functions. However NYIT-Bahrain has recognized that there are pressures on the current

building especially during peak times. The Panel concurs with the institution that the physical

resources are limited. The current facilities are under severe constraints to support adequately

the delivery of academic programs, including teaching and learning spaces, library, ICT

facilities and appropriate spaces for the academic advising and other support functions.

The NYIT-Bahrain campus has an Information and Communication Technology (ICT) unit

which provides support to staff and students. The ICT unit has a number of full-time staff who

are responsible for IT support services. There is reasonable provision of computers in the

University. Most teaching venues are equipped with data and video projectors and computers.

There is also a wireless access to the internet. However, given the physical structure of the

building it is not accessible in all rooms or spaces.

A visit to the IT server room by members of the Panel raised some concerns about how access

to the server room is controlled, and the use of adequate environmental systems for cooling and

safety mechanisms for fire prevention. The institution is advised to consider how it manages

these areas of risk. The Panel is of the view that the IT department needs to develop and

implement a number of policies and processes to assure the quality of ICT at the University, for

example, off-site storage of data. ICT planning also needs to be integrated into the institutional

planning process and linked to key operational plans in teaching and learning.

The Panel noted in interviews with the ICT staff that the University is still implementing a

number of ICT processes and systems. The Panel heard during interviews with staff and

students that the facilities and equipment, including IT support services are inadequate to

support the University academic programme offerings.


The Panel was concerned that back-up data is not only stored in the same building as the

system servers but in the same room. Although regular back-up procedures are in place and the

systems incorporate a measure of redundancy that provides some protection, the Panel

established that NYIT-Bahrain does not have an ICT disaster management and recovery plan.

This constitutes a serious risk for the University. As a matter of urgency NYIT-Bahrain needs to

develop and implement an ICT disaster plan which includes the storage of back-up data in a

separate location, preferably off-campus in order to ensure business continuity.

Recommendation 37

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain implement an ICT disaster plan that

includes the storage of back-up data in a separate location.

Library

NYIT-Bahrain’s library consists of a restricted physical space and an outdated and limited

collection of books and reviews. The Panel found the Library’s capacity to be constrained and

small for the number of undergraduate and postgraduate students enrolled at the Bahrain

campus. There is a limited number of computer terminals and study spaces which can

accommodate a maximum of 20 students. The Panel learned that most of the library resources

are provided online through the NYIT Connect portal. This consists primarily of access to on-

line journal databases. The Panel heard of plans to relocate the library to new and larger

premises within a new campus extension. The Panel noted that NYIT-Bahrain has not yet

developed formal mechanisms for assessing user satisfaction.

There is only one librarian who, in addition to her work as librarian, also works as a Personal

Assistant to the Associate Campus Dean and was found to be listed as an ‘administrative

assistant’ in the HR roster. The Panel noted that the library does not have a specified budget or

a strategic acquisitions plan. An annual budget needs to be allocated for library acquisitions

and a strategic acquisitions plan needs to be developed in consultation with the Deans.

Recommendation 38

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain continue to improve its

resources, including the library resources, to cater for the current and projected growth in

student numbers.


Recommendation 39

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain appoint an appropriately

qualified librarian.

10. Research

NYIT-Bahrain appears to be an institution that is devoid of any research strategy and doing the

minimum to comply with local and professional licensing and accreditation requirements.

There is no institutional research plan or clear targets for research. Although some faculty

members were active in research as evidenced by their resumés and annual reports, the

institution did not provide the Panel with a comprehensive report about faculty research

outputs. The SER mentions that there are ongoing discussions between faculty and

management to develop an institutional research plan. A number of research centres are being

planned at NYIT-Bahrain to support the research effort of faculty. However all are currently at

the proposal or pre-planning stage. A faculty member has recently been appointed as Head of

the Research Centre to comply with HEC requirements.

Recommendation 40

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop an institutional

research plan with clear KPIs and provide appropriate resources to support this core function.

NYIT-Bahrain has no specific budget earmarked for research activities at the local level.

Funding for research comes from NYIT-New York’s centralised budget, which is managed from

New York. The Panel heard that some faculty have already benefited from conference grants

through this source, though no compiled list of the number of grants awarded was provided so

the Panel was not able to form a judgment in this regard.

A new faculty summer research and creativity grant programme (GFSRC) has been made

available recently for which some faculty members from NYIT-Bahrain have submitted

applications. The total budget of US $20,000 (to be divided amongst the entire NYIT global

network) suggests that there will be limited support if any for faculty from NYIT-Bahrain. The

Panel encourages NYIT-Bahrain to request that NYIT increase the funds made available

through the GFSRC, to earmark a quota of that fund for NYIT-Bahrain, and to evaluate


proposals and inform recipients as early as possible in the Spring semester to enable them to

make timely summer plans.

The policy on Intellectual Property (IP) included in the SER as part of the supporting material is

merely a description of what IP is and cannot be considered as a proper policy for IP. However,

a more detailed policy was included as part of the policy and procedures manual. The NYIT

faculty did not seem to be aware of such a policy although many said that as professionals they

understood the concept of IP well.

Recommendation 41

HERU recommends that the policy on Intellectual Property at New York Institute of Technology-

Bahrain be integrated into the faculty handbook and made available to faculty at all times.

11. Community engagement

NYIT-Bahrain directors and faculty contribute to community engagement through participation

in societal debates organised by private and public organisations in the Kingdom of Bahrain.

While the efforts of the individuals involved are appreciated by the Panel, the institution needs

to consider formalising these activities. There are important opportunities for NYIT-Bahrain to

expand its work considerably in this regard.

While the Panel heard a number of examples of community engagement in terms of ad hoc

workshops and industry visits, they were less assured that there is a shared understanding of

community engagement, despite the reference to ‘commitment to service’ in NYIT-Bahrain’s

mission. There needs to be a shared understanding of NYIT-Bahrain‘s conceptualisation of the

‘community’ and what form of engagement with this community will take place. In particular,

NYIT-Bahrain will need to consider the curriculum implications of its community engagement

choices.

Recommendation 42

HERU recommends that New York Institute of Technology-Bahrain develop a clear conceptual

framework for community engagement as well as policies, procedures and resources for staff and

students to develop and participate in community engagement activities.


12. Conclusion

NYIT-Bahrain has yet to establish its identity as an institution of higher education in Bahrain. It

has still to ground itself fully in the academic project.

NYIT-Bahrain needs to reconsider its conceptualisation of the institution in order to (i) meet the

Higher Education Council regulations and other legislative requirements of the country, (ii)

strike an appropriate balance between being a business enterprise and a provider of higher

education and within which it develops and implements an appropriate quality management

system, (iii) develop further its understanding of what it means to be a quality higher education

institution in Bahrain, (iv) develop indicators to measure progress towards achieving this goal,

and (v) in the light of the findings and in conjunction with national imperatives, develop its

vision, mission and goals.

NYIT-Bahrain also needs to develop and articulate its approach to teaching and learning in a

comprehensive academic plan which will stem from its mission and will enable consistent and

robust teaching underpinned by research across the faculties and support the academic success

of students. This, together with the need for an allocation of time for research, will have

implications for the workload of academic staff. Failure to give urgent attention to these matters

constitutes a major risk to the viability, status and reputation of NYIT-Bahrain.

Higher Education Review Unitmoedu.gov.bh/hec/UploadFiles/Inst-Review-En/NYITE1.pdf · 2015-07-27 · QAAET - Institutional Review Report - New York Institute of Technology- Bahrain,

Documents