SESI 3 : KERTAS 3 PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION. ACCERITATION -(32).pdf · ROADSHOW MQA 2008 : KOD AMALAN AKREDITASI PROGRAM (CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PROGRMME ACCREDITATION, COPPA) 16 OKTOBER

ROADSHOW MQA 2008 : KOD AMALAN AKREDITASI PROGRAM(CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PROGRMME ACCREDITATION, COPPA)

16 OKTOBER 2008 – 13 NOVEMBER 2008

SESI 3 : KERTAS 3

PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION

PROGRAMME ACCERITATION

Introduction

Programme Self Review

External Programme Evaluation

Accreditation Timeline

Evaluation Report

INTRODUCTION

Programme Accreditation

i) Provision AccreditationDocument MQA-01Part A : General Information on HEPPart B : Program DescriptionPart C : Program Standard

ii) Full AccreditationDocument MQA-02Part A : General Information on HEPPart B : Program DescriptionPart C : Program StandardPart D : Self Review Report

FULL ACCERITATION

Internal Quality Audit

Audit by HEP (Self Review)

External Quality Audit

Audit by external agency (MQA)

PROGRAMME SELF REVIEW(Internal Quality Audit)

Purpose:-

Full Accreditation

Maintenance Audit (one in once – three years)

Continual Quality Improvement

PROGRAMME REVIEW TASK FORCE(Internal Reviewers)

HEP forms a task force

ChairpersonMembersHeads of departmentsProgramme coordinatorsExternal examinersSenior or junior academicsAdministrative staffStudentsAlumniOther stakeholders

Responsibilities of Internal Reviewers

i. Plan and carry out assigned responsibilities effectively and efficiently

ii. Comply with the applicable audit requirements;

iii. Communicate and clarity audit requirements;

iv. Document the observations;

v. Retain and safeguard documents pertaining to the audit;

vi. Ensure such documents remain confidential;

vii. Treat privileged information with discretion; and

viii.Cooperate with, support, the chairperson

Specific Questions on Each of the Nine Area of Evaluation

i. What actions are we taking in relation to this areas?

ii. Why were these actions chosen?

iii. How do we check their effectiveness? What performance indicators do w have?

iv. Are the indicators effective?

v. What do we do as a result of the review?

vi. Can we measure the degree of achievements? What are the actual outcomes?

vii. Can we improve on the existing actions, even on those that are already effective?

SELF REVIEW ACTIVITIES

Data collection

Data review

reporting

DATA COLLECTION

Accuracy

Consistency

Reference made to published documents

Variety of source

DATA REVIEW

i. Work within the audit scope;

ii. Exercise objectivity;

iii. Analyse evidence that is relevant and sufficient to draw conclusion regarding the internal quality system;

iv. Remain alert to any indications of evidence that can influence that audit result that may require further inquiry;

v. Act in an ethical manner at all times;

vi. Constantly evaluate the observations and the personal interactions during the audit;

vii. Be able to answer such questions as:a) Are all document and other information

adequate to achieve quality objectives?b) Are the procedures and documents understood

and utilised by the department

viii. Analyse strengths, weakness and opportunities

ix. Arrive at objective conclusions based on the audit observations; and

x. Remain true to the conclusions irrespective of internal and external pressures to change them without objective basic

REPORTING

Focus on policies, processes, documentation, issues, strength, areas of concern and improvement;

Conclusions through interpretation of evidences and observed facts;

Outlines findingsCommendationsAffirmationsrecommendations

SELF REVIEW REPORT

Strength of programmes in meeting its goals;

Areas of concern that need to be addrvessed;

Strategies for maintaining an enhancing the strengths of the programme;

Steps that have been taken to address the problem areas; and

Conclusions and recommendations for improvement

THE EXTENAL PROGRAMME EVALUATION

Independent external evaluation by MQA for full accreditation of programme;

Evaluation is done by panel of assessors;

Assessment is bases on nine areas of evaluation for quality assurance;

The focus is on the achievement of the programme objectives and learning outcomes;

Judgement is based on evidences provided by HEP and panels own investigations

THE ROLE PLAYERS

a) The Liaison Officer

– Assist in making arrangements for appointment;

– Arrange accommodation and transportation of panel members;

– Assist in arranging agenda of visit;

– Assist in providing facilities for panel members

b) Representatives of the HEP

The Chief Executive Officer;

Key person in HEP responsible for the policy management and operation of quality system

The Head of department

The programme leader

Members of internal review committee

Members of board of department

Student leaders

Academic staff and cross-section of student of the programme

A selection of graduates, where appropriate

Leaders from industry and government relevant to the programme

c) The Chairperson of panel team

– responsible for the overall conduct of the external programme evaluation exercise

d) The Chairperson of panel team

– Assess the programme for compliance with the MQF, discipline standards and nine areas of evaluation as well as against the educational goals of the HEP and the programme

Week Activities and Responsibilities

1 HEP submit a complete application to MQAMQA

- records the application- assigns the application to the relevant officer- check whether the information submitted is complete- notifies the HEP that the evaluation process will commence

2 MQA- appoints members of panel of assessors (POA)- forwards the application to the POA

3 – 6 POA prepares the evaluation report(MQA, HEP and the POA agree on a date coordination meeting, if necessary)POA sends the evaluation report to MQA

PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION TIMELINEA typical timeline for Provisional Accreditation

Week Activities and Responsibilities

7 – 8 (If a site visit is necessary, the visit will be carried out at this points)(Coordination meeting of HEP, MQA and the POA, if necessary)Chairman of the POA:

-collates the report of the panel members-sends the evaluation report to MQA

HEP submit a complete application to MQA9 – 10 HEP sends feedback on the evaluation report to MQA

11 – 14 MQA sends the feedback to Panel ChairmanChairman verifies the feedbackMQA Special Committee review the report for purpose of submission to the Accreditation CommitteeMQA table the report and the recommendation to the Accreditation Committee MeetingMQA grants Provisional Accreditation

Week Before Activities and Responsibilities

8 HEP submit a complete Full Accreditation application to MQAMQA

- records the application- assigns the application to the relevant officer- check whether the information submitted is complete- notifies the HEP that the evaluation process will commence

7 MQA submits the list of proposed assessors to the HEP

6 HEP sends response be MQA on the list proposed assessors MQA

- appoints the members of the POA- forwards the application to the POA

5 – 1 POA prepares the preliminary evaluation report(MQA, HEP and the POA agree on a date for evaluation visit to the HEPPOA preparatory meeting (refer to Section 4.5)POA sends the preliminary evaluation report to MQA

Full Accreditation TimelineThe Full Accreditation process can be divided into three main components: before, during and after

Before the Evaluation VisitA typical timeline prior to evaluation visit

Day Time Activity Persons Involver

1 0900-0930 POA Coordination Meeting

POA and HEP Liaison Officer

0930-1100 Meeting of Key Players Briefing by HEP

POA and HEP Senior Management and Programme Staff

1100-1130 POA Meeting POA

1130-1230 Campus Tour POA and Student Guide

1230-1400 Lunch and Document Review

POA

1400-1600 Meeting with Key Programme Staff

POA and Programme Staff

1600-1700 Review of Document POA

During the Evaluation VisitA typical schedule for an evaluation visit

Day Time Activity Persons Involver

2 0900-0930 POA Review Meeting POA and Liaison Officer0930-1100 Meeting with Programme

Team, Counsellors and Other Support Staff

POA Counsellors and Support Staff, Programme Team

1100-1230 Class Observation POA

1230-1430 Meeting with Students POA and Student

1430-1530 POA Review Meeting POA

1530-1600 Additional Meeting with the HEP Staff, if required. Review of Additional Document

POA and Relevant HEP Staff

1600-1630 POA Finalises Finding POA

1630-1700 Exit Meeting POA and HEP Representatives

The MQA acts the secretariat to the POA. An MQA officer will be involved in all above activities in that capacity as a resource person

Week After Activities and Responsibilities

1 – 2 Chairman of the POA :- collates the report of the panel members- sends the final report to MQA

3 – 4 MQA verifies the final report and sends it to the HEP5 – 6 HEP sends feedback on the evaluation report to MQA

7 – 10 MQA sends the feedback to Panel ChairmanChairman verifies the feedbackMQA Special Committee review the report for purpose of submission to the Accreditation CommitteeMQA table the report and the recommendation to the Accreditation Committee Meeting

11 – 12 MQA :- notifies the HEP- grand Accreditation

After the Evaluation VisitA typical schedule for an evaluation visit

THE PANEL OF ASSESSORSPREPARATORY MEETING

share each other’s view of the HEP’ssubmission in MQA-02;

determine the main issues for evaluation;

identify any further information, clarification or documentation required from the HEP; and

draft a timetable for the programmeevaluation visit

THE PANEL OF ASSESSORSPREPARATORY MEETING

The purpose of the visit:-

to test the statements, descriptions, conclusion and proposed improvement activities as presented in the Self Review Report;

to acquire further insight into the programme’soperations through first-hand investigation and personal interaction;

to allow a qualitative assessment of factors that cannot be easily documented in written from;

to inspect facilities related to programme

THE ORAL EXIT REPORT

The report is presented by the Chairperson at the end of the visit – Exit Meeting- Programme areas of strengths;- Areas of Concern- Opportunities for improvement

THE ORAL EVALUATION REPORT

Draft Report prepared by chairperson with help of panel members

Draft report is sent to HEP for correction of facts and emphasis

THE PANEL EVALUATION REPORT

Commendations (aspect of provision of the programame that are considered worthy of praise)

Affirmations (proposed improvements by the department on aspects of the programme, which panel believes significant and with it welcomes);

Recommendations to improve the programme

THE RESULT OF EVALUATION

The panel may propose:-

Grant accreditation without Condition

Grant Accreditation with :- Requirements- Conditions

Denial- Accreditation is not granted. Reasons for the denial

will be provided

MQA Accreditation Committee will make decision base on proposal by the panel assessors

All accreditation programmes will be registered in the Malaysia Qualification Register (MQR)

APPEALAll appeals can be made in relation to :

a) factual contests of the reports;

b) substantive errors within the report; or

c) any substantive inconsistency between the oral exit report, the final evaluation report and the decision of the MQA

Follow UPThe department will inform MQA as to the progress arising from the Evaluation Report. The purpose of the ongoing interaction is :

To get feedback on the Evaluation Report and the evaluation process, and on the extent to which the department considers the Report to be authoritative, rigorous, fair and perceptive;

To ensure corrective actions are taken if so required; and

To have a dialogue with those responsible for follow up action as to how the recommendations will be integrated into the HEP and department’s continual quality improvement plan