manual for conducting programme accreditationmqa.gov.mv/static/uploads/manual-for-conducting... ·...

MANUAL FOR CONDUCTING

PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION

MQA

Maldives Qualifications AuthorityMinistry of Education

Republic of Maldives

2017

Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 2

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3

1.1 Programme and Programme Accreditation ................................................................ 3

2. Standard Operating Procedures for Conducting Programme

Accreditation ........................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 Purpose: ..................................................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Scope: .......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Responsibility: ......................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Procedures: ............................................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Related Documents: .............................................................................................................. 7

2.6 Definition of Terms: .............................................................................................................. 7

2.7 Stages of Programme Accreditation ............................................................................... 8

2.8 Flowchart for Programme Accreditation Process .................................................... 9

3. Conducting Self-Evaluation: Step by step procedure ................................. 10

3.1 Guiding Principles ............................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Steps in conducting self-evaluation ............................................................................. 11

Step 1: Formation of the Programme Self Evaluation Working Group ......................... 11

Step 2: Developing a Self-evaluation Plan ................................................................................. 12

Step 3: Conducting the Self-evaluation Exercise and Data Collection ........................... 12

Step 4: Analyzing the data and writing the Self-evaluation Report ............................... 14

4. Conducting External Review: Step by step procedures ............................. 16

4.1 Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 16

4.2 Steps in conducting External review ........................................................................... 16

Step 1: Selection and Appointment of Review Panel Members ....................................... 16

Step 2: Initial Meeting of the Review Panel .............................................................................. 18

Step 3: Pre Site-Visit ........................................................................................................................... 19

Step 4: Site-visit ................................................................................................................................... 19

Step 5: Review Panel Report and sharing with the HEI ...................................................... 20

Step 6: Finalisation of Report and Submitting to MQA ........................................................ 20

5. Criteria for Programme Accreditation and Self-Evaluation Questions 21

Criterion 1 – Programme Objectives, Content and Learning Outcome ......................... 21

Criterion 2 – Design and Management of the programme ................................................. 22

Criterion 3 – Staffing and Quality of Staff .................................................................................. 24

Criterion 4 – Internal Quality Assurance ................................................................................... 24

Criterion 5 – Teaching, Learning and Research ...................................................................... 25

Criterion 6 – Facilities and Resources ........................................................................................ 26

Annex 1: Self-Evaluation Assessment Form ........................................................... 28

Annex 2: Template for SWOT Analysis ..................................................................... 38

Annex 3: Template for Site-Visit for MQA Programme Accreditation .......... 39


1. Introduction

The Maldives Qualifications Authority (MQA) Board has endorsed a set of Guidelines

for Programme Accreditation in 2016. This manual is intended to assist both the staff

of higher education institutions (HEIs) and MQA involved in programme

accreditation respectively. The objective is to facilitate the process of implementing

the Guidelines for Programme Accreditation. The manual includes the following;

i. Standard Operating Procedures for Programme Accreditation (SOPs)

ii. Flowchart for implementing the process of Programme Accreditation

iii. Procedures for Programme Self-evaluation to be conducted by the HEI,

iv. Procedures for External Review,

v. Application for Programme Accreditation.

1.1 Programme and Programme Accreditation

A P og a e as defi ed Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA),

UK is;

A app o ed ou se of stud hi h p o ides a ohe e t lea i g e pe ie e a d o all leads to a ualifi atio .

Another widely used definition of p og a e is provided by UNESCO-CEPES.

According to them, a programme is:

A o e, odula o po e t of higher education including all the activities

(design, organization, management, as well as the process of teaching,

learning and research) carried out in a certain field and leading to an

academic qualification. Study programmes are established by higher

education institutions or organizations and may differ by level of academic

ualifi atio Ba helo , Maste , Do to ate ; stud ode full‐ti e, pa t‐ti e, distance learning, etc.); and field of knowledge specialization, in accordance

with academic and professional division of la ou .

There are variations in the definition of this term as provided by other quality

assurance agencies and accrediting bodies in other jurisdictions. The student

learning experience highlighted in the definitions include all aspects of input to the

programme (for example, programme design and curriculum), as well as the

programme delivery process (for example, teaching, learning and assessment).

Programme accreditation as defi ed i the idel efe ed A al ti Qualit Glossa Ha e , L., 2004-2016)

1 is a process that

1 Harvey, L., 2004-16, Analytic Quality Glossary, Quality Research

International, http://www.qualityresearchinternational.com/glossary/


esta lishes the a ade i sta di g of the p og a e o the a ilit of the programme to produce graduates with professional competence to practice

For the purpose of MQA, Programme Accreditation is a process whereby

programmes initially approved by MQA to be offered and awarded by a HEI in

Maldives are quality assured by the MQA against a set of nationally accepted

standards.

Programme accreditation assists to advise and give feedback to institutions on the

maintenance of the academic standards and the quality of their programmes. It gives

a greater recognition and respect in relation to academic discipline specific

benchmarks and/or requirements of professions. This in turn can enable

benchmarking of our programmes against international standards thereby

facilitating mutual recognition of qualifications across various countries.


2.7 Stages of Programme Accreditation

In short, Programme Accreditation goes through the following five stages. These

stages are:

A detailed flow chart identifying the major processes involved are provided in the

following page.

1. Invitation for Programme Accreditation

(by MQA)

2. Conduct Self Evaluation and submit SER

(by HEI)

3. Conduct site visit, submit report

(by External Review Panel)

4. Decide on accreditation

(by MQA)

5. Communicate MQA decision to HEI /Follow up

(by MQA)


2.8 Flowchart for Programme Accreditation Process

NO

YES

MQA decide

on

accreditation

Panel

conduct

site visit

Full Accreditation

Conditional

Accreditation

Deny Accreditation

After 50% fee payment,

appoint Review Panel,

confirm names with HEI

Panel prepare draft

Report & share main

findings with HEI

Appeal

MQA Organise

site visit

Follow Up Action Plan

HEI submit

application with

SER

MQA

review

application

MQA

initiate PA cycle

Application

Complete?

Request for more

information or HEI asked to

complete and re-submit

Liaison staff check for any

ambiguities, etc... &

submit report to

Accreditation Committee

Panel finalise & submit

report to MQA with

recommendations

Acknowledge receipt,

appoint a Liaison staff

and advice about fee

Correspondence

between HEI & MQA

Consultation


3. Conducting Self-Evaluation: Step by step procedure

MQA s p og a e a editatio is ased o the i stitutio s self-evaluation. The

self-evaluation of self-review of the programme is generally regarded as an

important and useful component of quality assurance in higher education. The

exercise provides MQA and the external review panel with the core information

required for accreditation. At the same time, it also leads to improvements in

academic processes irrespective of the programme or institution or MQA s e te al processes.

3.1 Guiding Principles

In order to conduct an effective self-evaluation, certain basic principles must be

adhered to. The following is a selected list of key principles that are particularly

relevant in most of the countries.

i. Improvement and enhancement of quality: This is the main aim of self-

evaluation. Hence, it should not be used to assess individuals or blame

someone. Nor should it be used for punishment or reward.

ii. Institutional leadership is essential: The success and usefulness of the self-

evaluation is critically dependent on the support given by top management

of the institution to the process.

iii. Wider participation of the academic community: As self-evaluation is a

collective activity, preparing the whole organisation for self-evaluation is

essential. Hence, it would be necessary to sensitize and engage wider group

of staff members, and students and other relevant stakeholders for this

exercise.

iv. Constituting a panel for the task is important: All relevant units should be

involved in this panel which serves as a working group. The working group is

in charge of the self-evaluation, gathering data, analyzing material and

drawing conclusions. An academic staff member should be assigned to

coordinate the self-evaluation exercise. It is very important that the

coordinator has good rapport and contacts within the whole institution, with

the management as well as with the academic and administrative staff.

v. Evidence based data collection: The panel must carefully collect data to

provide objective evidence or physical proof to support the facts and

observations. Objective evidence could be essentially any documented

statement, policies, rules and regulations, other information or record, either

quantitative or qualitative, that establishes a fact or a conclusion which can

be verified.


3.2 Steps in conducting self-evaluation

Self-evaluation should never be the work of one single person. While there is more

than one way of undertaking a self- evaluation, the following four steps are

recommended to follow to conduct this exercise in an organised manner.

Step 1: Formation of the Programme Self Evaluation Working Group

It is recommended that a working group that is in charge of the self-evaluation

process is set up. This group should comprise of people in charge of the programme,

academic and administrative staff as well as students. In principle, it is highly

recommended that all staff assigned to the programme department as well as

related staff who teach modules for the department, and other relevant academic

units of the institution should be involved in some way during the evaluation

process.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Institution or Dean of the respective Faculty is

responsible for the appointment of the panel. The following is suggested as

members for a Programme Self-Evaluation Working Group:

Head of the respective Department as Chair and Facilitator

respective Programme Coordinator who is a subject/discipline specialist

one or two senior officers of the institutions (one of whom may be the Head

of the Teaching and Learning Committee/Head of Quality Assurance Unit /or

his/her nominee);

a senior academic staff member from another Faculty/Department in the

institution;

a senior staff member from the administration;

Step 4

Analyzing the data and writing SE Report

Step 3

Conducting the SE/Collecting data/evidence for SE

Step 2

Developing the Self-evaluation Plan (SEP)

Step1

Formation of the Self Evaluation Working Group (SEWG)


a student

an external member/s: one or more external consultants or representative

from a professional group who have the appropriate academic expertise and

experience in the discipline concerned.

The primary task of the Working Group is to develop a self-evaluation plan,

undertake the self-evaluation exercise and write up the Self-evaluation Report (SER).

Those appointed as Panel members should be knowledgeable to have the

u de sta di g of the i stitutio s a d/o depa t e tal ope atio s.

Step 2: Developing a Self-evaluation Plan

The Wo ki g G oup s most important first task is to plan the self-evaluation process.

The plan should both meet the needs of the programme under review and satisfies

the requirements of external review that MQA will conduct at a later stage. The

following steps could be considered by Working Group when developing a self-

evaluation plan:

Determine the objectives and scope of the self-evaluation process;

Identify existing course /programme review and planning processes;

Find out ways to either integrate or adopt existing processes into the self-

evaluation exercise;

Formulate and implement panel structures;

Establish the self-evaluation timetable for implementation;

Specify the data that must be gathered and analyzed with respect to each

criterion;

Propose the evaluation methodologies to be used to gather and analyze data;

Familiarise with the suggested outline of the Self-evaluation Report;

Establish a meeting schedule and reporting mechanisms, and writing

responsibilities.

Step 3: Conducting the Self-evaluation Exercise and Data Collection

The self-evaluation panel as a whole will be responsible for conducting the self-

evaluation of a given programme and writing up the report. Self-evaluation should

never be undertaken by a single person. The topics that have to be considered in the

self-evaluation should be distributed among the committee members and each

member made responsible for collecting information, and for analysing and

evaluating the situation. The following 6 criteria form the dimensions to consider in

the self-evaluation under programme accreditation.


Once a clear timetable is prepared those responsible to various tasks of the

evaluation will commence the respective activities within the

department/Faculty/institution. Interviews can be planned and data collection from

the key people identified can also commence. Understandably the way the exercise

will proceed will vary according to the size and character of the Faculty/Department

and the scope and nature of the programme.

Regular and adequate level of communication among the Panel members will be

crucial in effectively undertaking the self-evaluation task.

The self-evaluation is expected to take up to 4 months. Ample time is needed to

involve staff, students, and alumni, and other stakeholders. Time should also be built

in to collect data, conduct any necessary internal reviews, analyse and synthesize all

information, and prepare the final report.

Such a period of scrutiny will allow for assessment of overall performance in the

delivery of the programme. An assessment can also be made on whether or not

objectives of the programme have been met. It also allows an institution to show

how feedback gathered on performance has been used to progressively adapt and

revise programme objectives, and delivery of the programme.

The Working Group should undertake an objective and honest analysis of the

situation and should go beyond presenting strengths and weaknesses only. The

should present suggestions and ideas for further developing and improving the

programme.

Programme Accreditation

Criteria

Programme Objectives,

Content and Learning Outcomes

Staffing and Quality of

Staff

Design & Management

of the Programme

Internal Quality

Assurance

Teaching, Learning & Research

Facilities & Resources


The draft results should be discussed among a wider audience than the Panel itself.

It is not necessary to have consensus concerning the report; it is, however, necessary

for as many people as possible within the Faculty /Department to be aware of its

contents.

Step 4: Analyzing the data and writing the Self-evaluation Report

The self-evaluation report (SER) is a crucial element in the review process. It

constitutes the finalisation of the whole self-evaluation process, which is equally

important as the report itself. The self-evaluation report is the major document that

the review panel is using in its work. Hence, it must provide a clear description of the

critical analysis of the situation in the design, development and delivery of a given

programme.

The self-evaluation report in this manner would not only be a document in the

context of the external review, but it would allow for it being used as an internal

working document and guide. It could lead to enhancement activities within the

institution.

It is expected that the self-evaluation consists of an introductory part that provides

general information about the programme in the context of the higher education

institution. It should furthermore address each MQA criterion separately. The self-

evaluation report should conclude with a summary of the findings and proposed

actions.

The self-evaluation report should be as concise as possible whilst containing all

essential information. Important documents that outline specific issues in more

detail and/or provide documentary evidence should be annexed to the report and

referred to in the main body of the text.

Format of the Programme SER

A suggested format for the SER is presented below.

Section I: Introduction

This section should include the following:

Brief description of how and when the self-evaluation was carried out.

Brief description of HEI and the Faculty/Department responsible for the

Programme

Brief description of the programme and its main features


Section II:

This section presents an analytical account of the programme against each of the

following criteria:

i. Criterion 1: Programme Objectives, Content and Learning Outcomes

ii. Criterion 2: Design and Management of the programme

iii. Criterion 3: Staffing and Quality of Staff

iv. Criterion 4: Internal Quality Assurance

v. Criterion 5: Teaching, Learning and Research

vi. Criterion 6: Facilities and Resources

The degree of compliance with the criteria must be stated under each criterion.

In addition, a summary of the strengths, weaknesses and /or areas in need of

improvement must be given.

Section III:

This section presents a summary of the key findings and proposed actions. In

addition, the proposed actions or plan for quality improvement must be included.

It is important to keep the SER as concise as possible, whilst containing all essential

information. Important documents that outline specific issues in more detail, and/or

provide documentary evidence, should be annexed to the report and referred to in

the main body of the text.

The Self-Evaluation Assessment Form, in Annex 1, is designed to facilitate the self-

evaluation process and the development of the SER.

The final report submitted should be reviewed in terms of its readability, clarity and

comprehensiveness.


4. Conducting External Review: Step by step procedures

4.1 Purpose

The External Review by an Expert Panel is an integral part of Programme

Accreditation undertaken by MQA. External review takes place after the submission

of the self-evaluation report by the HEI to MQA. It is the responsibility of MQA to

appoint a Review Panel and guide the panel to conduct the process in a transparent

and credible manner.

The purpose of external review is twofold: (i) undertake a verification of the self-

evaluation report, and (ii) to provide an independent assessment on the programme.

External Reviewers will be provided with the self-evaluation report submitted by the

HEI.

4.2 Steps in conducting External review

The External Review conducted by the Review Panel is expected to follow the

following six steps.

Step 1: Selection and Appointment of Review Panel Members

The external review panel members are selected and appointed from a pool of

reviewers that MQA maintains. The pool consists of both national and international

reviewers. Selection of External Review Panel members for Programme

Accreditation and Institutional (Quality) Audit will be based on the following criteria.

Step1 •Selection and Appointment of Review Panel Members

Step 2 •Initial Meeting of the Review Panel

Step 3 •Pre site-visit

Step 4 •Site-visit

Step 5 •Review Panel Report /Sharing with HEI

Step 6

•Finalization of Review Panel Report & Submiting to MQA


I. Higher Education and Training qualification

• Notable scholar/academic from the respective discipline with appropriate

credentials (at least Masters qualification);

• Knowledge and understanding of the Maldivian higher education and training

sector and its broader context;

• Knowledge of quality assurance policy, processes, methods and

terminologies;

II. Experience and Professional Expertise

• Experience in curriculum design and delivery in higher education including

teaching experience in higher education and training sector; (at least 2-3

years of relevant experience)

• Experience of undertaking quality reviews (audit, assessment, accreditation,

etc.) in educational, professional or industrial settings;

• Experience in research and scholarly activities or professional practice in a

relevant field in combination with academic activity;

• Institutional leadership or management experience in higher education

sector;

• Commitment to the principles of quality and quality assurance in higher

education;

• Experience in programme /subject reviews, accreditation and /or academic

audit processes;

• Ability to understand and assess information provided by HEIs in an objective

and impartial manner that is sensitive to the particular context in which

programmes and services have risen;

• Demonstrated expertise in the analysis and interpretation of data in forming

and validating conclusions.

III. Personal Qualities

• Integrity and Discretion;

• Commitment and diligence;

• High standards of ethical behavior in dealing with sensitive and/or

confidential matters.

• Reliability in meeting commitments;

• Ability to communicate effectively;

• Willingness and ability to commit for site visits;

• Demonstrated ability (and experience) to work cooperatively in a team.

Since reviewers will be working in teams, each individual panel member would not

be expected to possess all the expertise, experience, and personal qualities

identified above; but collectively the panel should possess all the qualities and

attributes.

MQA shall organise regular selection processes for new reviewers to become

members of the pool. Ensuring the objectivity of the reviewers is vital to maintain

the integrity of external quality assurance work of MQA. Therefore, specific


measures are taken to prevent possible conflicts of interest. Reviewers must have

sufficient distance from the HEI to enable them to make an objective and unbiased

assessment of the programme at a given HEI. Hence, reviewers cannot have an

affiliation with the programme under review.

Reviewers have to sign a declaration of non-conflict-of-interest and a statement of

non-disclosure of information. MQA appoints the reviewers, using several criteria,

including gender balance and a mix between more experienced and new reviewers.

One of the External Review Panel members will be invited by MQA to serve as the

Chair of the Panel.

Step 2: Initial Meeting of the Review Panel

The initial meeting of the Review Panel members will be arranged by MQA. This first

meeting will be chaired by a senior staff member of MQA. The purpose of this

meeting is to formally introduce all members to each other and to formally handover

the task of external review to the panel who have prior to the meeting agreed to

participate in this exercise.

Tasks assigned to the Review Panel include the following:

(i) Examine the self-evaluation report and supporting evidences from the HEI

(ii) Collect additional information, as needed

(iii) Confirm the validity of conclusions given in the SER (if appropriate)

(iv) Identify additional strengths and recommendations for quality improvement

(v) Prepare a report with recommendations for programme accreditation.

Administrative arrangements of signing of the Non-Disclosure Statement, the

Declaration of the Non-conflict of Interest and the Panel Member Contract will also

be undertaken during this meeting. Once these documents are signed, the

Programme Self-evaluation Report from the respective HEI will be handed over to

the panel members, followed by a brief discussion on the process of external review.

From then onwards, the Chair will be handed over to the newly appointed Chair of

the Review Panel. The meeting will then proceed to discuss the administrative

details on how to carry out the review and to delegate roles and responsibilities to

individual members. Members will also agree on a timeline to complete the review

including subsequent meetings of panel members. MQA liaison staff will facilitate

meetings, if necessary. The liaison staff shall maintain contact with the HEI and

provide or arrange for advice and assistance as required.


Step 3: Pre Site-Visit

Prior to a site visit, it is highly advisable for panel members to consider the following.

Familiarise themselves with the content of the programme SER.

Familiarise themselves with the criteria of programme accreditation and self-

evaluation

‘ead a d u de sta d the i stitutio s issio , st ategi goals, poli ies a d its quality assurance procedures in addition to the specific information in the

SER.

Familiarise with the claims and supporting evidences which the panel has

responsibility to verify.

If necessary, contact MQA to obtain additional information or material.

Identify any aspects that may require more in-depth review during site visit.

Prepare comments about these matters and possible questions that might be

asked.

Identify additional information or documents to request as additional

e ide e elati g to the i stitutio s self-study conclusions.

Prepare possible questions to ask students, staff or administrators, and

identify sources of evidence to supplement what has already been provided.

Plan the visit to the HEI. Take up any administrative (travel/financial, if any)

matters with MQA through the liaison Officer assigned to the panel.

Prepare a schedule for the visit and communicate with the HEI.

Step 4: Site-visit

An essential element of the external review and accreditation process is the site-

visit. The principal purposes of the site-visit are two-fold.

(i) to validate institutional claims of the programme to be accredited,

and

(ii) to advise on informed decision with respect to final accreditation of

that programme.

The site visit for a programme review would normally take between three and five

days depending on the size and complexity of the institution and/or the programme

concerned. For some small institutions, this may take even less time. During the site

visit, the review panel is expected to undertake the following:

examine and verify (to the extent possi le the lai s i the i stitutio s self-

evaluation of the programme;

review with the institutions specific concerns arising from the review of the

programme and /or specific modules;

review any concerns raised from respective programme advisory committees

in reviews undertaken prior to the visit; and

gather any additional evidence necessary to their work.


A template for the schedule of a site-visit is attached as Annex 2 in the Guidelines for

Programme Accreditation. This sample is for illustrative purposes only. Schedules

will vary in different institutions and based on differing circumstances.

The visit of the review panel should conclude with a final meeting with the

Respective Dean of the institution and senior staff responsible for the respective

programme. This is not an open meeting to all staff. Participation will be by

invitation from the respective Dean or Head.

During this meeting the review panel makes a brief presentation outlining their main

findings including strengths and weaknesses identified based on the review. This is

also an opportunity to make highly critical comments that may sometime be left out

in the written report. The institution can point out any obvious errors of facts or

misinterpretations at this meeting. The panel however, will not discuss the

recommendations regarding accreditation that they will make in the final report to

MQA.

A draft report will be shared with the institution at a later date.

Step 5: Review Panel Report and sharing with the HEI

On the basis of the self-evaluation report and the site-visit, the review panel will

ite its epo t usi g MQA s te plate fo site-visit report, which is to be found as

Annex 1 in the Guidelines for Programme Accreditation.

The report will draw on information from the programme self-evaluation report and

other information provided by the institution prior to the review, and the notes

taken by the panel members during the review and the discussions held.

The comments and conclusions should represent the opinions of the panel members

after reviewing the evidence provided by the institution and their own investigations

in the review. The opinions should be supported by evidence. No comments or

opinions should be expressed on individuals.

An important aspect of the report is the e ifi atio of the i stitutio s judgments of

the quality of matters considered in its self-evaluation. In addition, confirmation of

those judgments must be made or suggested variations should be included.

Step 6: Finalisation of Report and Submitting to MQA

This is the final step of the work of the Review Panel. A meeting should be organised

of the Panel members to carefully go through the report, bring any acceptable

changes from the institution, and prepare the final report for submission to MQA.

The final report should include a recommendation on the decision by the MQA to

accredit the programme or otherwise, indicating the reasons for its

recommendation. The panel report shall be written in a manner that it is easy for an


outside person to understand. The report needs to be evidence-based and include

appropriate information about all the MQA criteria for programme accreditation.

The final RPR should be signed by all members of the Review Panel.

The final report is owned by the MQA and responsibility for it rests with the

Authority. It may be made a public document as and when the MQA Governing

Boards decides to do so.

5. Criteria for Programme Accreditation and Self-Evaluation Questions

(for use by HEI and External Review Panels)

There are six criteria through which programmes are assessed for accreditation.

They are:

- Criterion 1: Programme objectives, Content and Learning Outcomes

- Criterion 2: Design and Management of the Programme

- Criterion 3: Staffing and Quality of Staff

- Criterion 4: Internal Quality Assurance

- Criterion 5: Teaching, Learning and Research

- Criterion 6: Facilities and Resources

The explanation about each of this criterion is given in Guidelines for Programme

Accreditation.

This section provides a set of questions that the working group as well as the

External Review Panel could ask during their respective work in programme

accreditation process. The questions are followed by a set of evidences to collect

under each of the criterion.

Criterion 1 – Programme Objectives, Content and Learning Outcome

Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask

1. Do we have a clear description of the programme with clearly defined goals

and objectives of the programme?

2. Is the description, goals and objectives of the programme known to all

respective staff and students? How are these made known to the staff and

students?

3. Is the programme is designed in a structured and coherent way in order to

reach the goals and objectives of the programme?

4. Do the goals and objectives of the programme conform to the requirements

of the MNQF?


5. Does the structure of the curriculum and assignment of credits to

modules/subjects and study programme as a whole align with the MNQF

guidelines?

6. How do the content, structure, volume and didactical design of the

curriculum and the modules correspond to professional requirements in the

discipline and labour market needs? Are they also are suitable to attain the

intended learning outcomes?

7. How was the labour market needs and expectations determined during the

development of the programme? Are these needs still valid? How have they

changed? Does the labour market have any specific requirements for

graduates of this programme?

8. Are the intended learning outcomes are clearly defined? Do they correspond

adequately to the requirements of the MNQF?

9. How do the expected learning outcomes fit the mission of our institution?

10. To what extent do we think the objectives of this programme have been

realised?

Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request:

Programme development documents with programme evaluation policies

and procedures;

Credit accumulation and transfer policy and procedure;

Minutes of respective Faculty Management Committee/Academic Board.

List of internal programme reviews for last 3 years, if available.

Sample of a programme review report, including follow-up action

Criterion 2 – Design and Management of the programme


1. Is the programme designed, approved, monitored and reviewed according to

clear policies and regulations?

2. Is the credit system appropriately used and applied? The programme

establishes the student workload in a manner that ensures that students can

complete the programme within the established timeframe.

3. Has there been any structural changes after the commencement of teaching

of this programme?

4. Is the programme managed effectively on the basis of clearly defined

responsibilities and tasks, including accountability measures?

5. Does the department or academic unit in which the programme is located

have an effective committee structure or system responsible for the

management of the programme? Does the committee or system have clear


a d effe ti e epo ti g li es ith the I stitutio s ide a ade i o ittee system?

6. Is the information about our programme publicly provided, including

essential information about learning outcomes, credits, admission,

progression and completion?

7. What bottlenecks were experienced within the programme? How were they

addressed?

8. Was student admission undertaken according to transparent and clear

criteria that are publicly available and consistently applied? The admission

criteria also specify the possibilities for the recognition of prior learning,

including guidelines for advanced standing.

9. Is the teaching provided by other departments /part-time staff satisfactory?

10. Are there sufficient, and appropriately qualified and experienced,

administrative staff to support effectively the management of the

programme?

11. If the programme is delivered in multiple locations and/or through multiple

modes of delivery, are there appropriate managerial, academic,

administrative and ICT resources and expertise to effectively manage the

programme across these locations and different delivery modes, and to

ensure consistency in the delivery of the programme?


Programme management structure (chart or organogram) with the persons

responsible.

Policy and procedures on curriculum and module /unit design.

Minutes of meetings of respective curriculum design committees.

Programme evaluation tools /instruments used internally within the HEI.

Needs analysis and market survey data with respect to the Programme.

Programme, module/subject specifications or standards prescribed by

respective professional bodies /Councils

Academic Board approved guidelines for programme design and

management.

Minutes of Faculty Advisory Committee /Committee on Courses /Academic

Board.

HEI Handbook/Catalogue (in print form or on website)


Criterion 3 – Staffing and Quality of Staff


1. Is the number of academic staff involved in the programme adequate?

2. Are the academic staff involved in the programme appropriately qualified as

outlined in the course approval guidelines and sufficiently experienced?

3. Are academic staff regularly appraised using transparent and published

criteria that also take account of the student evaluations?

4. Is the management of the programme assisted by sufficient support through

qualified administrative staff?

5. Is there sufficient number of competent staff for the library? Computer

facilities? Laboratories? Student Services? Finance and Administration?

6. Do the staff have the possibility to take advantage of professional

development offerings?

7. What difficulties are there in attracting and/or retaining qualified academic

and support staff?

Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request

HEI policy and procedures for staff recruitment.

HEI policy on staffing/human resource (e.g. student-staff ratio with respect to

the discipline)

Qualification profile of those who teach in the programme

Performance appraisal policy, records, forms.

Records of staff development activities conducted.

Procedures for assessing staff training needs

Peer observation forms

Workload allocation policy

Minutes of staff meetings.

Criterion 4 – Internal Quality Assurance


1. How is the quality assurance of the programme is embedded into the

institutional quality assurance system?

2. Are the quality assurance processes for the programme managed with clear

responsibilities?

3. How involved is the management, academic and other staff as well as

students involved in the quality assurance of the programme?


4. Does our quality assurance system for this programme cover all areas of

relevance, including teaching and learning, administration, management,

facilities, resources and support services?

5. How do the quality assurance activities provide for information and data that

are analytically assessed in order to support the management and

improvement of the programme?

6. Is this programme subject to a self-evaluation process on a periodic basis?

7. Do students regularly evaluate the programme and their learning

environment?

8. Does our department /Faculty conduct student valuations regularly and in a

structured manner?

9. What is done with the outcomes of student evaluations? Are the evaluation

outcomes used for the improvement of the programme? If so, how? If not,

why not? What challenges are there in bringing about improvements?

10. Is the stated internal QA policy and associated procedures communicated to

all relevant staff? If so, how is this communicated?


HEI s i te nal QA policy and procedures.

Policy and strategies for continuous enhancement of quality.

Minutes of meetings to review aspects of quality.

Student evaluation of teaching survey forms and analysis report of such

surveys?

Student/ Staff satisfaction surveys/ and respective analysis reports.

Criterion 5 – Teaching, Learning and Research


1. Is there an explicit concept of teaching-learning articulated for this

programme? If so, what is that? What are its strengths?

2. Are the instructional methods used satisfactory?

3. Are the teaching and learning activities designed so that the intended

learning outcomes can best be achieved?

4. Is there sufficient variety in the teaching and learning methods/activities

employed in this programme?

5. Are the assessment methods suitable to evaluate whether the learning

outcomes have been obtained?

6. How is the progression of students regulated, including provisions about

withdrawal and academic misconduct?

7. How significant is the practical training included in the programme?


8. Does the p og a e ha e p o edu es i pla e to e su e that stude ts completion requirements are fulfilled?

9. Do the students receive their certificates in a timely manner after

completion?

10. Do the research components contained in the programme adequately

correspond to the type and level of the programme and the character of the

higher education institution?

11. What mechanisms are in place for ensuring compliance with ethical

standards for the research carried out in the programme?

12. Are adequate and sufficient facilities and equipment for the research

components of the programme available for students and staff?

13. Is the level of training for research skills adequate for the objectives of this

programmes?

14. Does our department /Faculty (or our Institution) have adequate computer

hardware and software for teaching and research purposes?

15. Do we have adequate supervision arrangements available for research

students? Are our research supervisors sufficiently qualified and

experienced? What difficulties do we face in recruiting research supervisors?


Teaching learning plans for the programme.

Records of teaching staff attendance and delivery of lectures/

tutorials/p a ti al s, et . ‘a ge of sa ples of stude ts po tfolios, assig e ts, a ti ities, othe

creative work.

Training programmes on student-centred teaching / records on active

learning for programme staff.

Student evaluation/satisfaction surveys.

Analysis of utilization of library, on-line resources, computer laboratories,

language labs, etc.

Schedule of research

Sample CVs of research supervisors

Criterion 6 – Facilities and Resources


1. Have we ensured the necessary physical space as well as equipment and

other learning resources for the programme?

2. Are there enough classrooms, lecture halls, tutorial/seminar rooms,

laboratories, computer rooms, discussion/reading rooms, etc.?

3. Do our facilities meet the requirements of the programme?


4. Is our library adequately resourced and equipped for this programme?

5. Are our laboratory facilities, consumables and support staff sufficient?

6. Do we have sufficient amount and properly working audio-visual teaching

aids?

7. To what extent do the physical facilities, infrastructure and other resources

hinder or promote the smooth running of the programme?

8. Do we have enough well maintained computers? Are the computer

programmes and software appropriate for the needs of this programme?

9. Is the budget for this programme sufficient? How is the financial

sustainability for the delivery of the programme ensured? Does the budget

allocation demonstrate the financial viability and sustainability of the

programme?

10. Are there clear budgetary and procurement procedures to ensure resources

are sufficient for the programme to achieve its aims and objectives and to

maintain programme quality.

11. Is the financial management of the programme regularly reviewed for

effectiveness?


HEI Annual Budget Estimates / budget allocations for respective programme.

List of library services available for students /library training schedule.

Minutes of Library Committee meetings.

Usage of ICT-based tools.

Availability of resources in different campuses / Facilities for sports and other

extra-curricular activities.

“tude ts feed a k fo s a d epo ts a out fa ilities a d esou es.


Annex 1: Self-Evaluation Assessment Form

The purpose of the form provided in this Annex is to facilitate the programme

related Self-Evaluation process by providing a systematic approach to follow in

evaluating each respective criterion. When writing the Self-Evaluation Report (SER),

it is expected that the respective HEI will produce tables of similar format, while

allowing more space for detailed description and analysis of each criterion.

Tables are provided in this Annex for each criterion below.

Criterion 1: Programme objectives, Content and Learning Outcomes

Criterion 2: Design and Management of the Programme

Criterion 3: Staffing and Quality of Staff

Criterion 4: Internal Quality Assurance

Criterion 5: Teaching, Learning and Research

Criterion 6: Facilities and Resources

Each table consists of the following columns:

Column 1 - Questions; includes questions that inquire about specific aspects of the

respective criterion.

Column 2 - to a k Excellent , in relation to each question/s. “ele t E elle t if the aspect asked in the respective question has been addressed exceptionally well or

by your institution.

Column 3 - to a k Yes , i elatio to ea h uestio /s. “ele t Yes if the aspe t asked in the respective question has been addressed well by your institution. This

Column 4 - to a k So e hat , i elatio to ea h uestio /s. “ele t “o e hat if the aspect asked in the question has been achieved partially by your institution.

Column 5 - to mark No , i elatio to ea h uestio /s. “ele t No if the aspe t asked in the question is not addressed by your institution

Column 6 - to provide comments related to each question/s. Include comments

related to the question asked. This could include plans made related to the aspect

asked in the questions.

Suggested data/evidences are provided at the bottom of each table. Data/evidences

could be both quantitative (statistical) or qualitative (e.g. policies, procedures,

systems, institutional statements and plans). The HEI is requested to include

available data and evidences, under each criterion, in a separate appendix attached

to the Self-Evaluation Report.

Once a self-assessment is completed using the questions given below, a SWOT

analysis is recommended for each Criterion separately for the respective programme

(See Annex 2).


Based on the assessment of E elle t , Yes , “o e hat a d No u de ea h Criteria, and the results of the SWOT analysis, a through overall evaluation of the

criteria must be presented. This assessment must state the degree of compliance

with the criteria.


Criterion 1: Programme objectives, Content and Learning Outcomes


Programme development documents with programme evaluation policies and

procedures;

Credit accumulation and transfer policy and procedure;

Minutes of respective Faculty Management Committee/Academic Board.

List of internal programme reviews for last 3 years, if available.

Sample of a programme review report, including follow-up action

Question Excellent Yes Somewhat No Remarks /Improvements suggested (if relevant)

1. Do we have a clear description of the programme with clearly defined goals and objectives of the programme?

2. Is the description, goals and objectives of the programme known to all respective staff and students? How are these made known to the staff and students?

3. Is the programme designed in a structured and coherent way in order to reach the goals and objectives of the programme?

4. Do the goals and objectives of the programme conform to the requirements of the MNQF?

5. Does the structure of the curriculum and assignment of credits to modules/subjects and study programme as a whole align with the MNQF guidelines?

6. How do the content, structure, volume and didactical design of the curriculum and the modules correspond to professional requirements in the discipline and labour market needs? Are they also suitable to attain the intended learning outcomes?

7. How was the labour market needs and expectations determined during the development of the programme? Are these needs still valid? How have they changed? Does the labour market have any specific require

8. Are the intended learning outcomes are clearly defined? Do they correspond adequately to the requirements of the MNQF?

9. How do the expected learning outcomes fit the mission of our institution?

10. To what extent do we think the objectives of this programme have been realised?


Criterion 2: Design and Management of the Programme

Question Excellent

Yes Somewhat No Remarks /Improvements suggested (if relevant)

1. Is the programme designed, approved, monitored and reviewed according to clear policies and regulations?

2. Is the credit system appropriately used and applied?

3. Does the programme establish the student workload in a manner that ensures that students can complete the programme within the established timeframe?

4. Has there been any structural changes after the commencement of teaching of this programme?

5. Is the programme managed effectively on the basis of clearly defined responsibilities and tasks, including accountability measures?

6. Does the department or academic unit in which the programme is located have an effective committee structure or system responsible for the management of the programme?

7. Does the committee or system have clear and effective reporting lines with the Institution’s wider academic committee system?

8. Is the information about our programme publicly provided, including essential information about learning outcomes, credits, admission, progression and completion?

9. What bottlenecks were experienced within the programme? How were they addressed?

10. Was student admission undertaken according to transparent and clear criteria that are publicly available and consistently applied?

11. Does the admission criteria also specify the possibilities for the recognition of prior learning, including guidelines for advanced standing?

12. Is the teaching provided by other departments /part-time staff satisfactory?

13. Are there sufficient, and appropriately qualified and experienced, administrative staff to support effectively the management of the programme?

14. If the programme is delivered in multiple locations and/or through multiple modes of delivery, are there appropriate managerial, academic, administrative and ICT resources and expertise to effectively manage the programme across these locations and different delivery modes, and to ensure consistency in the delivery of the programme?


Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request under

Criterion 2:

Programme management structure (chart or organogram) with the persons

responsible.

Policy and procedures on curriculum and module /unit design.

Minutes of meetings of respective curriculum design committees.

Programme evaluation tools /instruments used internally within the HEI.

Needs analysis and market survey data with respect to the Programme.

Programme, module/subject specifications or standards prescribed by respective

professional bodies /Councils

Academic Board approved guidelines for programme design and management.

Minutes of Faculty Advisory Committee /Committee on Courses /Academic Board.

HEI Handbook/Catalogue (in print form or on website)


Criterion 3: Staffing and Quality of Staff


Criterion 3

HEI policy and procedures for staff recruitment.

HEI policy on staffing/human resource (e.g. student-staff ratio with respect to the

discipline)

Qualification profile of those who teach in the programme

Performance appraisal policy, records, forms.

Records of staff development activities conducted.

Procedures for assessing staff training needs

Peer observation forms

Workload allocation policy

Minutes of staff meetings.

Question Excellent


1. Is the number of academic staff involved in

the programme adequate?

2. Are the academic staff involved in the

programme appropriately qualified as

outlined in the course approval guidelines

and sufficiently experienced?

3. Are academic staff regularly appraised using

transparent and published criteria that also

take account of the student evaluations?

4. Is the management of the programme

assisted by sufficient support through

qualified administrative staff?

5. Is there sufficient number of competent staff

for the library? Computer facilities?

Laboratories? Student Services? Finance and

Administration?

6. Do the staff have the possibility to take

advantage of professional development

offerings?

7. What difficulties are there in attracting

and/or retaining qualified academic and

support staff?


Criterion 4: Internal Quality Assurance


Criterion 4

HEI s i te al QA poli a d p o edu es. Policy and strategies for continuous enhancement of quality.

Minutes of meetings to review aspects of quality.

Student evaluation of teaching survey forms and analysis report of such surveys?

Student/ Staff satisfaction surveys/ and respective analysis reports.

Question Excellent


1. How is the quality assurance of the programme

is embedded into the institutional quality

assurance system?

2. Are the quality assurance processes for the

programme managed with clear

responsibilities?

3. How involved is the management, academic

and other staff as well as students involved in

the quality assurance of the programme?

4. Does our quality assurance system for this

programme cover all areas of relevance,

including teaching and learning,

administration, management, facilities,

resources and support services?

5. How do the quality assurance activities provide

for information and data that are analytically

assessed in order to support the management

and improvement of the programme?

6. Is this programme subject to a self-evaluation

process on a periodic basis?

7. Do students regularly evaluate the programme

and their learning environment?

8. Does our department /Faculty conduct student

valuations regularly and in a structured

manner?


Criterions 5: Teaching, Learning and Research

Question Excellent


1. Is there an explicit concept of teaching-

learning articulated for this programme? If so,

what is that? What are its strengths?

2. Are the instructional methods used

satisfactory?

3. Are the teaching and learning activities

designed so that the intended learning

outcomes can best be achieved?

4. Is there sufficient variety in the teaching and

learning methods/activities employed in this

programme?

5. Are the assessment methods suitable to

evaluate whether the learning outcomes have

been obtained?

6. How is the progression of students regulated,

including provisions about withdrawal and

academic misconduct?

7. How significant is the practical training

included in the programme?

8. Does the programme have procedures in place

to e su e that stude ts o pletio requirements are fulfilled?

9. Do the students receive their certificates in a

timely manner after completion?

10. Do the research components contained in the

programme adequately correspond to the type

and level of the programme and the character

of the higher education institution?

11. What mechanisms are in place for ensuring

compliance with ethical standards for the

research carried out in the programme?

12. Are adequate and sufficient facilities and

equipment for the research components of the

programme available for students and staff?

13. Is the level of training for research skills

adequate for the objectives of this

programmes?

14. Does our department /Faculty (or our

Institution) have adequate computer hardware

and software for teaching and research

purposes?

15. Do we have adequate supervision

arrangements available for research students?

16. Are our research supervisors sufficiently

qualified and experienced? What difficulties do

we face in recruiting research supervisors?



Criterion 5

Teaching learning plans for the programme.

Records of teaching staff attendance and delivery of lectures/ tutorials/p a ti al s, etc.

‘a ge of sa ples of stude ts po tfolios, assig e ts, a ti ities, othe eati e work.

Training programmes on student-centred teaching / records on active learning for

programme staff.

Student evaluation/satisfaction surveys.

Analysis of utilization of library, on-line resources, computer laboratories, language

labs, etc.

Schedule of research

Sample CVs of research supervisors.


Criterion 6: Facilities and Resources


Criterion 6

HEI Annual Budget Estimates / budget allocations for respective programme.

List of library services available for students /library training schedule.

Minutes of Library Committee meetings.

Usage of ICT-based tools.

Availability of resources in different campuses / Facilities for sports and other extra-

curricular activities.

“tude ts feed a k fo s a d epo ts a out fa ilities a d esou es.

Questions Excell

ent

Yes Somewhat No Remarks

/Improvements

suggested (if

relevant)

1. Have we ensured the necessary physical space

as well as equipment and other learning

resources for the programme?

2. Are there enough classrooms, lecture halls,

tutorial/seminar rooms, laboratories,

computer rooms, discussion/reading rooms,

etc.?

3. Do our facilities meet the requirements of the

programme?

4. Is our library adequately resourced and

equipped for this programme?

5. Are our laboratory facilities, consumables and

support staff sufficient?

6. Do we have sufficient amount and properly

working audio-visual teaching aids?

7. To what extent do the physical facilities,

infrastructure and other resources hinder or

promote the smooth running of the

programme?

8. Do we have enough well maintained

computers? Are the computer programmes

and software appropriate for the needs of this

programme?

9. Is the budget for this programme sufficient?

How is the financial sustainability for the

delivery of the programme ensured?

10. Does the budget allocation demonstrate the

financial viability and sustainability of the

programme?

11. Are there clear budgetary and procurement

procedures to ensure resources are sufficient

for the programme to achieve its aims and

objectives and to maintain programme quality.

12. Is the financial management of the programme

regularly reviewed for effectiveness?


Annex 2: A Template for SWOT Analysis

Criterion Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats Overall

Comments

1. Programme

objectives,

Content

and

Learning

Outcomes

2. Design and

Manageme

nt of the

Programme

3. Staffing and

Quality of

Staff

4. Internal

Quality

Assurance

5. Teaching,

Learning

and

Research

6. Facilities

and

Resources

Overall

Comments


Annex 3: Template for Site-Visit for MQA Programme Accreditation

Name of Institution:

Date of the Visit:

Review Panel Visit Schedule

Name of the Institution

Session Time Participants Names Activity Location

0

Review Panel members Reception and Preparation

Panel working

room

1 Review Panel members

Programme Co-ordinator

Discussion of objectives, design

and managerial aspects of the

study programme

Interview room

2

Review Panel members

Academic staff

Discussion of teaching and

learning (and research, if

applicable) aspects of the study

programme

Interview room

3

Review Panel members

Administrative staff

Discussion of the administrative

and support aspects for the

study programme

Interview room

Review Panel members Lunch break

To be arranged

by institution


Students

Discussion of all relevant

aspects Interview room


Course Co-ordinator Tour of facilities Campus


Employer representatives

Discussion of aspects related to

the experience of employers

with graduates and the

Interview room


e plo e s o t i utio to the programme


Graduates

Discussion of aspects relating to

the g aduates e pe ie e ith the study programme

Interview room

8 Review Panel Discussion of findings and

report writing

Panel working

room

9

Review Panel

Course Co-ordinator

Other representatives of the

programme

Presentation of findings to the

programme representatives

To be arranged

by institution