forskning.ruc.dk · web viewdoubt about standards and quality of institutions, programmes, courses...

1

Report of the African Quality Rating Mechanism (AQRM) Institutional

Review Visit to

https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.cancerartforce.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/eu.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.cancerartforce.eu/&docid=sX2qodbhHXjRRM&tbnid=25MfbK1Fo8PLeM:&vet=1&w=400&h=271&authuser=0&client=gmail&bih=529&biw=994&ved=0ahUKEwiI8-by-YXWAhXE7RQKHUmIAe0QxiAIGygD&iact=c&ictx=1

2

Nkwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi,

GhanaThursday, 22 to Friday, 23 June, 2017

Review Team

Professor Jonathan Mba (Administrative)[email protected] & Academic PlanningAssociation of African Universities (AAU)Accra, Ghana

Professor Henrik Toft Jensen(Member)[email protected] Vice ChancellorRoskilde Universitet, Bygning 024000 Roskilde, Denmark

Professor Olugbemiro Jegede (Leader)[email protected] Secretary-General, AAUEmeritus Professor National Open University of Nigeria

mailto:[email protected]



3

Jonathan Mba Henrik Jensen Olugbemiro Jegede1.0 Introduction & Background

1.1 Cognisant of the strategic role higher education can and should play in the transformational development of Africa, the African Union Commission (AUC) has decided to focus on the realisation of the Addis Ababa Convention, intra African academic mobility of staff and students of institutions of higher learning and the harmonisation of qualifications for mutual recognition across Member States.

1.2 Central to the effective and efficient realization of the above projects is the need to assure quality of the total academic environment of all the Institutions of higher learning in Africa to ensure comparability and seamless movement across the regions of Africa without any shade of doubt about standards and quality of institutions, programmes, courses and indeed products.

1.3 The AUC, in spearheading the development of an instrument, African Quality Rating mechanism (AQRM) for the sole purpose of institutional self evaluation and the cultivation of institutional quality culture, collaborated with the Association of African Universities (AAU) in the implementation of this laudable project. AAU, regarded as the is the African Union voice

4

in higher education in Africa is the apex organization and forum for consultation, exchange of information and co-operation among institutions of higher education in Africa.

1.4 Beginning with a pilot self-rating exercise conducted in 32 institutions in 2010, several iterations of the draft instrument and a validation exercise in 2014 carried out by a team of external validators in Nine (9) institutions of higher learning spread across the five geographical regions of the continent. The expert reports, identified institutional strengths, areas of concerns and made recommendations for future consideration of the projects.

1.5 The final version of the instrument contained 49 specific indicators (Governance and Management; Infrastructure; Finances; Teaching and Learning; Research, Publication & Innovation; and Societal Engagement) for institutional quality review and 35 indicators (Programme Planning and Management; Curriculum Development; Teaching and Learning; Assessment; and Programme Results) for programme level review.

1.6 Based on the outcomes of the Pan African Quality Assurance and Accreditation Framework (PAQAF) Validation Workshop in July 2015 and the recommendations of at the 7th International Conference and Workshops on Quality Assurance in Higher Education in Africa held in Abuja in September 2015 two major decisions emerged. They are to:

1.6.1 Domesticate and vigorously implement the AQRM by African countries, and

1.6.2 African universities should adopt AQRM as a key instrument to assess and improve quality in higher education and, for African institutions of higher learning to own AQRM and use it as ‘a means of supporting continuous quality improvement and for enhancing

5

internal quality assurance systems towards the development of institutional cultures of quality’.

1.7 The current evaluation of review mission is a means towards the realisation of the decisions stated in 1.6 above.

1.8 With the committed support of the European Union through the generous availability of human and funding resources, the African Union Commission and the AAU planned for the current round of the Review visit to initiate the uptake and ownership of the AQRM through the participation of 15 self-selected Universities across the five regions including both public and private universities.

1.9 The Review visit to the 15 self-selected Universities was preceded by a Technical Meeting held in Accra, Ghana from 28 to 29 March, 2017 to prepare for the AQRM institutional evaluation.

1.10 The Technical Meeting was attended by three major groups: the African QA Experts (nominated by the AAU), the European QA Experts (courtesy of the EU, DAAD, University of Barcelona, EUA and ENQA) and the representatives of the 15 participating universities. The two-day meeting was essentially used to review the current status of QA globally, continentally and locally; to review the AQRM tool, discuss the role of the participation of the Universities and the QA experts; provide an avenue for the members of the Expert Teams to get to know themselves and plan with the various universities they have been assigned to visit including negotiating the appropriate and convenient time to visit their assigned university; and discuss the logistical and administrative outlays for the visits.

6

1.11 The Review Team to each University comprised of An African Expert, a European Expert and an AAU staff for the administrative and logistical arrangements.

1.12 The Review team to Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (NKUST) comprised of Professor Olugbemiro Jegede (Leader), Professor Henrik Jensen and Professor Jonathan Mba (Admin & Logistics).

2.0 Terms of Reference

2.1 The main tasks to be undertaken by each Review Team at their assigned universities are crafted into Terms of Reference (TOR) as follows:

2.1.1 Carefully read and analyse the AQRM questionnaires and self-rating of two universities that have participated in the AQRM survey.

2.1.1.1 Discuss with institution’s QA officers for more clarifications.

2.1.2 Make a tour of the university’s campus to inspect buildings, facilities and look over the overall environment.

2.1.3 Visit classrooms, laboratories, libraries, computer centres to inspect learning facilities and evaluate the quality of infrastructure and material resources. Inspection of facilities includes:

7

2.1.3.1 Library and ICT facilities2.1.3.2 Laboratories and workshops2.1.3.3 Lecture halls, classrooms, and staff offices2.1.3.4 Student support services

2.1.4 Evaluate the quality of students support services and the overall academic staff profile (qualifications and rank).

2.1.5 Inspect relevant documents, as appropriate.

2.1.6 Hold meetings with senior management, academic staff and students to get more insight into the university situation.

2.1.6.1 Courtesy call to the Vice Chancellor and discussion with University Senior management

2.1.6.2 Meeting with group of students2.1.6.3 Meeting with group of Academic staff.

2.1.7 Evaluate internal quality assurance processes of the university. The evaluation will take into account the AQRM survey questionnaires responses

2.1.8 Based on findings, validate the self-rating of the university and assign an overall Quality Rating to the institution.

2.1.9 Provide recommendations on modalities and approaches for improving quality of the university’s education provision.

8

2.1.9.1 Oral feedback to the University management on general outcome of the AQRM assessment

2.1.10 The Quality Experts will be required to produce and submit electronic copies of the Evaluation Report.

3.0 The Report

3.1 This is a report of the Review Visit by the Review Team to the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana carried out on the Thursday, 22 June and Friday, 23 June, 2017.

3.2 Travel dates were 20/21 June for arrivals and 25 June for departures.

3.3 The University has, in addition to the institutional level review, chosen to present The Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (FPPS), one of the six and oldest of the Faculties/Schools of the College of Health Sciences as its flag ship for programme evaluation.

3.4 Specifically, the PharmD Programme, a brand new programme at the University’s Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences is being offered for the programme review.

4.0 University Overview

9

4.1 The Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST) began as the Kumasi College of Technology in 1951, and gained the University status in 1961. The university has since then undergone major changes, including the adoption of the Collegiate system that gave birth to all Faculties being grouped six colleges: Agriculture & Natural Resources, Architecture & Planning, Art & Social Sciences, Engineering, Health Science, and the College of Science.

4.2 KNUST has its roots in the plans of the King Asantehene Agyeman Prempeh I to establish a university in Kumasi as part of his drive towards modernisation of his Ashanti kingdom. This plan never came to fruition due to the clash between British empire expansion and the desire for King Prempeh I to preserve his Ashanti kingdom's independence. However, in 1949, the dream of the Prempehs became a reality when building started on what was to be called the Kumasi College of Technology. The Chancellor of the University is the revered traditional ruler, His Royal majesty of Ashanti.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prempeh_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prempeh_I

10

The Impressive Palace of the Asantehene

4.3 KNUST is the second public university established in the country and currently ranked the best in Ghana & West Africa by the www.webometrics.info university ranking.

4.4 KNUST is a non-profit public higher education institution located in the urban setting of Kumasi in the region of Ashanti that has one of the most respected traditional rulers in the West African sub region. Apart from the main campus, the institution has other campuses including Sunyani, Accra.

4.5 Officially accredited and recognised by the National Accreditation Board of Ghana, KNUST is a large co-educational higher education institution with a current population of 41, 100. Twenty Five (25) per cent of the student population is between the age range of 18 to 25 years and it has about 8,600 international students (4,100 undergraduates, 4,500 post

11

graduates). It offers courses and programs leading to degrees such as pre-bachelor degrees (i.e. certificates, diplomas, and associate or foundation degrees), bachelor degrees, master degrees, doctorate degrees in several areas of study.

4.6 KNUST has a total of 1, 021 academic staff (male 847, Female 174), 50% of the academic staff have Ph.D and about 6% are at the full professorial cadre.

4.7 KNUST also provides several academic and non-academic facilities and services to students including a library, housing, sport facilities and/or activities, financial aids and/or scholarships, study abroad and exchange programs, online courses and distance learning opportunities, as well as administrative services.

4.8 The University runs a governance and management system similar to most government-funded universities. It has a Governing Council, an Academic Board (Senate) and several committees of Council and Academic Board. The University has several policies in place in the running of the institution ranging from Research to Sexual harassment. But it is yet to institute a policy on Partnership with Industry and Gender Issues.

4.9 KNUST attracts from the international world, on the average, about Fifteen million dollars Seventeen million dollars (US$14M) annually for research purposes. This current year, the university has reported receiving over Seventeen million dollars (US$ 17.45M) as research grants for 126 projects.

4.10 Based on eleven criteria which include Programme Planning & Management, Teaching & Learning and External Recognition, KNUST in a

12

recent internal self-ranking exercise, has listed the following as the best three Departments/ subject areas in the University:

4.10.1 1st – Doctor of Pharmacy (PharmD)4.10.2 2nd – B.Sc Engineering4.10.3 3rd – B.Sc Agriculture

4.11 The University has a proud record of very high profile Alumni which include 4.11.1 His Excellency, Kofi Anan, former Secretary General of the United

Nations;4.12

5.0 The Review Visit 5.1 The meeting commenced with a meeting of the Experts at 5pm on

Wednesday, 21 June, 2017. At the meeting, the following issues were discussed as (i) reinforcement of the visit plan, (ii) clarification of the AQRM Survey Questionnaire submitted through the Quality Assurance and Planning Unit headed by Associate Professor Christian Agyare, and (iii) review of the already circulated schedule of the Review Team’s visit to the University reconciling the suggested programme of visit by the AAU, the plan as agreed by the Experts and the prevailing situation at the university on our arrival that would impact on our plan. For example, the several convocation ceremonies of graduate nurses at the university spanning almost a week affected some parts of the programme especially our inability to meet with the Vice Chancellor on the first day of our Visit.

5.2 At the Expert Review meeting a whole range of issues were discussed in line with 5.1 above. These included the following:

13

5.2.1 The objectives of the visit5.2.2 Questions for the University for clarification purposes5.2.3 Part-time as defined by the university and what is meant by parallel

programmes5.2.4 Organisation of capacity building and its integration into the

teaching and learning process of the university.5.2.5 A report of excellent linkages with industry and yet no policy on the

matter5.2.6 Lack of patents arising from the high volume of research in the

university.5.2.7 Clarification on the comparatively small number of community

outreach programmes in relation to the huge research grant available to the university.

5.2.8 Lack of policy on Quality Assurance at the university and the limited human resources at the QA unit.

5.3 The Review Visit used as a guide the following programme the experts had already agreed to and reviewed at their pre-visit meeting.

5.4 Programme of Visit:

African Quality Rating Mechanism (AQRM) Institutional Review Visitto

Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi

Wednesday, 21 to Saturday, 24 June, 2017Team Members:

14

Professor Jonathan Mba (AAU) - [email protected] Henrik Toft Jensen - [email protected] Olugbemiro Jegede (Leader) - [email protected]

Suggested Procedures, Processes and Schedules of the Visit of the Review Team

Tuesday, 20 June, 2017

1755hr Arrival of Professor Henrik Toft Jensen

Wednesday, 21 June, 2017

1330hr Arrival in Kumasi by Professor Jegede and Professor Mba

1500hr Arrival at the hotel

1700hr Expert Meeting Pre the commencement of the Review Visit.

Schedule of the Activities of the visit of the Review Team

Thursday, 22 June, 2017

0900hr Courtesy Call to the Vice Chancellor and a brief discussion with the University Principal Officers and Senior Management

0930hr A general tour (a drive through) of the University campus to appreciate the land space, master plan, built up areas, location of various units, staff quarters, students’ hostels and facilities.

15

1130hr Health Break/Lunch

1230hr Inspection visits to specific facilities, infrastructure and material resources:

1230hr Library and ICT facilities1310hr Laboratories and Workshops1350hr Lecture halls, classrooms and staff offices1420hr Student support services

1500hr Meeting with a select group of academic staff representing all cadres of the ranks, years at the university, and qualifications).

1600hr A private meeting by the Review Team to appraise the day’s activities and of the next day’s plan.

1730hr Dinner and any further discussion amongst Team members

Friday, 23 June, 2017

0900hr Brief and introductory Meeting with the Dean of the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (FPPS) and the Heads of the six Departments.

Head, Quality Assurance & Planning Unit (VC’s Office) in attendance.

0930hr Meeting with a select group of academic staff of the Faculty.

1000hr A guided tour of the Faulty and its six constituent Departments including selected facilities (e.g. Laboratories, Workshops, Library, Lecture halls, Classrooms, Tutorial rooms, etc)

1200hr Meeting with a group of students (a mixture of students from the FPPS and other programmes in the University; not more than 50 students).

16

1300hr Health Break/Lunch

1400hr A private meeting by the Review Team to discuss the Review Visit and Report writing using:

Using the self-rating questionnaire completed by the Institution and Faculty as provided

Opinions based on tours of the University Meetings with staff and students All documents provided by the University

1700hr Exit courtesy call with Vice Chancellor and University Management to provide oral feedback on general outcome of the AQRM Review Visit.

1800hr Close

Saturday, 24 June, 2017

Depart Kumasi

17

6.0 Review Visit – Modus Operandi6.1 The Visit commenced at 9:00am with a meeting at the KNUST Quality

Assurance Unit (Head: Associate Professor Christian Agyare and Mr. Paul Addo) and Prof Ampadu, Chair of the QA Documentation Committee.

6.2 Some of the issues which resulted from this meeting included:6.2.1 The QA Representatives from each of the Six Colleges of the

University provided the ranking for each item which was debated and adopted or modified by the whole group.

6.2.2 While staff did most of the work on the ranking of the items, students input into the overall status of the university in many areas.

6.2.3 The most challenging issues fingered included the need to have more postgraduate students and stem the 30 to 40 per cent attrition rate, increase in the research activities by staff, and the need to ensure patenting as an integral part of each research project.

6.2.4 The very high staff/student ratio was noticed.

6.3 At 10:13am we met with the University wide Quality Committee chaired by Prof Ampadu. This Central Committee is made up of Representatives (Chairs) of the various sub-committees in the Schools and Colleges. Issues discussed included:6.3.1 The AQRM visit is designed for self-improvement and not a ranking

or fault-finding instrument.6.3.2 The AQRM Team was visiting at the consent and invitation of the

University.6.3.3 Members were quite proud of the several points that make them

proud of being a part of, and which have stood the University in good stead as a quality university. These are:6.3.3.1 its unique and professional programmes6.3.3.2 Green campus

18

6.3.3.3 Students achievements6.3.3.4 Output of graduands6.3.3.5 Collegiate system began at KNUST6.3.3.6 All Pharmacists in Ghana are trained in KNUST6.3.3.7 Assessment of lecturers by their students as part of the

evaluation of teaching and learning by the University6.3.3.8 Realisation of the vision of the founding fathers of the

University to provide Science and Technology capacity for Ghana.

6.3.4 Some of the issues the Committee members were a bit uncomfortable with are insufficient funding to run the university, power outage, insufficient number of academic staff, limited space for staff and not enough facilities for lecturers.

7.0 Tours & Visits7.1 We had a general tour of the Campus and stopped and inspected facilities

and equipment which included the following:7.1.1 The University Library7.1.2 The Distance Learning Services7.1.3 The E-learning Centre7.1.4 The University Information Technology Services7.1.5 Central Research Laboratories7.1.6 The facilities at the Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical

Sciences including the Medicinal Plant Gardens7.1.7 Lecture halls7.1.8 Student Support Services7.1.9 The MasterCard Foundation

19

Central Research Laboratories

The MasterCard Foundation

20

Lecture Hall

8.0 The following are the documents we reviewed during the Expert Visit:8.1 The University of Science & Technology Kumasi Act, 1961.8.2 The University of Science and Technology Kumasi (Amendment) Law, 19908.3 The University of Science & Technology Kumasi (Amendment Act), 1998.8.4 The Statutes of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and technology,

20048.5 KNUST Corporate Strategic Plan 2016-20258.6 Students Guide8.7 Unified conditions of service for unionized staff if the Public Universities of

Ghana8.8 KNUST Performance Appraisal for Permanent Junior & Senior Staff8.9 KNUST Annual Performance Appraisal Form Senior members

(Administrative/Professional)8.10 Performance Appraisal Policy

21

8.11 KNUST Quality Assurance and Planning Unit Departmental Ranking Survey, 2017.

8.12 KNUST Quality Assurance & Planning Unit Research Institutes Survey Instrument, 2017

8.13 KNUST Awards Nomination Form8.14 KNUST Excellence Awards Guidelines8.15 First Quarterly Report of the Strategic Plan Implementation Committee.8.16 Communication – Office of the Registrar to Professor Imovo Braimoh,

Provost of the College of Humanities & Social Sciences. Appointment as Chairman, Strategic Plan Implementation Oversight Committee (Plan 2016 – 2025).

8.17 KNUST Equality and Diversity Policy8.18 Final Draft – Disability Policy for KNUST, Kumasi for Policy Review &

Harmonisation Committee, June 20148.19 KNUST Quality Assurance (draft) Policy, Quality Assurance & Planning Unit,

Oct 20148.20 KNUST Consolidated Financial Statements for the Year ended 31

December 2015 by Asamoa Bonsu & Co Chartered Accountants (with a balance of Ghana Cedis 273, 308, 594 in 2015.

8.21 The MasterCard Foundation Scholars Programme – target 700 students but currently has 300 scholars in 3 cohorts.

8.22 Students Loan Trust Fund Act, 20118.23 Various Scholarships and communication to various students (on

counselling, work/study programme, students loan, Financial Assistance).8.24 KNUST Maintenance Policy and Procedures for Building and Infrastructure8.25 Wi-Fi Data Connectivity Memorandum of Understanding between

SCANCOM Ltd and KNUST, 31 May, 20168.26 Framework Agreement Memorandum of Understanding between Ghana

Telecommunications Company Ltd and KNUST8.27 KNUST Central laboratory & Research Support at KNUST8.28 KNUST University Library

22

8.29 KNUST University Information Technology Services8.30 Various communications with KNUST community on issues as they arise

(mobile phone usage, Fire, prepaid metering project, unlicensed driving on campus, etc).

9.0 Review Visit to the Faculty of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences

9.1 As mentioned in section 3.3 and 3.4 above, the University chose to present the Faculty of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences for the Programmatic level review essentially because it is the oldest faculty, well known for its quality graduates, its services and the fact that as mentioned in Section 4.10, it was ranked the best Faculty/subject areas in the University. The faculty has also begun an innovative programme of PharmD which is a great departure from its B.Sc Pharmacy.

9.2 The Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences (FPPS), is one of the six Faculties/Schools of the College of Health Sciences, KNUST. Established in 1953, it is the oldest School in the country and among the oldest in the sub-region. In addition to the Pharmacy programme, the Faculty offers a BSc. degree in Herbal Medicine. It has six departments all of which also offer postgraduate programmes leading to higher degrees (MSc, MPhil, PhD) in disciplines like Pharmacognosy, General Pharmaceutics, Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Pharmacology, Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Chemistry and Drug Analysis and Quality Control.

9.3 In the 2016/17 academic year, the FPPS had; a teaching staff strength of 51 (46 with terminal degrees and the other 5 at advanced stages of their PhDs), a student population of 1250, and a significant number of technical, administrative and other support staff. We now also have about the largest combined edifice as a Faculty on campus KNUST.

23

9.4 The contemporary education in pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences provide knowledge in the physical, chemical and biological sciences and a skillful application of these to the world of humans to improve health. FPPS offers a congenial environment for teaching and learning that enables students acquire knowledge and skills to be employable or create employment. The relentless commitment of KNUST to achieve its goals led to the provision of not less than 95% of the nation’s pharmaceutical manpower needs. It has a reputation built on a long record of leadership in pharmacy education, dedication to pharmaceutical science research and the remarkable achievements of its graduates in the provision of pharmaceutical services in the country and beyond.

9.5 To respond to the emerging changes in pharmacy education and practice FPPS introduced the PharmD programme to replace the traditional BPharm in 2012. The PharmD programme is more patient-oriented, designed to equip our graduates to play effective roles as experts on medicines in the health care team. The FPPS says it has maintained, and even strengthened the teaching, learning and research in the pharmaceutical sciences as a backbone for students to understand and appreciate the mechanistic basis of drug action and disease management. This approach is also meant to adequately prepare those students who would want to pursue a career in academia and other areas of practice including the pharmaceutical industry.

9.6 The FPPS has also started a unique programme in Herbal Medicine.

9.7 We held meetings at the faculty with (i) the Dean and Staff, (ii) the Heads of Department. A representative of the stakeholders was in attendance.

9.8 The Team also visited some laboratories and other infrastructure of the Faculty. They included:9.8.1 Lecture Theatres9.8.2 Pharmacognosy Laboratories

24

9.8.3 Pharmacy Practice Centre9.8.4 Medicinal Plant Gardens9.8.5 Pharmacology Laboratories

FPPS Pharmacy Practice Centre

FPPS Pharmacy Practice Centre

25

Medicinal Plant Gardens

9.0 Meeting with Students9.1 A total of 50 students representing a cross section of the students'

population held a meeting with the Team on the second day of our visit, Friday, 23 June, 2017. The students were led by their Student Union President. All the staff of KNUST vacated the hall to allow us a free interaction with the students.

9.2 The meeting was quite exciting and interesting. A number of issues were distilled from the meeting with the students. They are:

9.2.1 They expressed satisfaction that the university focuses, in the main, on science & technology courses.

9.2.2 Some lecturers are rather scary in their lecture halls making it difficult for students to ask questions.

9.2.3 New and younger lecturers should be given more teaching roles instead of tutors

9.2.4 International students do not think they are given the same attention or facilities

9.2.5 There are very limited facilities and equipment for practical’s in pharmaceutical biotechnology

26

9.2.6 They have no access to run tests at the Central research laboratories on their own.

9.2.7 There should be a formalised way of accessing facilities at the Central Research laboratories

9.2.8 There are avenues provided to carry out the practical aspects of clinical pharmacology

9.2.9 There are insufficient working spaces for postgraduate students9.2.10Herbal medicine students feel that they should not transport

themselves to the hospital for clinical experience, it is reported that they do not have enough space/time for the clinical experience.

A cross-section of the students

10.0 Special Meeting with Dr Fathia Karim ( a recent graduate from the Medical School of KNUST)10.1 We sought to meet with Dr Fathia Karim, a recent graduate of the KNUST

medical School currently on her housemanship. Dr Karim broke the record of academic performance at KNUST by winning 12 prizes on her graduation. It was hoped that her experience could be a source of encouragement to other students and a pointer to how to study as well as what could be done to produce more high achievers as her.

27

10.2 She said that KNUST has an excellent learning environment, with few distractions and good mentoring situation at the medical school.

10.3 She opined that the lecturers are very thorough and strive to cover all the materials and great teachers especially at the clinical years.

10.4 She recommends that either the class size is reduced or enough facilities provided for all the students. She cited the example of lack of enough cadavers to go round all the students thereby denying them the hands on experience to help with training in surgery

10.5 She was of the opinion that while all the departments were very good, the most structured are Pediatrics and Obstetric and Gyneacology Departments.

Professor Jegede Professor Mba Dr Karim Professor Jensen

11.0 Meeting with the Vice Chancellor and the University Management

28

11.1 An exit meeting was held at 4:30pm on Friday, 23 June, 2017 with the Vice Chancellor, university management and members of the University Quality Assurance Committee.

Prof Mba, Prof Jensen, Prof Jegede, Prof Danso (VC), Prof VC Ansah (PVC)

11.2 The meeting was primarily to brief the VC and Management on the AQRM visit and to provide oral feedback on the general outcome of the QARM review. What the Team considered to be the major draft recommendations were discussed at the meeting.

11.3 The Vice Chancellor was very appreciative of the visit and the sincere report we gave to him and his staff. He promised to implement our recommendations once they get to his table.

29

12.0 African Quality Rating Mechanism Validation at Institutional Level

12.1 GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT Rate the Governance and Management of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)

0 = POOR 1 = INSUFFICIENT 2 = SATISFACTORY

3 = GOOD 4 = EXCELLENT

Reference Number

Standards for Quality Rating Assessment Value

KNUST AQRM TEAM

12.1.1 The institution has a clearly stated vision, mission, and values with specific goals and priorities.

4 4

12.1.2 The institution has specific strategies in place for monitoring achievement of institutional goals and identifying problem areas.

4 4

12.1.3 Clear accountability structures for responsible officers are in place.

44

12.1.4 Where appropriate, staff, students and external stakeholders are represented in governance structures. Governance structures are representative in terms of gender.

4 4

12.1.5 The institution has developed quality assurance policies and procedures.

4 3.5

12.1.6 Appropriate mechanisms are in place to evaluate staff in line with performance agreements with relevant authorities.

4 3.5

30

12.1.7 The institution has put a management information system in place to manage student and staff data, and to track student performance.

4 4

12.1.8 The institution has specific policies in place to ensure and support diversity of staff and students, in particular representation of women and the disabled.

3 2

12.1.9 The institution has a policy and standard procedures in place to ensure staff and student welfare.

4 4

Total Assessment Value 35 33

Aggregated Value = ( 35) = 3.9 9

( 33) = 3.7 9

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

Summary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement Strengths identified: - Policies have been developed in many the areas- The University has an excellent governance structure- Clearly stated vision and mission statements with ... core values- Very good management information systems for the

Areas for improvement identified: - Need to develop policies in the remaining areas: Partnership with Industry, Gender, - Effective implementation of these policies and evaluation. - Training of staff and students on the policies. - How to inform and promote the policies through training

31

Recommendations: - Enhancing capacity building- Making the policies available and accessible - Frequent review of the policies

32

12.2 INFRASTRUCTURE

Rate the Infrastructure of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point

Standard for Quality Rating Assessment Value

KNUST AQRM TEAM

12.2.1 The institution has sufficient lecturing spaces to accommodate student numbers taking the institutional mode of delivery into account.

3 3

12.2.2 The institution provides sufficient learning/studying space for students including access to electronic learning resources, as required for the institutional mode of delivery.

2 2

12.2.3 Academic and Administrative Staff have access to computer resources and the internet.

4 4

12.2.4 Students have access to computer resources and the internet at a level appropriate to the demands of the institutional mode of delivery.

3 3

12.2.5 The institution has sufficient laboratory facilities to accommodate students in science programmes, taking institutional mode of delivery into account.

3 2

33

12.2.6 Laboratory equipment is up to date and well maintained. 3 2.5

12.2.7 The institution invests in maintaining an up to date library to support academic learning and ensures that appropriate access mechanisms are available depending on the mode of delivery.

2 1

12.2.8 The institution makes provision for managing and maintaining utilities and ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place.

4 3.5

Total Assessment Value 24

Aggregated Value = 24 = 3.0 8

21 = 2.6 8

INFRASTRUCTURE

Summary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement Strengths identified: - Internet infrastructure - Excellent modern equipment for selected programmes- Excellent utilities

Areas for improvement identified: - More lecture space- Students learning space- Some other laboratories need to be upgraded with equipment Recommendations:

34

- To put in place a programme to facilitate students to own computers- Increase the space available for students- More and new equipment in teaching laboratories

12.3 FINANCE

Rate the Finance of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point

Standard for Quality Rating

Assessment Value

KNUSTAQRM TEAM

12.3.1 The institution has access to sufficient financial resources to achieve its goals in line with its budget and student unit cost.

3 3

12.3.2 The institution has procedures in place to attract funding, including from industry and the corporate sector.

3 2

12.3.3 Clearly specified budgetary procedures are in place to ensure allocation of resources reflects the vision, mission and goals of the institution.

4 4

12.3.4 The institution provides financial support to 3 2.5

35

deserving students (institutional bursaries and/or scholarships).

12.3.5 Information about financial aid and criteria for its allocation is provided to students and other stakeholders.

3 4

12.3.6 The institution publishes income and expenditure statements.

4 4

Total Assessment Value 20 20.5


19.5 = 3.3 6

FINANCE

Summary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement Strengths identified: - The University has excellent financial records - Highly qualified staff in the Finance Office

Areas for improvement identified: - Find ways of raising more money Recommendations: - Increase the support for needy students- Develop Measures to attract funding from industry

36

12.4 TEACHING AND LEARNING

Rate the Teaching and Learning of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


KNUSTAQRM TEAM

12.4.1 The institution encourages and rewards teaching and learning innovation.

4 4

12.4.2 The institution has procedures in place to support the induction to teaching, pedagogy, counseling and the upgrading of staff teaching and learning skills through continuing education and lifelong learning.

4 4

12.4.3 Students have sufficient opportunity to engage with staff members in small groups, individually or via electronic platforms.

3 3

12.4.4 Student: staff ratios and academic staff average workloads are in line with acceptable norms for the particular mode of delivery, and are such that the necessary student feedback can be provided.

3 2

12.4.5 The institution has policies/procedures in place to inform the development,

4 4

37

implementation and assessment of programmes offered by the institution and these policies take account the contribution of higher education to socio-economic development.

12.4.6 The institution has developed a policy or criteria for staff recruitment, deployment, development, succession planning and a system of mentorship and/or apprenticeship.

4 3

12.4.7 Student support services, including academic support and required counseling services are provided, in line with the institutional mode of delivery.

4 4

12.4.8 The institution has mechanisms in place to support students to become independent learners, in line with the institutional mode of delivery.

4 3

12.4.9 The institution has a devoted office to promote international cooperation and enhance Intra-Africa mobility of students and staff.

4 4



31 = 3.4 9

TEACHING AND LEARNING

Summary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

38

Strengths identified: - Well established International Office- Awards system in place for teaching, research and innovation - Policies in place for staff development progression- The university has developed teaching modules- Counselling Centre and its satellite units in the Colleges

Areas for improvement identified: - Student: Lecturer ratio to allow staff more opportunities to deal with students- Independent learning- Opportunity to relate to students in small groups

Recommendations: - Recruit more academic staff to improve the student: Lecturer ratio- Put in measures to improve teaching skills.- Improving mentorship of younger academic staff

39

12.5 RESEARCH, PUBLICATION AND INNOVATION

Rate the Research, Publication, and Innovations of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


NKUSTAQRM TEAM

12.5.1 The Institution has a research policy and publications policy, strategy and agenda. The research policy includes a focus on research supporting African socio-economic development, among others.

4 4

12.5.2 The institution has a policy and/or strategy on Innovation, Intellectual Property Ownership and Technology Foresight.

4 3

12.5.3 The institution has demonstrated success in attracting research grants from national or international sources and in partnership with industry.

4 3

12.5.4 The institution has procedures in place to support academic staff to develop and enhance their research skills, including collaborative research and

4 4

40

publication. 12.5.5 Staff and students publish

their research in accredited academic journals and apply for patents (where relevant).

4 3

15.5.6 Researchers are encouraged and supported to present their research at national and international conferences.

4 4

15.5.7 Researchers are encouraged and facilitated, using Research and Development budget, to engage in research relevant to the resolution of African problems and the creation of economic and development opportunities.

4 4

15.5.8 The institution encourages and rewards research whose results are used by society

3 2

15.5.9 The institution has a mechanism for partnership with industry, including attracting resources from industry. The institution receives requests from industry for specific research and training support.

2 2

15.5.10 The institution has established linkages to promote international joint research and publications

4 4



33 = 3.3 10

41

RESEARCH, PUBLICATIONS AND INNOVATIONSSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: - Well established office to put measures in place for the attraction of research grants from both national and international Sources (Office of Grants and Research)

Areas for improvement identified: - Increase industry engagement- Measures to attract more research funds from national and international sources Recommendations: - Establish a well coordinated office and industry partnership with competent staff who can deal with both academia and industry effectively.

42

12.6 COMMUNITY/SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT

Rate the Community/Societal Engagement of your institution on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


KNUST AQRM TEAM

12.6.1 The institution has a policy and procedure in place for engaging with the local community or society in general. The community often requests the institution for specific academic/research assistance

3 2

12.6.2 The institution encourages departments and staff to develop and implement strategies for community engagement.

4 3

12.6.3 Students are required to engage with communities through their academic work.

4 3

12.6.4 The institution has forged partnerships with other education sub-sectors to enhance the quality of education in the country and region.

4 3

12.6.5 The Institution disseminates

43

information on its community engagement activities to the local community.

3 3

12.6.6 The institution offers relevant short courses to the community/broader society based on identified needs and supporting identified economic opportunities.

3 3

12.6.7 The institution makes its facilities available (where possible) to the local community in support of community and socio-economic development activities.

4 4



21 = 3.0 7

COMMUNITY/SOCIETAL ENGAGEMENT

Summary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement Strengths identified: - good relationship and partnership with the community

Areas for improvement identified: - Formalise information delivery to the community

Recommendations: - Develop an effective way of marketing the University’s innovations, achievements and proper branding, among others.

44

12.7 RATING SUMMARY AT INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL

Rating Summary at Institutional Level Major Standard Aggregated Value

NKUST AQRM TEAM

Governance and Management 3.9 3.7

Infrastructure 3.0 2.6

Finances 3.3 3.3

Teaching and Learning 3.8 3.4

Research, Publication and Innovation 3.7 3.3

Societal Engagement 3.6 3.0

Total 21.3 19.3

Rating Score = 21.3 = 3.556 3.55 -

Rating Score = 19.3 = 3.2 6 - 3.2

Specification of Quality Rating

Rating score less than 1.0 POOR Quality Rating score between 1.0 and 1.99 INSUFFICIENT Quality Rating score between 2.0 and 2.79 SATISFACTORY Quality Rating score between 2.8 and 3.5 GOOD Quality Rating score greater than 3.5 EXCELLENT Quality

Overall quality at institutional level is rated as EXCELLENT GOOD

45

13.0 African Quality Rating Mechanism Validation at Programme level

NAME OF DEPARTMENT: Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

NAME OF PROGRAMME: PharmD

13.1 PROGRAMME PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

Rate the Programme Planning and Management on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)

0 = POOR 1 = INSUFFICIENT 2 = SATISFACTORY 3 = GOOD 4 = EXCELLENT

Reference Point


KNUST AQRM TEAM

13.1.1 The programme is aligned with the overall institutional mission and vision.

4 4

13.1.2 The programme meets national accreditation criteria. 4 4

13.1.3 The institution allocates sufficient resources to support the programme.

3 3

13.1.4 There is a programme coordinator(s) responsible for managing and ensuring quality of the programme.

4 3

13.1.5 The mode of delivery takes account of the needs and challenges of all targeted

33

46

students.

13.1.6 Staff teaching on the programme has the appropriate type and level of qualification.

44

13.1.7 The programme is regularly subjected to internal and external review in a participatory manner to reflect developments in the area of study.

4 3

13.1.8 Programme planning includes a strategy for the use of technology in a manner appropriate to the programme, facilities available, and target students.

4 3


Aggregated Value = Total Assessment Value = 3.75 8

= 3.48

PROGRAMME PLANNING AND MANAGEMENTSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: 1. Programme is well structured and aligned2. Approved by NCTE and accredited by NAB3. Strong academic staff with the requisite qualifications and rankings.4. Strong self, internal and external review of programme

Areas for improvement identified: 1. Resource allocation2. Acquisition and use of audio-visuals and other teaching aids.

Recommendations:

47

1. More funds and resources should be allocated to the programme.2. Advance the use of technology(ICT),audio-visuals and other teaching and learning aids in

the programme

13.2CURRICULUM DEVLOPMENT

Rate the Curriculum Development at programme level on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point

Standard for Quality Rating AssessmentValue

KNUST AQRM TEAM

13.2.1 The curriculum clearly specifies target learners and learning outcomes/competencies for each module/course and for the programme as a whole.

4 3

13.2.2 The curriculum is regularly updated to take account of new knowledge and learning needs to support African development.

3 3

13.2.3 Modules/courses are coherently planned and provide a sequenced learning pathway for students towards attainment of a qualification.

4 4

13.2.4 The curriculum includes an appropriate balance of theoretical, practical and experiential knowledge and skills (where applicable) as well as core and elective areas

4 4

13.2.5 The curriculum has been developed to maximize student career pathways, opportunities

3

3

48

for articulation with other relevant qualifications, and employment prospects.

13.2.6 Curriculum development has been informed by thorough research and consultation with relevant stakeholders including public sector planners, industry and other employers

4 3

13.2.7 The curriculum reflects positive African values, gender sensitivity and the needs of society.

4 3



= 3.3 7

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENTSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: 1. Curriculum developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders2. Well defined objectives and learning outcomes and how they are measured.3. A good balance of theory, practical and experiential training tailored to the health needs of Africa

Areas for improvement identified: 1. The period of review and update of programme.2. Opportunities for articulation, interaction, study and working with others health professionals.

Recommendations: 1. Reduce the time lapse required for curriculum review and update.

2. Create more common working group programmes, outreaches and training workshops with students of all other health professions

49

13.3TEACHING AND LEARNING

Rate the Teaching and Learning at programme level on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


KNUSTAQRM TEAM

13.3.1 Teaching and learning are based on explicit learning outcomes which are consistent with programme and course aims.

4 4

13.3.2 A clear strategy is in place to identify the learning materials needed to support programme delivery.

4 3

13.3.3 Learning materials have been clearly presented, include reference to the learning aims and outcomes and an indication of study time.

4 4

13.3.4 The learning materials have been designed with the purpose of engaging students both intellectually, ethically and practically.

4 3

50

13.3.5 Programme review procedures include materials review and improvement.

4 3

13.3.6 Innovative teaching and learning materials are provided for students.

4 3



= 3.3 6

TEACHING AND LEARNINGSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: 1. Adequate materials for teaching and learning are available and provided to make

teaching and learning easy and effective.2. Conducive environment for teaching and learning.3. Adequate lab space and equipment.

Areas for improvement identified: 1. Ensure consistent and timely review of learning materials.

Recommendations: 1. The learning materials for practical works should continue to be consistently

reviewed in order to be abreast with new technological advancement.

51

13.4ASSESSMENT

Rate the Assessment at programme level on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


KNUSTAQRM TEAM

13.4.1 The institution has systems in place for external examiners. 4 4

13.4.2 Clear information about mode of assessment is provided for all courses/modules making up the programme.

4 3

13.4.3 Assessment is used as an integral part of the teaching and learning process and seeks to ensure that students have mastered specific outcomes.

4 4

13.4.4 The level of challenge of assessments is appropriate to the specific programme and targeted students.

4 4

13.4.5 A variety of assessment methods are used in the programme.

4 3

13.4.6 Marking procedures ensure consistency and accuracy and the provision of feedback to

33

52

students.



= 3.50 6

ASSESSMENTSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: 1. The various modes and methods of assessment enable effective learning of the

courses in the programme.

2. The assessment methods are of international standardized

3. Well organised system of assessment by external examiners

Areas for improvement identified: 1. Consistency in marking.

2. Feedback of assessment outcomes to students.

Recommendations: 1. The assessment procedures must be clearly outlined and incorporated in the syllabus.

2. Adequate feedback on assessment needs to be provided to students and on time.

53

13.5PROGRAMME RESULTS

Rate the Programme Results on the basis of the following standards by assigning an assessment value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4)



Reference Point


KNUST AQRM TEAM

13.5.1 Student progress is monitored throughout the programme and early warning is provided for students at risk.

4 3

13.5.2 Completion rates per cohort conform to established norms for the subject area and mode of delivery and strategies to increase completion rates are in place.

4 3

13.5.3 Quality student feedback is provided. 4 3

13.5.4 Expert peers and/or professional bodies review the relevance and quality of learning achieved by students.

4 3

13.5.5 There is established linkage with potential employers that facilitate graduate employment.

4 3

13.5.6 Tracer studies of graduates and their employers are conducted to obtain feedback on achievement of graduates.

3 1

54

13.5.7 The programme has an effective research plan with suitable implementation, evaluation and feedback mechanisms.

4

2

13.5.8 Research and consultancy is undertaken in the subject area to solve industrial problems and support the social and economic development.

3 3



= 2.63 8

PROGRAMME RESULTSSummary of Strengths and Areas for Improvement

Strengths identified: 1. Qualified and experienced teaching staff.2. Conducive environment for teaching and research.3. Student progress is monitored at both department and faculty level through academic

tutors, class tutors, departments and faculty examination boards.

4. Excellent collaboration with industry and hospitals.

5. Quality student feedback through GPSA, GHEMSA and lecturer assessment forms.

6. High completion rate (95%).

7. Available Strategic Plan for the next ten (10) years.

Areas for improvement identified: 1. Lecturer/student ratio.2. Research and consultancy.3. Tracer studies.

Recommendations: 1. Lecturer/student ratio should be improved.2. More research and consultancy should be encouraged and facilitated.

55

3. Direct Tracer studies should be conducted and documented, and broadened to cover graduates abroad.

13.6RATING SUMMARY AT PROGRAMME LEVEL

Rating Summary at Programme LevelMajor Standard Aggregated Value

Programme Planning and Management

3.75 3.4

Curriculum Development 3.71 3.30

Teaching and Learning 4.00 3.33

Assessment 3.83 3.58

Programme Results 3.75 2.63

Total 19.04 16.24

Rating Score = Total Aggregated Value = 19.04

5

3.80-

Rating Score = Total Aggregated Value = 16.24 5

- 3.25

56

Specification of Quality Rating

Rating score less than 1.0 POOR Quality Rating score between 1.0 and 1.99 INSUFFICIENT Quality Rating score between 2.0 and 2.79 SATISFACTORY Quality Rating score between 2.8 and 3.5 GOOD Quality Rating score greater than 3.5 EXCELLENT Quality

Overall quality at institutional level is rated as EXCELLENT GOOD

14 Strengh:First of all we want to congratulate KNUST, we have seen a university with good results and aspirations.Concerning teaching and learning, the university have put a lot of effort in developing teaching and learning in a way where learning outcome is in focus, and the university have developed support mechanism to secure that the teachers and tutors have possibilities to learn about and develop this teaching methodology, and use problem based teaching. Not many universities in the region have done this in a systematic way.

14.1 KNUST, as an old university is very well organised and doing very well. The green campus environment, the planning and use of expanse of land is very attractive to any visitor and certainly any would-be student.

14.2 The number of international visitors to the campus for research and Partnership programmes and international students are indicative of the quality of its programmes, its output and focus on its mission and

57

vision.

14.3 The University must be commended for nominating itself for this first round of AQRM review using the finalised instrument. This makes the university to automatically become a role model for other universities in the West African sub-region and certainly in Ghana. Region.

14.4 The Vice Chancellor, the management and the entire staff of the university deserve unreserved commendation for the way and manner they seriously addressed the issue of the AQRM visit and their preparation for it which, judging from all the documentation and other materials available to us, indicated that huge outlay of time and other resources have been committed to prepare for the visit.

14.5 Recommendations:

We are more than convinced that KNUST is on the right track of building a quality culture in the institution. The Quality Assurance and Planning Unit must be congratulated for doing an excellent job of managing the whole process of getting the whole institution ready and geared up for the AQRM visit. The Unit was also at hand every time they were needed for the logistics of our visit and for other arrangements made or altered for the AQRM visit of the institution.

We have found a possibility to give some advises to the University for further Development, here are some of the most important:

58

14.6 Based on the totality of the evidence available to the Review Team and objective and painstaking observations made throughout the visit, it is our considered view that the university can benefit from a few minor details to boost their quality assurance culture in the university. We therefore make the following observations with the firm belief that their immediate and calculated implementation would be of tremendous benefit to the university. The recommendations are as follows:

14.6.1 The University Library Services need to be upgraded and modernised to reflect the expansive outlay of programmes and race by the university to become a first amongst equals in the ever growing 21st century global higher education environment. The university should consider the establishment of a virile E-library facilities to include the acquisition of E-books and other e-publications. In addition, there should be a functional linkage and working relationship between the Library and the University Information Technology Services. The library could benefit from readily available international grants that facilitate the acquisition and use of E-books.

14.6.2 The University Information Technology Services are extensive but appear under-utilized. The staff could do with continuous refresher and capacity building courses on the modern use of ITS and electronic services for staff and students, especially for research purposes.

14.6.3 The Distance Learning Services and the E-Learning Centre have huge capacity and infrastructural outlay that are also under-utilized. The two need to be integrated for efficient and effective

59

services. E-Learning is a part of distance learning. The university will benefit tremendously from a massive and professional review and streamlining of the distance learning services including turning the campus into a paperless teaching and learning environment.

14.6.4 Even if the success of developing the teaching methodology is remarkable, there is a need to follow up activities in relation to the student evaluations for some teachers, who school learn to understand, that they need to change their teaching role in the direction of tutoring. Here is a responsibility for heads of departments

14.6.5 The University’s embrace of Quality Assurance is indicative of a positive disposition of the top management of KNUST to fully integrate QA into its day-to-day working environment. To make this transition worthwhile, the University should seriously consider making the Quality Assurance & Planning Unit a co-ordinating Directorate with full complement of staff to efficiently support the The teaching staff and the department in running the QA Policy of the University.

14.6.6 The university has done well in putting in place several policies to make the administration of teaching and learning run smoothly. However, a number of policies are still in their draft stages for a while. For example, the Disability Policy and the QA Policy seem to have been forgotten in their draft mode. The latter has been available in draft since 2014 but has not been ratified for use. There is need for the University to ratify all pending policies to make them fully functional working documents, even if they at the moment function well at some departments.

60

14.6.7 The university should continue with the idea of an outreach function, where people and organisations from the surrounding communities can ask for help in investigating, developing and framing community activities.

Thise activities could be performed by students groups as a part of their study (counting points) with supervision from a teacher.

14.6.8 The link and interaction between KNUST and industry is weak, to say the least especially for a university of science and technology. There appears to be limited research collaboration with industry and therefore very little funding coming from that sector. Effort should be made and immediate steps taken to reverse this trend, as the institution, being a Science and technology university, would profoundly benefit from this symbiotic relationship between the university and industry. This could create good possibilities for staff and student for internship and practice. The relationship could also be to the befit for industries – new ideas and new views.

14.6.7 The issue of only ONE patent reported in the history of the University in spite of hundreds of research output is rather unfortunate and tremendously disturbing. It may well be that the university has not paid enough attention to or has not mastered the processes and procedures for, the issues of patent and intellectual property rights. Based on our very cursory observation in the limited time available to us during this visit, there are many patents waiting to be claimed on many of the hugely successful research activities the university has undertaken and made publications out of. Therefor the university should offer help to

61

make applications for patents and establish regulations of the distribution of befits from patents.

It is important to realise that only a few % of patents create money, but the honour is important. Beside this the university should offer help to researchers to be visible in relation to awards.

14.6.8 Some researchers have no or just a little publication activity. At the departmental level the head of department could form research groups, where there is support to this non publication active researchers helping them to publish either alone or as a group.

14.6.9 Staff recruitment and retention should meet with international standards. At the moment, the staff to student’s ratio is quite high

and will undoubtedly negatively impact on quality assurance and other tangible output from the university.

14.6.10 The university deserves more than mere commendation for the ultra modern and brand new Central Research Laboratories. There may be a need for a robust policy on its usage. Particular attention should be paid to the fee being charged for the use by students and procedures for sending students there for research activities and analyses.

14.6.11 A university as old and aging equipment that would require replacement in addition to procuring many new and modern ones for the rising population of the students. An organised method should be pursued for taking stick of such old and dilapidated

62

machines and the acquisition of new and modern ones both for the image of the university and to meet the hue and cry of the students for adequate and regular practical’s or clinical experiences as required by the courses they take. More equipment would create new possibilities for teaching and student work.

14.6.12 We again congratulate the University for its Initiative in mounting innovative programmes such as PharmD and Herbal medicine. While it is necessary to make special provision for the resources they demand, the university must go out of its way to popularise the programmes, engage the local and international communities on their advocacy, and ensure that the products are accepted into the labour market without any hitches.

14.6.13 The growing number of international students both at the undergraduate and post graduate levels demand that the university continuously put more effort into their welfare especially accommodation and other needs that would promote the university and bring in more students.

14.6.14 The Student support services are working well and we notice the establishment of the MasterCard Foundation on campus. The university may wish to explore further other useful benefits that could flow out of the Foundation to the students as incidental advantages of having such a prestigious organisation establish camp on the grounds of NKUST.

14.6.15 The university should establish a carrier advising function at college

63

level to advice the students in relation to job possibilities and to follow them after graduation. This is to help the students to use

their qualifications from the university and to get jobs. At the same time this function should help in making sure that the educations of the college are up to date. This function should also follow the employing rate of the graduated students.

14.6.16 The university may wish to take advantage of the readiness of industry to now open their doors to, and collaborate with institutions of higher learning, to establish a science park to interface with and promote the many science and technology based programmes on campus. This would further extend the need for the town and gown to meet on many fronts in order to demystify the notion of ivory towerism as propagated by many universities.

14.6.17 The University is no doubt aware of its aging population of its very senior academics, especially the professorial cadre. Perhaps a policy should be made to take care of so many implications arising of this situation. These may include, but not limited to, serious mentoring, hiring and using young and agile lecturers and attaching them to older professors.

14.6.18 Analyse the number of departments and investigate the small departments. Are there real good reasons to have department with less than 5-7 academics? This academic would have more challenges if they were amalgamated with other either at the same college or at other colleges.

64

Concerning the teaching one college can offer services to other colleges and cover important teaching fields at the same time where the researchers have much more challenges at a bigger department. A university do not need several departments in the same field distributed in several colleges

The evaluation team wish KNUST luck in further effort to develop the quality Culture at the university, we are impressed of what we have seen at the University.

forskning.ruc.dk · web viewdoubt about standards and quality of institutions, programmes, courses...

Documents