Institutional Review Institutional Review Prof. Wagdy Talaat Prof. Wagdy Talaat EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health Manpower Development Manpower Development EMRO Project Director for EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in HPE Accreditation in HPE
Institutional Review. Prof. Wagdy Talaat EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health Manpower Development EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in HPE. The purpose of the institutional review ?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Institutional ReviewInstitutional Review
Prof. Wagdy TalaatProf. Wagdy TalaatEMRO, WHO Consultant for Health EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health
Manpower DevelopmentManpower DevelopmentEMRO Project Director for Accreditation in EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in
HPEHPE
TheThe purpose purpose of the institutional of the institutional reviewreview??
Meeting the public interest in knowing that Meeting the public interest in knowing that the institutions are providing higher the institutions are providing higher education awards and qualifications of an education awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and appropriate acceptable quality and appropriate academic standardsacademic standards..
The scope of the review
The completeness and reliability
of the published information to a wide range of stakeholders about the quality of learning
opportunity.
Effectiveness of quality assurance and standards
mechanisms with evidences Of continuous quality
improvement and working within efficient and cost
effective process
Conduct of ReviewConduct of Review
Characteristics of Review ProcessCharacteristics of Review Process
ConsistentConsistent( same process in different ( same process in different institutions)institutions)
EquitableEquitable( all institutions are treated equally).( all institutions are treated equally). FairFair RespectfulRespectful( respects the institution’s mission& ( respects the institution’s mission&
chosen aims).chosen aims). DisciplinedDisciplined( conforms with protocols of AB).( conforms with protocols of AB). CollegialCollegial ConstructiveConstructive OpenOpen TransparentTransparent
Conduct of ReviewConduct of Review
Good preparation by the following three Good preparation by the following three involved parties is essential:involved parties is essential:
Accrediting Body( AB)Accrediting Body( AB) Reviewing TeamReviewing Team InstitutionInstitution
Preliminary Action by the ABPreliminary Action by the AB
In sequenceIn sequence Identification of subject sectors to be Identification of subject sectors to be
Identification of institutions to be reviewed Identification of institutions to be reviewed within a given time slot.within a given time slot.
Institutions informs the AB of subject Institutions informs the AB of subject specialisms within the provision.specialisms within the provision.
Preliminary Action by the ABPreliminary Action by the AB
In sequenceIn sequence Determination of magnitude of review in Determination of magnitude of review in
man-days.man-days. Selection of Chairman and agreed number Selection of Chairman and agreed number
of subject specialist reviewers.of subject specialist reviewers. Agreement between the AB and institution Agreement between the AB and institution
on precise commencement date of review. on precise commencement date of review.
Preliminary Action by the ABPreliminary Action by the AB
In sequenceIn sequence Selection of peer Reviewers and Selection of peer Reviewers and
acceptance by institution.acceptance by institution. Institution sends agreed documentation to Institution sends agreed documentation to
AB 6-8 weeks prior to first day of review.AB 6-8 weeks prior to first day of review. AB makes documentation available to AB makes documentation available to
chairman. chairman.
Preliminary Action by InstitutionPreliminary Action by Institution
Initial submission to the AB.Initial submission to the AB. Documentation to be sent to AB/ Review Team Documentation to be sent to AB/ Review Team
in advance of the review.in advance of the review. Preparation of academic staff to respond to Preparation of academic staff to respond to
review.review. Allocation of responsibility for aspects of review. Allocation of responsibility for aspects of review. Nomination of an institutional facilitator to liaise Nomination of an institutional facilitator to liaise
between the review team and institution. between the review team and institution. Documentation to be made available to review Documentation to be made available to review
team during review. team during review. Allocation of a suitable, remote place for the Allocation of a suitable, remote place for the
review team. review team.
Scope of ReviewScope of Review
Governance and AdministrationGovernance and Administration Educational programsEducational programs Research and other scholary activities Research and other scholary activities
( services)( services) Academic staff performanceAcademic staff performance Students activitiesStudents activities Community involvementCommunity involvement Continuous renewal.Continuous renewal.
Research and other scholary Research and other scholary activitiesactivities
Range of activitiesRange of activities PublicationsPublications Projects( interdisciplinary/ intersectorial/ Projects( interdisciplinary/ intersectorial/
interpreunorial).interpreunorial).
Students ActivitiesStudents Activities
Experience of students as learners in a Experience of students as learners in a favourable learning environment.favourable learning environment.
Engagement of students in the planning, Engagement of students in the planning, evaluation, and reviewing of their institution’s evaluation, and reviewing of their institution’s program( internal/ external audit)program( internal/ external audit)
Procedures of students complaints.Procedures of students complaints. Students are invited to submit their own report to Students are invited to submit their own report to
the review team during their participation in the the review team during their participation in the review sessions. review sessions.
Community involvementCommunity involvement
Community EmpowermentCommunity Empowerment Community ParticipationCommunity Participation Community PartnershipCommunity Partnership
Activities during visitActivities during visit
Meeting with top administrationMeeting with top administration Meeting with academic staffMeeting with academic staff Meeting with students and other stake holdersMeeting with students and other stake holders Observation of resources: library, labs, class/ Observation of resources: library, labs, class/
lecture rooms, audiovisual unit, teaching lecture rooms, audiovisual unit, teaching hospital, etc.hospital, etc.
Attending sample of teaching/ learning activities.Attending sample of teaching/ learning activities. Time for Reviewers to scrutinise new documentsTime for Reviewers to scrutinise new documents
Documentation Documentation
Documents to be sent in advanceDocuments to be sent in advance( portable)( portable)
Self study/ mid-annual/ annual reportsSelf study/ mid-annual/ annual reports Current course and program specificationsCurrent course and program specifications Latest course and program reportsLatest course and program reports Strategic study, if available.Strategic study, if available.
Documents available at time of visitDocuments available at time of visit( bulky)( bulky)
Teaching timetablesTeaching timetables Samples of students work, exam resultsSamples of students work, exam results Documentary films/ video clips/ AlbumsDocumentary films/ video clips/ Albums Institution/Academic Staff AwardsInstitution/Academic Staff Awards Minutes of significant meetingsMinutes of significant meetings Questionnaires raw dataQuestionnaires raw data
Self-study analysisSelf-study analysis Is there a clear, shared, vision for the whole Is there a clear, shared, vision for the whole
institution?institution? Is there a documented, public Mission?Is there a documented, public Mission? Does the self study addresses all academic Does the self study addresses all academic
activities( educational programs, research, and activities( educational programs, research, and community involvement?community involvement?
Does the evaluation of each activity informed by Does the evaluation of each activity informed by a clear statement of aims and are these aims) a clear statement of aims and are these aims) related to the mission( mission sensitive)related to the mission( mission sensitive)
Does the self study comply with the criteria for Does the self study comply with the criteria for self study?self study?
Are the evaluations supported by evidence?Are the evaluations supported by evidence? Does the self study demonstrate a commitment Does the self study demonstrate a commitment
to accountability, and reflect true developmental to accountability, and reflect true developmental engagement procedures? engagement procedures?
ReportingReporting
Draft 1: Reviewers finalise their sections of the Draft 1: Reviewers finalise their sections of the Report and send it to the Chair Reviewer.Report and send it to the Chair Reviewer.
Draft 2: Chairperson edits to avoid repetition, Draft 2: Chairperson edits to avoid repetition, contradiction, and to ensure protocols have contradiction, and to ensure protocols have been preserved.been preserved.
Report returns to Peer Reviewers for any Report returns to Peer Reviewers for any comments on edited draft on matters of fact, comments on edited draft on matters of fact, substance, or tone.substance, or tone.
Draft 3: Chairman incorporates reviewers Draft 3: Chairman incorporates reviewers comments and send it to the Editor who makes comments and send it to the Editor who makes suggestions for improvement. suggestions for improvement.
Draft 4: Chair consider editor’s comments and Draft 4: Chair consider editor’s comments and send the final draft to AB for publication.send the final draft to AB for publication.
Role of Peer ReviewerRole of Peer Reviewer
Qualities RequiredQualities Required Subject/ discipline expertSubject/ discipline expert Credibility with the subject area academic Credibility with the subject area academic
community( Heads of institutions and Managers community( Heads of institutions and Managers in Sector Committees of SCU)in Sector Committees of SCU)
Clear oral and written communication skillsClear oral and written communication skills Freedom to commit the time required for the Freedom to commit the time required for the
review processreview process Ability to organize and chair meetingsAbility to organize and chair meetings Ability to work according to a prescribed set of Ability to work according to a prescribed set of
protocols and proceduresprotocols and procedures Ability to work well in a small teamAbility to work well in a small team Ability to work intensively to deadlinesAbility to work intensively to deadlines Ability to form judgment Ability to form judgment based on evidencebased on evidence and and
to report professionally to report professionally
Ethical ConsiderationsEthical Considerations
Reviewers are not appointed to teams Reviewers are not appointed to teams reviewing their own institutionsreviewing their own institutions
No conflict of interest with reviewed No conflict of interest with reviewed institutioninstitution
I wish you a very I wish you a very peaceful and fruitful peaceful and fruitful peer reviewing peer reviewing process.process.
Thank you Thank you
Outline of the review processOutline of the review process
--Preliminary visit: Preliminary visit: 36 weeks before the visit assistant director visits and 36 weeks before the visit assistant director visits and provides briefing on the review process guidance on the SED and students provides briefing on the review process guidance on the SED and students submissionsubmission..
--1212 weeks before the visit:weeks before the visit: the agency appoints the review team and notify the the agency appoints the review team and notify the institution and receives the SED and the students submissioninstitution and receives the SED and the students submission..
--Briefing visit:Briefing visit: 5 weeks before the review visit undertaken by the review team 5 weeks before the review visit undertaken by the review team and the AD at the management level of the institution, it contains detailed and the AD at the management level of the institution, it contains detailed lines of enquiry for the reviewlines of enquiry for the review..
--Review visit:Review visit: lasts 5 days AD joins team for the final day, discussion with staff lasts 5 days AD joins team for the final day, discussion with staff and students, and pursues selected and students, and pursues selected thematic trailsthematic trails..
--Review visit+2 week: Review visit+2 week: letter outlining the review finding sent to theletter outlining the review finding sent to the institutioninstitution..
--Review visit +8 weeks:Review visit +8 weeks: draft report sent to the institutiondraft report sent to the institution..--Review visit +12 weeks: Review visit +12 weeks: institution responds to the reportinstitution responds to the report..
--Review visit +20weeks:Review visit +20weeks: report is published report is published..
What are the resources the What are the resources the information get frominformation get from??
--use of reference points: the information required as part of the use of reference points: the information required as part of the quality assurance and standards frameworkquality assurance and standards framework..
-A self evaluation document (SED)A self evaluation document (SED)..
--information submitted by representative of studentsinformation submitted by representative of students . .
--reports on the institution by the agency or other relevant bodies reports on the institution by the agency or other relevant bodies within the duration of the review cyclewithin the duration of the review cycle . .
--information acquired during the briefing visit, and the review information acquired during the briefing visit, and the review visitvisit..
JudgmentJudgment and reportand report
Broad confidenceBroad confidence: : the institution is managing quality and the institution is managing quality and standards soundly and effectively and the future capacity standards soundly and effectively and the future capacity
for maintaining quality and standards appears goodfor maintaining quality and standards appears good..
Limited confidence:Limited confidence: the agency has doubts either about the the agency has doubts either about the
current assurance of quality and standardscurrent assurance of quality and standards or the or the
capacity to maintain qualitycapacity to maintain quality..
No confidenceNo confidence: : very occasionally the team may make such very occasionally the team may make such judgmentjudgment..
Key areas ?Two areas must be given particular attention, in making such
judgment
Strong use of independent external examiners in summative assessment procedures .
Similar use of independent external persons in the internal periodic review of the disciplines or programmes.
Thematic trials
The trials are concerned with testing how well institutional processes work and how effective they are in practice at the level of individual disciplines, programmes, and/or academic departments, the selection of the thematic trials is made at the briefing visit.
Points to be explored in the Points to be explored in the review visitreview visit
The institution approach to quality assuranceThe institution approach to quality assurance.. The relationship between institutional procedures and their The relationship between institutional procedures and their
operation.operation. The institution’s interaction with the university, where appropriate.The institution’s interaction with the university, where appropriate. The role collaborative partner institutions, where appropriate.The role collaborative partner institutions, where appropriate. The ways in which the institution is using the external reference The ways in which the institution is using the external reference
points. points. Procedures for student complaints and academic appealsProcedures for student complaints and academic appeals Complete and reliable published information. Complete and reliable published information. The ways of students support and optimizing the learning The ways of students support and optimizing the learning
opportunities.opportunities. The ways in which the quality of the teaching staff is assuredThe ways in which the quality of the teaching staff is assured