manual for conducting programme accreditationmqa.gov.mv/static/uploads/manual-for-conducting... ·...
TRANSCRIPT
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 3
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/
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 4
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 8
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)
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 9
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 10
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 11
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)
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 12
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 13
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 14
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 15
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 16
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 17
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 18
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 19
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 20
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 21
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 22
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
Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 23
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?
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request:
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)
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 24
Criterion 3 – Staffing and Quality of Staff
Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask
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
Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 25
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?
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request
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
Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 26
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?
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request
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
Questions that the SEWG and Review Panel might ask
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 27
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?
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 28
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).
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 29
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 30
Criterion 1: Programme objectives, Content and Learning Outcomes
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
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 31
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 32
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)
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 33
Criterion 3: Staffing and Quality of Staff
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request under
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
Yes Somewhat No Remarks /Improvements suggested (if relevant)
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 34
Criterion 4: Internal Quality Assurance
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request under
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
Yes Somewhat No Remarks /Improvements suggested (if relevant)
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 35
Criterions 5: Teaching, Learning and Research
Question Excellent
Yes Somewhat No Remarks /Improvements suggested (if relevant)
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 36
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request under
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.
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 37
Criterion 6: Facilities and Resources
Possible Evidences HEI might Collect or be asked to make available on request under
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?
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 38
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
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 39
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
4 Review Panel members
Students
Discussion of all relevant
aspects Interview room
5 Review Panel members
Course Co-ordinator Tour of facilities Campus
6 Review Panel members
Employer representatives
Discussion of aspects related to
the experience of employers
with graduates and the
Interview room
Manual for Conducting Programme Accreditation 40
e plo e s o t i utio to the programme
7 Review Panel members
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