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

reviewed( Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, reviewed( Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, Dentistry, etc.).Dentistry, etc.).

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)..

--the mid-cycle progress reportthe mid-cycle progress report..

--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