The Department of Economics Development Plan has been designed to fulfill the goals set forth by the University i.e. to become a National Polytechnic University vis-à-vis the Ten Pillars Reform Agenda, more particularly on Pillar 2: Responsive and Innovative Curricula and Instruction, Pillar 5: Empowered Faculty Members and Employees, Pillar 6: Vigorous Research Production and Utilization, Pillar 7: Global Academic Standards and Excellence, Pillar 8: Synergistic, Productive, Strategic Networks and Partnerships, and Pillar 10: Sustainable Social Development Programs and Projects. Shown below is the first page of the 2020-2024 DE Development Plan. Shown below is the first page of the 2020-2024 M.S. Economics Development Plan.
Embedded Files
Shown below was the Development Plan of the Department during the administration of Pres. Emanuel De Guzman which focused on its Eight-Point Agenda, more particularly on Agenda 1: Pursuing academic excellence and disciplinal integrity; Agenda 2; Embedding a culture of research; Agenda 4: Modernization and Upgrading of Physical Facilities, Equipment, Library, and Community Development; Agenda 5: Reconceptualization of Academic Freedom; and Agenda 6: Institutionalizing Civil Society Engagement and Involved Extension Service Program.
In line with the University’s plan and projects, the following are some of the processes used in the Department’s level.
CURRICULUM REVISION
CURRICULUM REVISION
The Master of Science in Economics program was based on CHED Memorandum Order No. 15. A systematic procedure was followed in the curriculum revision. Firstly, the program curriculum was developed based on the curricular development guidelines released by the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs (OVPAA) after which the Program Curriculum Evaluation Committee (PCEC), chaired by the Program Chairperson, and composed of experts in the discipline, practitioners from business and industry, alumni, faculty, and senior students convened and revised the curriculum. Next, the Program CEC reviewed and evaluated the curriculum based on the objectives of the University Curriculum Evaluation Committee (UCEC), headed by the OVPAA. Furthermore, benchmarking was done through a survey that was conducted by the Department of Economics to compare the existing curriculum with the updated CHED thrusts, policies, and standards, as well as with those institutions recognized as COE/COD, vis-a-vis PRC rules and policies, AACCUP curricular standards, and the professional organizations’ curricular guidelines.
At the graduate school level, the Graduate School Curriculum Evaluation Committee (GSCEC), chaired by the Dean of the GS, reviewed and improved (if needed) the proposed curriculum submitted by the PCED and endorsed it to the UCEC for further review and approval.
The University Curriculum Evaluation Committee (UCEC) reviewed and further enhanced the proposed revised curriculum submitted by the CCEC and recommended the same to the University Academic Council for another review and ultimately its approval.
Program Curriculum Evaluation Committee
Graduate School Curriculum Evaluation Committee
Lastly, the University Academic Council finally reviewed and approved the proposed revised curriculum submitted by the UCEC. On September 30, 2020, the Master of Arts in Economics was Renamed into Master of Science in Economics and the curriculum was also revised and it was approved by the Board of Regents on its 160th regular meeting.
Process Flowchart for Curriculum Revision
Process Flowchart for Curriculum Revision
SYLLABI PREPARATION
SYLLABI PREPARATION
After the revision of the curriculum, the syllabi in the different subjects in economics were revised and updated to make them more sensitive to the needs of industry and the government.
The Office of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs monitor changes and directives from CHED such as CHED Memorandum Orders, then disseminate the new directives to all college deans. The Dean disseminates all the directives/information to the Chairpersons.
To ensure the effective performance of the faculty in the formulation of the syllabus, a preliminary meeting was called by the Program Chair to discuss new subjects that required the preparation of a syllabus as well as of subjects where syllabi need revisions. The Program Chair then consulted the faculty as to their subject preferences, field of specialization, and interest as well as their teaching performance to be able to identify the faculty who is best qualified to prepare the required syllabus.
After assigning each of the faculty with the preparation of a specific syllabus, a copy of the general format for the syllabus was distributed to them. The faculty was given at least three to four weeks to prepare the syllabus, after which, another meeting was set for syllabus presentation and critiquing. Also, stakeholders were invited for consultation.
Once the faculty members have drafted their course syllabi, these were submitted to the chairperson for further evaluation and presentation to the committee. The course syllabi if not approved by the committee, were returned to the assigned faculty for further revisions. After a thorough evaluation and critiquing, the faculty affixed their signatures on the original copy of the syllabus to manifest their approval.
The approved syllabi were then be forwarded to the Dean through proper transmittal.
Compilation of the Outcomes-Based Syllabi
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse