united nations development programme / regional bureau · pdf filei am particularly thankful...
TRANSCRIPT
United Nations Development Programme / Regional Bureau for Arab States
Project RAB/01/002: “Enhancement of Quality Assurance and Institutional
Planning at Arab Universities”
Quality Assessment of Computer
Science and Business Administration
Education in Arab Universities
A Regional Overview Report
Based on detailed internal and external reviews of Computer Science programmesin a group of 15 Arab universities (2002–2003), and of Business Administration
programmes in a group of 16 Arab universities (2003–2004)
January 2005
Copyright ©2005
By the United Nations Development Programme
1 UN Plaza, New York, New York 10017, USA
Published by the Regional Bureau for Arab States
1 UN Plaza, New York, New York 10017, USA
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in anyform by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without prior permission ofUNDP/RBAS.
Available through:
United Nations Publications
Room DC2 853
New York, NY 10017
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
Web (for ordering online): http://unp.un.org
ISBN 92-1-104621-1
Sales No E.05.II.A.16
Cover design: Antje Kastner
Printed at: Oxuniprint, Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom
FOREWORD
Rima Khalaf Hunaidi
Assistant Secretary-General and Assistant Administrator, Regional Director,
Regional Bureau for Arab States, United Nations Development Programme
* * * * *
I am happy to introduce this evidence-based, field-derived report on the currentstate of Computer Science and Business Administration education in the Arabregion. This report is a direct output of the UNDP/ Regional Bureau for Arab States(RBAS) pilot project, ‘Enhancement of Quality Assurance and Institutional Planningat Arab Universities, launched in January 2002 and implemented over a period of 30months, ending in June 2004. Project implementation was guided by the overarch-ing objective of exploring and illuminating the path towards an Arab knowledgesociety, where the production, dissemination and application of knowledge are cen-tral to all aspects of human endeavour: social organisation, economic enterprise,political participation and private life.
In knowledge-based societies, higher education is interactive and fully accountableto its stakeholders: students, parents, employers, and the public sector. The basicrequirements and conceptual framework for initiating this approach are presentedcomprehensively in the second Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building aKnowledge Society.
During the past few decades, Arab higher education experienced a dramatic “hori-zontal” expansion in terms of the number of universities, programmes and stu-dents. In many respects, expansion was both inevitable and necessary for Arabdevelopment. Expanding the scope of Arab higher education from the confines ofcapital cities to outlying areas, made higher education accessible to less privilegedsectors of society, and increased women’s participation. The positive developmentsof expansion, however, were not accompanied by a parallel investment in qualityenhancing systems and resources of higher education. In real terms, Arab universi-ties have witnessed a decline in the annual expenditure per university student overthe last twenty-five years; and very little has been invested in building institutionalsystems and mechanisms for monitoring, assessing, and improving the quality andimpact of higher education. Without such investment, the competitiveness of educa-tion and its relevance to job creation, economic growth, markets, and human devel-opment remain limited.
The overall goal of the RBAS Higher Education Project is to assist a core group ofleading public and private Arab universities to develop and apply the methodolo-gies and benefits of three independent instruments of quality assurance andenhancement. These instruments are intended to enable: (a) internal and peer eval-uation of academic programmes; (b) measurement of student performance in inter-national tests; and (c) building a regional statistical database to provide detailed,comparable indicators of programmes, staff and student demographics, as well ascumulative finances of participating universities. Although inter-related, each instru-
3
ment was developed and implemented as a self-contained project component.Moreover, all work was carried out in close partnership and active collaborationbetween academic representatives appointed by participating universities and aselect group of leading international consultants.
The enclosed report represents the final outcome of the first major component ofthe project focused on programme evaluation. The component was implemented intwo consecutive cycles of academic reviews. The first cycle (2002-2003) involved theevaluation of Computer Science programmes at 15 universities and the secondcycle (2003-2004), concerned the evaluation of Business Administration pro-grammes at 16 universities. Each of the cycles was followed by the issuance of con-fidential review reports to university presidents and programme advisors.
The report attests to significant achievements and areas of strength that togetherform a foundation on which universities can build. The report, however, also identi-fies weaknesses ensuing from a lack of independent review mechanisms, insuffi-cient use of outcome based learning, and the need to further ingrain a culture ofself-evaluation. It is my hope that the wide range of analysis, findings and recom-mendations by independent and qualified teams of international experts and theirArab peer reviewers, will be of significant interest and benefit not only to academ-ics and universities that participated in the project, but to the wider academic com-munity in the Arab region.
On completion of the first phase, RBAS commissioned the services of an interna-tional expert to conduct an independent evaluation of the project’s outcomes and itsimpact on participating academics and universities. A major finding of the evalua-tion was the unanimous support among academic representatives and coordinatorsfor the project’s training methodologies, regional team collaboration and task imple-mentation. In almost all cases, the findings of the review report were studied andacted upon at the departmental /faculty level. In other cases, follow-up action wastaken at the senior university level, and in at least two cases, at the country level.Finally, all of the participating universities voiced unanimous support for the institu-tionalisation of regional project services, preferably through the establishment of anindependent Arab quality assurance agency.
In this regard, an indicator of the project’s success is the certification of 40 of the uni-versity representatives (from both fields of Computer Science and BusinessAdministration), as having participated successfully in all stages of the respectivereview cycles: theoretical and practical training; self-evaluation of individual pro-grammes; hosting external review missions; and participating as peer reviewers inmissions to other participating universities. This is perhaps the first regional cohortof trained quality evaluators who can be relied upon to support the current effort fordisseminating the expertise of quality assurance at both the country and regionallevels.
The drive to achieve quality enhancement and academic excellence in Arab highereducation is an integral element of our Arab cultural heritage. We can all be inspiredby former eras of Arab Islamic ‘higher education’ motivated by a deeply ingrainedsocial respect for the scholarly pursuit of truth and knowledge through investiga-tions of the philosophical, natural and scientific spheres of human existence.
It is my hope that as we move into the second phase of this project, the methodolo-gies and outcomes will provide the Arab higher education community with a work-
4
ing model and a precursor for much needed independent regional quality assurancethat complements, reinforces and gradually networks the national quality assurancedimension in all Arab countries’ educational systems.
Lastly, I wish to express my appreciation to all who participated in this pilot project.I am particularly thankful to Dr. Isam M. Naqib (Project Manager), the distinguishedmembers of the Advisory Committee, the Ministers of Higher Education, UniversityPresidents, and the prominent academics and representatives from the 29 universi-ties in the twelve participating Arab countries – Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan,Lebanon, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, andYemen. I would also like to thank my colleagues in the Regional Bureau for ArabStates and the United Nations Office for Project Services for their vision, commit-ment, and tireless efforts. I am confident that through their dedication, we haveforged solid partnerships that will ensure regional collaboration and joint efforts insupport of this ambitious endeavour.
* * * * *
5
6
Project Team
6
Advisory Committee
Rima Khalaf Hunaidi (chair), Assia Bensalah AlAlaoui, Adnan Al Amin, Hussein Anis, VictorBilleh, Hassan Al Ebrahim, Ali Fakhro, MarwanKamal, Amin Mahmood, Safwan Malek Masri,Mohammed Zahi Mogherbi, MohammedMasheer Al Munajjed, Isam Naqib (ex-officio),Kamal Al Sha”er.
UNDP RBAS/ UNOPS
Zahir Jamal, Maen Nsour (Project Coordinator),Madi Musa, Ahmad Ragab, Gillman Rebello, WinMin Nu, Melissa Esteva, Jacqueline Esteva-Camejo.
Participating Universities (Coordinators)Computer Science cycle (2002-2003)University of Sciences & Technology HouariBoumediene (Mihrez Drir), UniversitéMohammed V-Adgal (Mohammed Al-Miniar),Helwan University (Amr Izzat Salama), Sana’aUniversity (Hassan Sharaf-Eldin), DamascusUniversity (Mohammed Ali Al-Munajjed), TheLebanese University (Philip Nabhan), SudanUniversity of Science & Technology (IzzeldinMohammed Othman), Palestine PolytechnicUniversity (Dawoud Al Zaatari), BahrainUniversity (Yousif Al-Bastaki), The University ofJordan (Abdalla Al-Musa), Zarka PrivateUniversity* (Abdasalam Ghaith), The IslamicUniversity Gaza (Rifat Rustom), AjmanUniversity of Science & Technology* (BasheerShehadeh), The University of Science &Technology, Sana’a* (Abdallah Al-Hamadi), Al-Akhawayn University* (Driss Ouaouicha).
Business Administration cycle (2003-2004)Oran Es-Senia University (Mohammad Derbal),Bahrain University (Amin Agha), University ofCairo (Ahmed Farghally Hassan), Arab Academyfor Science & Technology and Maritime Transport(Nabil Fahmy), University of Jordan (Abdalla Al-Musa), Yarmouk University (Hisham Gharaibeh),University of Balamand* (Nadim Karam), TheLebanese University (Philip Nabhan), JinanUniversity* (Bassam Hijazi), Abdel Malek Al-Saadi University (Ahmed El-Moussaoui), SultanQaboos University (Darwish Almoharby), An-Najah National University (Maher Natsheh), Al–Azhar University (Abdel Kareem Najem),University of Khartoum (Mohammed OsmanHamza), Aleppo University (Nizar Akeel), AdenUniversity (Saeed Abdo-Gabali).* private university
Management Team
Isam M. Naqib (Project Manager); Rima Mulhim(Head of Regional Coordination Unit); BasimaShaheen (2002); Rami Dabaneh (since January2003); Lorena Lucioparedes (2003-2004)
Consultancy Support
Arthur Brown (QAA Advisor / Report Editor, UK);
David Lewis (workshop training and develop-ment, UK); Ruth Goodison (workshop training,UK); Ali Yaghi (workshop sessions coordination,Jordan).
Peer Reviewers (Computer Science)
Emad Abuelrub (Review Specialist, Jordan),Yusif Al Bastaki (Review Specialist, Bahrain),Terence Baylis (Review Coordinator / OverviewReport, UK), Richard Beeby (Review Specialist,UK), Amine Bensaid (Review Specialist,Morocco), Rodney Burgess (Review Coordinator,UK), Alan Chantler (Review Coordinator, UK),Rae Earnshaw (Review Specialist, UK), HatemElaydi (Review Specialist, Palestine), RuthGoodison (Review Coordinator, UK), TaherHomeed (Review Specialist, Yemen), Ahmed AlJaber (Review Specialist, Jordan), FairouzKamareddine (Review Specialist, UK), NawafKayal (Review Specialist, Lebanon), Hakim Khali(Review Specialist, UAE), Dilip Kumar (ReviewSpecialist, UK), Diane Meehan (ReviewSpecialist, UK), Imad Moustapha (ReviewSpecialist, Syria), Mohammed A. Nacer (ReviewSpecialist, Algeria), Fakhita Regragui (ReviewSpecialist, Morocco), Mahmoud Al Saheb(Review Specialist, Palestine), Robert Schofield(Review Coordinator, UK), Anne James Taylor(Review Specialist, UK), Sunil Vadera (ReviewSpecialist, UK),
Peer Reviewers (Business Administration)
Jamal D. Abu-Doleh (Review Specialist, Jordan),Mohamad Alameddine (Review Specialist,Lebanon), Said Al Amoum (Review Specialist,Syria), Mamoun M. Al Debi’e (Review Specialist,Jordan), Fahim Al Marhubi (Review Specialist,Oman), Darwish Al Moharby (Review Specialist,Oman), Jawaher S. Al Mudhahki (ReviewSpecialist, Bahrain), Nadhem Al Saleh (ReviewSpecialist, Bahrain), Boukaabar Boudjelal(Review Specialist, Algeria), Michael Bourn(Review Specialist, UK), Jeffery Butel (ReviewCoordinator, UK), Linda Carr (Review Specialist,UK), Peter Clarke (Review Coordinator/ OverseasReport, UK), Mohamed Derrabi (ReviewSpecialist, Morocco), Assane Diagne (ReviewSpecialist, Morocco), Mohammad AsaadElnidani (Review Specialist, Egypt), Nihaya ElTelbani (Review Specialist, Palestine), HaissamHaidar (Review Specialist, Lebanon), Galal AbduEl Halim Harby (Review Specialist, Egypt), NigelHall (Review Coordinator/Overview Report, UK),Ahmed Farghally Hassan (Review Specialist,Egypt), Mohammad Hisham Jabr (ReviewSpecialist, Palestine), Linda McCormack (ReviewSpecialist, UK), Maher Natsheh (ReviewSpecialist, Palestine), Marwan Owaygen (ReviewSpecialist, Lebanon), Anthony Pugh (ReviewSpecialist, UK), Wadad Saad (Review Specialist,Lebanon), Hassan Saleh (Review Specialist,Lebanon), Loay Salhieh (Review Specialist,Jordan), Rifat Shannak (Review Specialist,Jordan), Peter Steer (Review Coordinator, UK),Carol Vielba (Review Coordinator, UK), NicholasWiseman (Review Coordinator, UK).
7
Contents
PART ONE
Quality Assessment of Computer Science Education inArab Universities
(2002 – 2003)
REPORT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................15
1. GENERAL..........................................................................................................................15
2. MAIN REVIEW OUTCOMES (JUDGMENTS AND INDICATORS) ...........................................15
3. COMMON REGIONAL ISSUES ..........................................................................................16
4. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES FOR STRATEGIC REFORM...................................................18
5. BUILDING ON STRENGTH ...............................................................................................19
TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF KEY INDICATORS...........................................................................21
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................22
II. SUBJECT PROVISION AND AIMS............................................................................25
SUBJECT PROVISION ...........................................................................................................25
OVERALL AIMS .................................................................................................................25
III. ACADEMIC STANDARDS..........................................................................................28
III.1 AIMS AND INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES.............................................................28
III.2 CURRICULA...............................................................................................................31
III.3 ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS........................................................................................36
III.4 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ...........................................................................................40
IV. QUALITY OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES..........................................................43
IV.1 TEACHING AND LEARNING.........................................................................................43
IV. 2 STUDENT PROGRESSION ............................................................................................46
IV.3 LEARNING RESOURCES...............................................................................................49
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT ......................................................53
Appendix 1 University Representatives (Computer Science)................................................57
Appendix 2 Milestones Of The Review Process ..................................................................61
7
8
PART TWO
Quality Assessment of Business AdministrationEducation in Arab Universities
(2003 – 2004)
REPORT SUMMARY ........................................................................................................65
1. GENERAL ......................................................................................................................65
2. SUMMARY OF THE MAIN OUTCOMES OF THE REVIEWS ..................................................66
3. COMMON REGIONAL ISSUES ..........................................................................................66
4. KEY INDICATORS...........................................................................................................69
5. EMERGING GOOD PRACTICE..........................................................................................69
6. RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES fOR STRATEGIC REFORM ...................................................70
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................73
II. SUBJECT PROVISION ................................................................................................75
PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITIES ............................................................................................75
SUBJECT PROVISION ...........................................................................................................75
III. ACADEMIC STANDARDS..........................................................................................76
III.1 INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES .............................................................................76
III.2 CURRICULA...............................................................................................................78
III.3 ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS........................................................................................79
III.4 STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT ...........................................................................................81
IV. QUALITY OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES..........................................................84
IV.1 TEACHING AND LEARNING.........................................................................................84
IV. 2 STUDENT PROGRESSION ............................................................................................86
IV.3 LEARNING RESOURCES...............................................................................................88
V. QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT ......................................................90
Fig.1 Judgments On Academic Standards And Its Four Components.................................93
Fig.2 Academic Indicators ...................................................................................................94
Fig.3 Learning Resources Indicators ...................................................................................95
Appendix 1 University Representatives (Business Administration)......................................97
Appendix 2 Milestones Of The Review Cycle ....................................................................101
EXPLANATORY NOTES
Isam Naqib
Project Manager
Two Cycles of Programme Reviews
This report is an overview of the outcome of two consecutive 15-month cycles ofprogramme reviews: one was carried out in 2002-2003 where 15 Computer Scienceprogrammes were reviewed and one in 2003-2004 where 16 BusinessAdministration programmes were reviewed. The total number of universities thatparticipated in the two reviews was 28, a list of which is given elsewhere in thereport.
Each cycle consisted of three sequential/ overlapping stages: (i) self- or internal eval-uation, (ii) external (peer) review and (iii) final reporting. Each stage was carried out with the full participation of the universities’ appointed representa-tives (Annex 1 of each report), backed by intensive training and advisory supportfrom the project and by valuable organisational and moral backing from their universities.
While each participating university has already received a detailed review reportfrom the RBAS Director on the state of its programme, this overview report portraysthe patterns of weaknesses and strengths that emerge across the region. To main-tain confidentiality, each university is referred to in this report by number only. Thecombination of the already received individual reports and this regional reportshould thus enable each university to reflect on the current state of its programme,with reference to the programme’s own aims and adopted benchmarks, but also incomparison with other universities in the region, and abroad.
Model and Adaptations
The project’s adopted model of review is based, with some adaptations, on theAcademic Subject Review method of the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA), ageneric discipline-independent method that has been employed by the Agency overmore than a decade for reviewing the quality of academic programmes in all UK uni-versities.
A comprehensive Handbook on all aspects and stages of the review process wasprepared for the project by its training consultants, in close consultation with theproject manager; this was done in two consecutive editions, one coinciding witheach review cycle. The Handbook has since been produced in English, Arabic andFrench.
One modification that was introduced for both cycles is that each main judgmentwas differentiated into three levels: Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory and Good (orApproved with Commendation); the current UK method allows for two only: Pass orFail. Another modification was introduced in the Business Administration cycle (thesecond edition of the Handbook), whereby, in addition to the overall judgment onAcademic Standards (AS), separate judgments are now required on each of the four
9
constituent elements of AS (Intended Learning Outcomes, Curricula, StudentAssessment and Student Achievement). Only one aggregate judgment was requiredfor the Computer Science cycle (first edition of the Handbook).
The adaptations to the QAA method were largely informed by the outcome of groupdiscussions and feedback from university representatives followed by close discus-sions with the training consultants. The changes, which were introduced mainly inthe form of added annexes to the Handbook, were intended to enhance themethod’s applicability and developmental value to Arab universities, while fullymaintaining its core concepts, standards of judgment and rigorous criteria.
In the first edition, the Programme Specification template document was expandedin order to allow for and accommodate any variations between the universities withregard to educational systems, curricular structures or standards of deployedresources. Detailed guidance was also provided on the formulation by each provi-sion of its Intended Learning Outcomes document. This is important as the methodputs primary responsibility on the universities to specify, in detail, the elements oftheir programmes and provide the evidence base of factual information and datathat is needed for both internal and external evaluation.
In the second edition of the Handbook, which was prepared in time for the secondcycle of reviews (Business Administration), additional guidelines on final reportingby the reviewers were introduced (through two new annexes). This was to ensurethat each main judgment by the reviewers was accompanied by explicit statementson the main underlying factual evidence and sub-judgments on which the mainjudgment was based. This was not only to ensure full transparency of reporting, butalso to optimise the value of the report to the university as a viable map forimprovement and quality enhancement.
Reviewers were also invited to make differentiated recommendations, separatingthose that were essential for improvement from those that were considered worthyof further consideration.
Judgments and Indicators
An important by-product of these adaptations is that a more detailed semi-quantita-tive picture of the strengths and weaknesses (Good, Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory)of each assessed programme can now be derived from the review report for thatprogramme. The performance of the programme can thus be summarised not onlyin terms of the reviewers’ main judgments, but also with respect to a number ofdetailed academic and resource-related aspects of that programme (indicators).
This was done on an experimental basis for the first (Computer Science) cycle ofreviews and on a wider scale for the second (Business Administration) cycle. Aregional summary of these indicators for Computer Science education is shown inTable 1 of the first part of this report, while that for Business Administration isshown in Figures 1-3 in the second half. A clear message is, thus, sent not just to theacademics but also to the managers and decision makers of each university.
Regional Platforms for Capacity Building
Each cycle was structured around three carefully scheduled training / planningworkshops that served as very effective regional platforms not just for intensive
10
training but also for group discussions (and agreement) on model adaptations,implementation plans and definition and scheduling of common project tasks. Theyalso proved to be ideal venues for reviewing project progress and addressingemerging problems and challenges through open discussions and bilateral tutorials.
Intensive advisory support was provided to each university team during the inter-vals between workshops (when the project tasks were implemented by all teams)through email and when necessary phone exchanges. This combination of proactivemodalities of capacity building enabled the university representatives to play theleading role in implementing each stage of the review cycle: model adaptation, pro-gram self-evaluation, hosting of an external review mission and participation in anexternal mission to another university and country. Advanced systems of highereducation, like advanced technologies, cannot be borrowed or bought off the shelf,they need to be adapted, modified, customised and eventually owned before theyare effectively integrated into their host environment.
The two review cycles were implemented through the intensive participation of tensof Arab academics as shown in the introductory pages of the report. As leadingmembers of their respective departments and faculties, their work with the projectwas often above and beyond what they were expected to do for their universities.Nonetheless, all tasks were completed, on time and to the intended high standardsof implementation. This is mainly owed to the professional capabilities of the repre-sentative academics and their commitment to improving the quality and impact oftheir programmes and also to the invaluable institutional and moral support thatwas provided by their university presidents, coordinators, departments and faculties.
A Note of Thanks
The project is immensely indebted to the QAA, that fine UK institution, for its gen-erous technical advice and provision of needed documentation and above all, forrecommending the names of highly dedicated and experienced consultants whoworked closely and most harmoniously with their Arab counterparts through inten-sive workshop meetings, continuous email dialogue and scores of external reviewmissions.
As would be expected, the organisational and logistical requirements of the projectwere highly challenging and complex, requiring constant coordination and follow-up with many universities, academics, consultants and UNDP country offices. Allthis was coordinated with remarkable efficiency, professionalism and dedication byMs Rima Mulhim, the head of the project’s regional coordination office in Jordanand the unit’s small team of able project staff. Their effort was enabled by vitaladministrative / financial support from UNOPS, under the supervision of MrGillman Rebello, and from the UNDP country offices in the region.
I wish to especially thank Dr. Rima Khalaf Hunaidi, the RBAS Director, who initiatedand launched this pioneering regional project, for her visionary strategic supportand guidance at every stage of the project and her unequivocal commitment to thefulfilment of its goals and objectives. I also thank the Director’s two able senior advi-sors, Dr Zahir Jamal and Dr. Maen Nsour, for coordinating and managing the affairsof the project at the UNDP institutional level. The constant support of Dr. Nsour, theproject portfolio manager, is highly appreciated.
11
PART ONE
Quality Assessment of Computer
Science Education
in Arab Universities
Regional Overview Report
Based on detailed internal and external reviews of Computer Science programmesin a group of 15 Arab universities
15
1. General
This report is part of the outcome ofthe first completed phase of the UNDPRAB/01/ 002 project “Enhancement ofQuality Assurance and InstitutionalPlanning in Arab Universities” whichwas launched by the UNDP RegionalBureau for Arab States in January2002. It provides a regional overviewof the quality of Computer Scienceeducation in a consortium of fifteenpublic and private universities ineleven Arab countries: Morocco,Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Syria,Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine, Bahrainand United Arab Emirates. (A list of thenames of universities and their repre-sentatives is given in Appendix 1).
The process of evaluating the qualityof Computer Science programmes inthe fifteen participating universitieswas carried out in stages, betweenMarch 2002 and February 2003. Theprocess stages and the method adopt-ed for the internal and external com-ponents of the review are outlined inthe following section (Introduction).The Introduction also outlines themain aspects that are reviewed in eachacademic provision and the criteriaand ranges of the possible reviewers’judgments on each aspect.
The completed review yielded adetailed review report on each of theparticipating programmes. Eachreport, which was sent in confidenceby UNDP/ RBAS to the president of theuniversity in question, presented thereviewers analyses, evaluation andjudgments in relation to each mainaspect of the reviewed provision andidentified its main areas of strengthand weakness and areas of neededaction or reform.
This overview report is a compact
synopsis of these individual reportsand presents (under four main sec-tions ii, iii, iv, and v) a detailed region-al overview of the findings and judg-ments that were yielded by the 15 indi-vidual reviews with respect to eachreview aspect. Several of the reviewoutcomes and findings are found to becommon to many of the participatinguniversities and raise issues that,unless addressed, could seriously hin-der the further development of under-graduate programmes in ComputerScience and software engineering inthe Arab region.
This section presents a summary ofthe overview report’s main findingsand recommendations under fourheadings: Main Review Outcomes(Judgments and Indicators); CommonRegional Issues; RecommendedPriorities for Strategic Reform, andBuilding on Strength.
2. Main Review Outcomes(Judgments and Indicators)
The review judgments with respect toeach aspect of the review are present-ed for all universities in Table 1 (where,to maintain confidentiality, each uni-versity is denoted by a number). TheTable contains, in addition, the reviewfindings, as extracted from the individ-ual reports, with respect to a numberof indicators that are defined in theTable. The following outcomes areworth noting:
• Apart from one exception, theAcademic Standards of thereviewed programmes wereapproved as Satisfactory at all uni-versities. However, none of theprogrammes achieved the highestrating, “approved with commen-dation”.
Report Summary
16
• The judgments on the standardsof the Learning Opportunities thatare offered by the universities totheir students show wide varia-tions between universities, as dothe judgments on the internalarrangements for QualityAssurance and Enhancement.Similar variations can be observedwith respect to the set of detailedindicators. Thus, while all universi-ties have to strive to exceed thethreshold level of excellence thatis represented by the ‘Approvedwith Commendation’ judgment,they vary considerably in terms oftheir detailed state of academicdevelopment and organisation. It is hoped that the combination of this overview report and the individual report for each university will assist in informingand guiding the future academicplans of that university in its strivetowards academic excellence.
• As noted above, the review find-ings with respect to the ninedetailed indicators (Table 1) pointto some regional strengths (grad-uation projects, Mathematics component of the curricula, qualifications of existing academicstaff) but also underline some serious weaknesses across the region (lack of sufficient numbers of qualified staff, inade-quate library resources and insufficient Intranet and Internetconnectivity).
3. Common Regional Issues
The regional overview and analysespresented by this report with respectto each aspect of the review yields alarge number of detailed issues thatare shared by many universitiesacross the region:
a. The aims of many programmes are
insufficiently clear. This leads to im-precise intended learning outcomesand poor curriculum definition.
b. In many cases only slight referenceto or account is taken of externalagencies in defining the curriculumand almost none in maintainingacademic standards.
c. While available information andreports often cite active facultyresearch teachers at most universi-ties have little or no time to pursuefrontier scholarship. The researchcapability of many staff is thereforea diminishing asset.
d. At many universities there is insuf-ficient coverage of the ComputerScience core. Parts of the ComputerScience curriculum are dated.
e. In several cases, faculty require-ments have little or no relevance toComputer Science, while universityrequirements, although sometimespertinent, are poorly focused.
f. There is an appropriately broadrange of assessments at most uni-versities with limited but encourag-ing use of innovative methods.
g. Assessments sometimes lack chal-lenge and depth, relying on sim-plistic questions and those thatrequire only factual recall.
h. Individual written feedback is a rarity and individual oral feedbackis usually only provided to thosestudents who seek it out.
i. While the marking of student workis usually academically sound, theprocesses surrounding marking areweak, leading to poor written feed-back, insufficient information foraudit and potential unfairness.
j. Only rarely are assignments moder-ated prior to their being sat by thestudents.
17
k. Project work is a strength in theregion.
l. Attrition is high in about 50 per centof the universities in this sample.Affected universities need toimprove the retention rate byrecruiting the right students, pro-viding them with adequate academ-ic support, teaching them properlyand setting fair assessments.
m. Where universities are enlisting agood profile of students, theyshould consider how to maximisethe value added of the pro-grammes for the brightest stu-dents.
n. More systematic collection andanalysis of data on student pro-gression, achievement and employ-ment are widespread priorities.
o. Good practice in teaching, learningand assessment needs to be sharedmore widely within universitiesand throughout the region.
p. Library resources are usually weak.While new libraries continue to bebuilt, this will not address prevalentbook and journal stock problems.Financial constraints are a factor,yet poor organisation and purchas-ing policies exacerbate the situa-tion.
q. With a few exceptions, the numberand type of personal computers areadequate; however, their organisa-tion needs attention in severalcases.
r. The provision of software is gene-rally appropriate to student needs.
s. The use of networks, the Internetand local Intranets is at best ade-quate. Universities are not currentlytaking full advantage of these net-works as educational platforms andresources. While many aspects ofthe Internet are resource driven,
others can be achieved in collabora-tion with students.
t. There are several challenges associ-ated with academic staffing.
• There are too few staff overall.Those available are not alwaysorganised optimally to provideadequate course coverage for themaximum benefit of the students;
• In most universities, teachers areoverloaded, leading to slippagesand limited research;
• Full professors are scarce. As aresult, academic leadership andinfluence are often lacking;
• Too many staff teach in areas out-side their current specialisms;
• Scarce, fully qualified, staff arebeing used to teach elementarycourses such as basic computerskills to non-computer scientistsand introductory topics. Their spe-cialist knowledge is not calledupon in such duties;
• Lack of training in new pedagogictechniques, infrequent mentoring,insufficient dissemination of goodpractice and a general absence ofsupport for junior staff perpetuateweaknesses.
u. The reviewers support the commonstudent view that the academicstaff are the universities’ majorasset. They applaud the numerousschemes in which junior staff aresupported in undertaking furtherstudy. They further believe that sup-port for the academic staff in termsof training and the appointment ofqualified assistants to reduce themarking and supervision loadswould be an excellent investment.
v. Given the worldwide shortage ofstaff with PhDs in ComputerScience, it is possible that the region
18
should regard investment in thepreparatory education and develop-ment of this vital learning resourceas a priority. This needs to be com-bined with a drive to supportresearch and increase the numberof M.Sc. places within the region,together with greater use of M.Sc.holders to teach ancillary, introduc-tory and some intermediate levelcourses. This could alleviate muchof the staffing problem, improvethe quality of teaching and possiblyunlock solutions to other problems
w. While many universities operateprocedures which address aspectsof quality assurance, few can besaid to manage quality in a unified,systematic and fully documentedmanner that includes all aspects ofuniversity life.
x. National accreditation to maintainminimum academic standards is alaudable idea; however, the reportsare generally critical of suchboards, which appear to have astultifying effect. It appears thatthese boards need to revise theirapproach to accreditation so thatthey allow the potential richness ofthe region in Computer Science tobe unlocked.
4. Recommended Priorities forStrategic Reform
This report concludes that there aresix priorities of strategic reform thatrequire collaborative approachesbetween universities, departmentsand between universities and min-istries. A regional initiative to adoptand implement these six steps shouldbe a shared priority for Arab policy-makers in higher education. These are
Academic Programmes and Curricula:The need for proactive and strategicapproaches to the design, organisa-tion and delivery of curricula. This
requires a new comprehensiveapproach (demonstrated by the proj-ect) to the building and managementof academic programmes. While a pro-gramme should be clearly defined interms of its aims, intended learningoutcomes, external references andbenchmarks, it is essential that thecontent and organisation of the pro-gramme’s curricula and courses, themethods of its delivery and thedeployment of its resources are peri-odically reviewed to ensure theymatch and fulfill the programme aimsand intended outcomes.
Accreditation Bodies: The need to re-examine the role of official nationalaccreditation bodies with a view toensuring that, while universitiesshould be required to meet minimumnational standards that are expectedfrom higher education institutions,they are also allowed sufficient free-dom with regard to admission policiesand the development of their academ-ic programmes and curricula. This canonly be achieved within an overallnational regulatory framework thatavoids centralised control and sup-ports diversity and competitive inno-vation and endeavor within the sectorand relies more on the role of inde-pendent professional peer review andquality assessment as the means ofmeasuring and rewarding perfor-mance.
Academic Staff: Although all reviewedprogrammes enjoy high levels of com-petitive student demand, the lack ofsufficient numbers of qualifiedComputer Science staff is a bottleneckthat is seriously affecting programmeperformance in almost all providers.This requires new short and long termstrategies of enhanced investment inthis most valuable of academicresources, strategies that embrace lev-els and fields of needed staff, post-
19
graduate scholarships, financial andacademic incentives (including therecognition of excellence in teaching)and new opportunities for staff profes-sional development and research.
Learning Resources: Other learningresources are deficient and urgent,strategic investment plans arerequired particularly in libraries, interms of resources, staff and organisa-tion and with a view to encompassingboth the traditional and electroniccomponents of libraries. Thereappears to be a region-wide deficiencyin making use of the new learningresources and opportunities that arecreated by information and communi-cation technologies. It is importantthat investment is made in the provi-sion of network infrastructure withinand between universities and with theInternet. The planning and sustainedmaintenance and development ofthese networks is essential. A key partof any network infrastructure develop-ment should be training of universitypersonnel in all aspects of networkplanning, installation and mainte-nance.
Quality Assurance and Enhancement:The need in departments and universi-ties to develop appropriate internalquality assurance processes that buildupon existing elements of regulationand reporting, and that such systemspay greater attention to: listening tostudents, the employing communityand other stakeholders. This entailssystematic recording and manage-ment of data/ information as themeans of monitoring and reportingupon good practice, progress and success/ failure. Such reporting should be organised to ensure that theloops of monitoring, action and feed-back are closed, effective and conducive to inculcating the culture of continuous improvement and
learning.
The language of teaching: More con-certed effort and resources are neededfor addressing the language of teaching issue. Universities that teachin Arabic need to work togethernationally and across the region toproduce the minimum amount of upto date Arabic or Arabised texts andother teaching material (in both paperand electronic form) that are urgentlyneeded by students and staff. Thedemand for these resources, com-bined with regional collaboration cancreate a viable regional market forsuch products. In addition, students inthese universities should also be pro-vided with extra training in technicalEnglish to enable them to use addi-tional texts and other learningresources in English, especiallythrough the Internet. Universities thatteach in English should also ensurethat their students are provided withsufficient language training, not justwith regard to comprehension of lec-tures (without resorting to mixed lan-guage modes) but also with regard tothe ability of students to clearlyexpress their thoughts and ideas insound scientific writing.
5. Building on Strength
In addressing these challenges, theuniversities, departments and min-istries can build on their presentstrengths. For, notwithstanding thecriticism in this report, it is also estab-lished by the review that ComputerScience is a vigorous and competitivefield of academic study in the region.The best of its graduates demonstratea high academic standard; they arevalued by employers and able to com-pete internationally. There is visiblegrowth and large potential for muchneeded improvements, in terms ofquality and impact. There is also a dis-
20
tinct awareness among the participat-ing academics of the need forincreased investment in such quality-based development. Other strengthsto build upon were established by thereview and include:
• A willingness in the departmentsreviewed to take up the challengeof evaluating and improving theirprogrammes. Their active involve-ment in, and important contribu-tions to, all stages of these firstindependent quality assessmentsis proof positive of their academicseriousness and commitment.
• The region-wide emphasis oninvaluable graduate or capstoneprojects.
• A trend towards including anindustrial training element inmany programmes and strongerlinks with industry and employers.
• High completion and achievementrates in about half of the partici-pating universities.
• Clear awareness among academ-ics, decision makers and studentsof the special importance of effec-tive Computer Science educationfor national and regional develop-ment and job creation.
Tab
le 1
Su
mm
ary
of
Key In
dic
ato
rs
University 1
University 2
University 3
University 4
University 5
University 6
University 7
University 8
University 9
University 10
University 11
University 12
University 13
University 14
University 15
TOTALS
Main
revie
w judgm
ents
1A
cad
em
ic S
tan
dard
sA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SA
/SU
NA
/SU
N=
1;A
/S =
14; A
/C =
0
2T
each
ing
an
d L
earn
ing
S
GS
SG
SS
SS
GG
GS
SG
U =
0; S
=9; G
= 6
3S
tud
en
t P
rog
ressio
n
SS
SS
UU
SS
SG
GG
SS
SU
= 2
; S
= 1
0; G
= 3
4L
earn
ing
Reso
urc
es
U
SU
US
SU
SS
GG
SU
SS
U =
5; S
= 8
; G
= 2
5Q
uality
Assu
ran
ce &
En
han
cem
en
t U
UU
US
US
SS
SS
SS
SS
U =
5; S
= 1
0; G
=0
Ind
icato
r
1S
uff
icie
ncy o
f acad
em
ic s
taff
nu
mb
ers
U
SU
UU
UU
UU
SS
SU
SG
U =
9; S
= 5
; G
=1
2A
cad
em
ic s
tan
dard
s a
nd
ran
k s
tru
ctu
re o
f
exis
tin
g s
taff
GG
GG
UU
GU
GG
GG
SU
GU
=4; S
= 1
; G
=10
3M
ath
em
ati
cs c
om
po
nen
t o
f cu
rric
ulu
mS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
GG
SS
U =
0; S
= 1
3; G
=2
4M
FT
co
re a
reas t
hat
are
co
vere
d t
o 7
0%
or
mo
re*
01
1,2
,51,2
11,2
1,2
,3,5
11,2
,3,4
,
5
1,2
,31,2
,31,2
1,2
,3,4
,
5
1,2
2A
rea (
Num
ber)
=1(1
4),
2
(11),
3 (
5),
4(2
), 5
(3)
5T
ota
l %
co
vera
ge o
f M
FT
cu
rric
ulu
m**
47
37
78
63
56
74
73
55
82
81
80
84
90
66
59
Avera
ge =
71%
6R
ole
an
d o
rgan
isati
on
of
gra
du
ati
on
pro
ject
GG
GG
GG
SG
SS
SG
GG
GU
= 0
, S
= 4
, G
= 1
1
7N
um
ber
an
d a
cad
em
ic q
uality
of
bo
oks a
nd
jou
rnals
UU
SU
UU
UU
UG
GU
UU
SU
= 1
1, S
= 2
, G
= 2
8L
ibra
ry o
rgan
isati
on
an
d s
pace
acco
mo
dati
on
SU
UU
SS
US
GG
GU
UG
GU
= 6
, S
= 4
, G
= 5
9F
acilit
ies a
nd
arr
an
gem
en
ts f
or
inte
rnet
access a
nd
use
UU
UU
SU
UG
SS
SG
GS
GU
= 6
, S
= 5
, G
= 4
10
Nu
mb
er
an
d O
rgan
isati
on
of
PC
sU
UU
UG
SU
UG
GG
SU
GG
U =
7, S
= 2
, G
= 6
11
Stu
den
ts c
op
mete
nce in
tech
nic
al E
ng
lish
S
SU
US
US
UG
GG
SG
SG
U =
4, S
= 6
, G
= 5
No
tes:
Main
revie
w judgm
ents
Oth
er
sele
cte
d a
sp
ects
A
rchitectu
re, (4
)Theory
and C
om
puta
tional M
ath
em
atics, (5
) S
pecia
l Topic
s. S
ee p
ara
gra
ph 3
2 o
f th
e r
eport
.
** S
ee p
ara
gra
ph 3
2 o
f the r
eport
.
Abbre
via
tions:
For A
cadem
ic S
tandard
s o
nly
. U
N:
Unappro
ved; A
/S A
ppro
ved /
Satisfa
cto
ry; A
/C: A
ppro
ved w
ith C
om
mendation
F
or
Qualit
y A
ssura
nce a
nd E
nhancem
ent only
: U
: U
nsatisfa
cto
ry; S
: S
atisfa
cto
ry
F
or
oth
er
indic
ato
rs: U
: U
nsatisfa
cto
ry;
S: S
atisfa
cto
ry; G
: G
ood
* M
FT
curr
iculu
m c
ore
are
as: (1
) P
rogra
mm
ing F
undam
enta
ls, (2
) S
oftw
are
Syste
ms, (3
) C
om
pute
r O
rganis
ation a
nd
22
I.1 The UNDP/ RBAS RAB 01/002Project
The Project “Enhancement of QualityAssurance and Institutional Planningat Arab Universities” is sponsored andmanaged by the UNDP RegionalBureau of Arab States in partnershipwith selected groups (consortiums) ofArab universities. The project’s devel-opment objective is the introduction ofindependent systems of qualityassessment of programmes in Arabuniversities with reference to interna-tionally established criteria, proce-dures and benchmarks. This report is aproduct of Component A of the proj-ect, which is focused on assessing thequality of Computer Science educationin Arab universities (during the year2002). This is to be followed by assess-ment of the quality of BusinessAdministration programmes in a simi-lar group of universities during 2003.
The project includes two other compo-nents that are being implemented inparallel with Component A.Component B aims at assisting partic-ipating universities in the develop-ment of statistical databases on theirmain activities and resources in accor-dance with commonly agreed interna-tional data definitions and specifica-tions. Component C aims at assistingparticipating Computer Science andBusiness Administration programmesin assessing the performance of theirsenior year (graduating) students intheir major field of study through theadministration of international tests.
I.2 Academic Subject Review
The Academic Subject Review Method,customised for use in the Arab univer-sities from the method published bythe UK’s Quality Assurance Agency forHigher Education (QAA), is prescribed
in a Handbook (Handbook forAcademic Review) that has been pre-pared by the project, produced inEnglish, Arabic and French and adopt-ed as the basis of both the internal andexternal stages of the review process.
The method places responsibility onthe university to evaluate and reporton the quality of learning opportuni-ties and the confidence in academicstandards within a framework forreview. This framework, described inthe Handbook, includes the use ofboth the specific aims of the reviewedprovision as well as external referencepoints to establish and improve theacademic standards.
In most Arab states, the academicstandards are proscribed and/ oraccredited by the Ministry of HigherEducation or an equivalent centralbody. Computer Science curricula arestrongly influenced by the specifica-tions of the American ComputerMachinery (ACM) authority. In the UKthe QAA has published a wide rangeof materials designed to provide abackground against which the reviewscan take place, for example subjectbenchmark statements and a code ofpractice. Each university was asked toidentify its external subject referencepoints so that its academic standingmay be judged.
I.3 The Academic Subject Reviewprocess
Subject review is a peer reviewprocess. Appointed representativesfrom all participating institutions weregiven detailed briefing and guidance,through a series of training workshopsand subsequent advisory correspon-dence on the review process and theconduction of both the self-evaluationand the external review process.
I. Introduction
23
The review starts when institutionsevaluate their provision in the subjectin a self-evaluation document. Thisdocument is submitted to the projectfor use by a team of external review-ers, composed of experienced special-ists in the discipline who are also registered QAA reviewers. Each external review team included a UKteam leader (Review Coordinator) anda team member (Review Specialist). Inaddition, by providing the leading rep-resentatives of all participating universities with theoretical and practical training on the externalreview process, the project was able toinclude at least one Arabic-speakingreview specialist in each review team.
The reviewers read the self-evaluationdocument and visit the university togather evidence to enable them toreport their judgments on the academ-ic standards, the quality of learningopportunities and the ability of the uni-versity to assure and enhance aca-demic standards and quality. Reviewactivities include meeting staff andstudents; scrutinising students’assessed work, reading relevant docu-ments, class observation and examin-ing learning resources. Full details ofthe process of subject review can befound in the project’s Handbook forAcademic Review
I.4 Criteria and Ranges ofPossible Judgments
The standard framework of evaluationaddresses three related questions:
• The degree of confidence in the aca-demic standards of the provision, asmanifested in its aims and intendedlearning outcomes, the curricula ofstudies, the practiced methods ofstudent assessment and the actualachievements of students.
• The quality and effectiveness of thelearning opportunities that the provi-
sion offers to current and prospec-tive students in terms of teachingand learning, learning resources andthe academic support and guidancethat secures the students’ academicprogress.
• The degree of confidence in the pro-vision’s internal arrangements andcapacity to assure, maintain andenhance academic standards.
For Academic Standards, reviewersmake one of the following judgmentson the fitness for purpose of theintended learning outcomes, the cur-riculum, student assessment and stu-dent achievement:
• Approved (with commendation):demonstrates a substantial numberof good features outweighing anymatters that deserve to beaddressed.
• Approved (satisfactory): demon-strates on balance acceptable stan-dards together with the need toaddress many issues and make sub-stantial improvements.
• Not approved: arrangements areinadequate in any one of the fourelements that comprise academicstandards and major remedial actionis necessary.
For the Quality of Learning opportuni-ties, the reviewers make judgmentsunder each of three elements (teach-ing and learning, student progressionand learning resources) according tothe degree of success demonstrated insecuring appropriate arrangements.Three graded outcomes are used bythe reviewers:
• Good: there is good practice and,although there may also be someissues to be addressed in the spiritof continuing improvement, thereviewers are confident that the uni-versity has the capacity and the
24
commitment to address these suc-cessfully.
• Satisfactory: on balance, good fea-tures are accompanied by one ormore substantial areas for improve-ment that are not presently fullyaddressed and that are subject torecommendations for action.
• Unsatisfactory: The arrangements donot match the stated educationalaims or support the intended learning outcomes and remedialaction is necessary.
For Quality Assurance andEnhancement the outcomes used bythe reviewers are expressed in termsof the degree of confidence they havein the institution’s ability to assure andenhance quality and academic stan-dards in the subject under review.They make one of the following judg-ments:
• Satisfactory
• Unsatisfactory
25
Subject Provision
1. All but two of the 15 universitiesunder review offered an undergradu-ate programme in Computer Science.In addition universities offered under-graduate programmes in SoftwareEngineering, Information Systems,Computer Engineering, and GeneralEngineering, five of which wereincluded in the reviews. One universi-ty offered a set of three closely relatedmasters programmes for review;these programmes are also closelylinked to the undergraduate pro-gramme. One university offered only apostgraduate diploma for review. Thisreport addresses all of the pro-grammes under review; however,unless otherwise stated, it refers toeither all programmes or an under-graduate degree in Computer Science.
2. The universities involved do notfollow a uniform model for theirundergraduate programmes. Variousprogrammes are based on the NorthAmerican, the French or the Britishsystem, usually with local variations.This variation is addressed in thereport. Similarly, the main language ofinstruction varies with institutionsteaching in French, English and Arabicor more commonly some mixture ofeither French or English and Arabic. Inalmost all cases undergraduate pro-grammes consisted of a mixture ofuniversity, faculty and specialistcourses. Some of the universities seg-regate male and female students forteaching and all other activities.
3. Undergraduate Computer Scienceis usually provided by a ComputerScience department; however, suchdepartments are found in a variety offaculties/ schools. The location of theprovision of Computer Science has a
bearing on the fitness for purpose ofthe curriculum, the learning resourcesand other supporting systems andfacilities. A small number of ComputerScience departments have recentlybeen incorporated into IT faculties.Such a move would appear to offeradvantages particularly in bringingtogether other planned or existingprogrammes in the same broad area,for example, Software Engineering orInformation Systems. This issue isaddressed under the IntendedLearning Outcomes and Curriculumsections.
Overall Aims
Each university was required to statethe educational aims for the provisionin the self-evaluation document.Additionally, each university prepareda programme specification for eachprogramme under review and theseinclude programme aims. While allowing universities to define theirown aims appears, at first sight, to create self-fulfilling situations. it isvital as it allows a diverse range of universities and programmes to bereviewed by the same method and foreach university to define the nature ofits computing programmes. The aimsstated in the self-evaluation documentby each university should define whatthe programme is intended to achieveand therefore provide a basis forassessing its success.
5. Many universities included partsof their mission statement in the self-evaluation. In such cases the provisionaims were related to the mission state-ment. In general the quoted section ofthe mission statement was consideredhelpful in providing context and help-ing to explain the rationale for the ‘uni-versity required courses’. In every par-
II. Subject Provision and Aims
26
ticipating institution the stated aimswere consistent with the mission of theinstitution and with the programmeaims. However, review teams notedsome omissions, where the statedaims of the provision were either not comprehensively addressing allaspects of the curriculum offered orthey did not line up closely with thestated programme aims. Universitiesmay find it helpful to reconsider sec-tions of their mission statements andprovide a starting point for their faculties and departments to defineprogrammes in terms of educationalaims together with intended learningoutcomes. It could then be a require-ment for each new, or modified, pro-gramme to be shown to be consistentwith the mission statement of the university, informed by the use ofexternal reference points such as stateaccreditation regulations and relevantinternationally recognised profession-al specifications.
6. The following list contains themost common themes within the com-plete set of all provision aims,although not all aspects of the quotedtheme necessarily appeared together.The figure in brackets identifies the number of times this theme occurs:� Fitting graduates for employment
[12];� Fitting graduates for further study or
research [10];� To give a sound grounding in the
theoretical aspects of the discipline[10];
� To enable all students to achieve agood level of the higher order skillssuch as critical evaluation and inde-pendent learning [10];
� To provide graduates with good soft-ware development skills [8];
� Meeting local, national, regional or
international needs for graduates inthe discipline [8];
� To enable all students to achieve a good level of transferable skills (sometimes presentationalskills) [8];
� To enable staff research [7];� To recruit the best students and
enable them to reach their full capac-ity [6];
� Various aims related to specificaspects of the discipline [6];
� Ensure that students acquire a clearunderstanding of their economic,professional and ethical responsibili-ties and of the impact of ICT devel-opments and solutions in the globaleconomic and cultural environment.[6];
� To provide education in moderntechnologies and their application[5];
7. The stated aims were rarely inap-propriate and they generally providedan appropriate basis for undertakingthe review. The review teams, howev-er, rarely regarded them as useful indefining the programmes. The majori-ty of statements of aims prepared forthe reviews have significant gaps.These omissions include a definitionof the discipline or sub-discipline, thebreadth and depth of study, theintended entry level to the pro-gramme, the intended markets for thegraduates, the skills and knowledgewhich the graduates will possess andthe extent to which staff research, cur-rent technology and its applications,and scholarship inform the students’work. Where participating institutionsoffer more than one undergraduateprogramme, for example a science-focused programme and a more voca-tional and practical programme, theaims do not provide sufficient differen-
27
tiation between the programmes. In allreferences to the higher order of graduate skills, the stated aimsdeserve closer definition to clarify therange of cognitive, subject specificand transferable skills. There is alsolittle in the stated aims that covers theuniversity and faculty requirements.The stated aims, to be the basis of the
design, delivery and review of pro-grammes of study, require a clearidentification of these features as wellas the broad purposes illustrated inparagraph 6 above. Providing suchmatters are addressed, the statementsof aims can form the basis from whichthe intended learning outcomes arederived.
With regard to Subject Provision and Overall Aims the reviewersrecommend that the universities consider the following:
• Reconsider sections of their mission statement to meet the specific need of providing a starting point fordefining programmes in terms of intended learning outcomes. (ILO’s).
• The need to reconsider their general and programme aims with the specific intention of providing a set ofaims which accurately describe what the programme is intended to achieve, to the point that these may forma sound basis for the derivation of all aspects of the programme through a coherent set of ILO's. The aimsand intended learning outcomes should explicitly identify the depth of skills and knowledge that their gra-duates should possess and relate these to the entrants’ qualifications and abilities.
• The need for more explicit definitions of key aspects, in particular vocational relevance and graduate skills.
28
III.1 Aims and Intended LearningOutcomes
8. The participating departments wereasked to identify the external refer-ence points that they use to ensurethat their academic standards aredirectly comparable with universitieselsewhere. The following list identifiesthe range of reference pointsaddressed in the self-evaluation docu-ments.� Local (national) accreditationrequirements;� Regional universities;� Other universities, commonly thoseat which the faculty members havestudied;� The Association for ComputingMachinery (ACM)/IEEE guidelines forComputer Science, usually 1991although a few cited the 2001 edition;� The UK benchmark statement inComputer Science (published byQAA);� Information about other universitiesfrom the Internet.
9. The reviewers suggest that many ofthese references need to be used withcare because they may not be appro-priate. For example, many aspiring
academics from the region undertakea PhD at a research led university inNorth America or Europe. Using thisas a model may only be appropriatefor universities that can recruit firstclass students, provide the resourcesto support a large, research-activedepartment and have a mission thatincludes similar aspirations to the onebeing used as a model. Clearly, manyinstitutions do not match these criteriaand, therefore, an alternative model,or a variant, may be preferable
10. In several of the host countries anational organisation accredits pro-grammes at individual universities,although the rigor of the processvaries between those that simplyauthorise the running of programmesthrough to those which check the aca-demic content of the programmesconcerned, others simply check thatthe resources are available to run theprogrammes. In general, the review-ers acknowledge the work of the vari-ous national accreditation bodies inmaintaining academic standards,although the implementation ofaccreditation does not always appearto be well managed or equitable to allparticipants. There are instances whenthe regulations have the effect of dic-tating the curricula from the centre
III. Academic Standards
Review Outcome: Overall, the review teams concluded that, in all but one case, univer-sities had demonstrated the threshold level of confidence in academic standards inComputer Science. However, it was clear from the reports that the degree of confidencevaried greatly. In the best performing universities, the review teams acknowledged goodpractice in at least one aspect of academic standards, with the curriculum and studentachievement featuring as the strongest. However, in cases the reports suggest that theacademic standards were considered as just satisfactory. It is disappointing that no provi-sion was judged to have academic standards worthy of commendation. It is encouraging,however, that the level of awareness for the need to upgrade academic standards is highamong all universities and that this awareness is combined with a very healthy willingnessto welcome critical evaluation and identify areas of needed reform.
29
and sometimes, by setting a gold stan-dard of course content and inputrequirements, have in practice anadverse effect by acting as a constrainton maintaining the currency of the cur-riculum. One of the clear lessons fromthe project working across the regionis the diversity in approach and differ-ences in the effectiveness of the stateaccreditation processes. In the courseof the project, the Ministry in onecountry instituted a review of theaccreditation arrangements with areview to reforming the process. Theroles and regulations of all the respec-tive national accreditation bodiesdeserve such review and reform. It ispossible that a regional body could beformed to accredit the ComputerScience programmes. Any suchaccreditation body, however, whetheroperating nationally or regionally,should seek a consensus on establish-ing an enabling framework thatenhances the level of confidence inacademic standards and allow eachuniversity to define its own aims,learning outcomes and curriculum.This would allow a university to defineits own model for the curriculumaccording to local needs andresources. This is the approach nowtaken by the Accreditation Board forEngineering and Technology (ABET)and the Computer ScienceAccreditation Board (CSAB) in theUSA and therefore will be the modelexperienced by university staff nowundertaking PhDs in North America.
11. The process of defining intendedlearning outcomes (ILOs) is challeng-ing. It not only provides a precise yetflexible specification that supportsquality assurance processes, but alsoassists academic staff and students to“think learning and outcomes” ratherthan “inputs and what is to be taught”.Many universities acknowledged thatthey had derived their ILOs from the
programmes already in place.Although the pioneering circum-stances of the reviews made this prag-matic (‘bottom up’) approach almostinevitable for this set of reviews, infuture reviewers would hope to seethe ILO’s derived from the aims of theprogramme. The bottom up approachused throughout the reviews illustratedmany pitfalls, such as: faculty and uni-versity requirements that did not meetILOs, numerous omissions and repeti-tions related to skills, and to a lesserextent knowledge, ill-defined andoften ill-judged academic standardsand poor curriculum design. The ‘topdown’ approach has many advan-tages, as the industry has discoveredwhen building software. Among thebenefits are: the academic standard ofthe programme is defined and used toinform the choice and content ofcourses, only courses that arerequired to fulfil the ILO’s are included,undue overlap between courses isavoided, omissions are avoided, peri-odical revision and updating of theprogramme and curriculum is enabledon a systematic rational basis andemployers and other stakeholders areconsulted and informed about precise-ly what qualities can be expected fromgraduates.
12. The project training workshops forthe university representatives and theProject Handbook detailed a very help-ful template in which each programmecould be specified against four head-ings: Knowledge and understanding,Cognitive skills, Subject specific skillsand General transferable skills. Usedcarefully and in such a way that thewhole programme is covered, it ispossible to include all of the strengthsand avoid the weaknesses outlined inthe above paragraph. while a very feweither misunderstood the template or perhaps the notion of intendedlearning outcomes, the majority of
30
participating universities are reportedas having used this template to advan-tage in this project . Such a template isa valuable tool easily transferable toother disciplines and institutions.
In general, the reports identify prob-lems in mapping between the aims,the external references, the pro-gramme ILOs, module ILOs, the course
topics and descriptors and the topicschosen for assessing students. In par-ticular, course ILOs were often not welldefined, sometimes at odds with prac-tice and not well presented. Thereports frequently indicate a commu-nication problem with both staff andstudents regarding ILOs.
With regard to the Intended Learning Outcomes, the reviewersrecommend that the universities consider the following:
• There is a need for universities to state clearly the external organisations against which it judges its academ-ic standards and for these reference points to be appropriate. This action could result in the universitychoosing to change or modify the model for its curriculum, for example to a smaller more specialised majorin Computer Science. Such moves should not be precluded by accreditation if they are justified and aca-demically coherent.
• The need for the universities that were criticised for vague, incomplete or contradictory ILOs to rectify thesituation by drawing up ILOs for each programme and each course on the basis, in the first instance, oftheir current programme specifications.
• The need for all universities to redefine their ILOs in detail on the basis of their aims and then re-examineand to use these as the basis for revalidating their programmes, modifying, replacing and omitting coursesas appropriate.
• The need to ensure that the ILOs are clearly and precisely defined and that they are mapped to the pro-gramme content and course descriptors.
31
III.2 Curricula
At undergraduate level the participat-ing universities follow a number of dif-ferent curricular models varying in thedepth and breadth with whichComputer Science, and the relatedprogrammes, are treated. Similarly,the expected length of programmesvaries: programmes intended to leadto the title Engineer for their graduatesare five years, while others are nor-mally four years. There is considerablevariation in the proportion of the totalcurricula hours spent on ComputerScience or the other main discipline,Mathematics, Science and other top-ics.
15. The international situation hasmoved from defining what should becovered within a programme, to defin-ing what abilities graduates inComputer Science should have. In par-ticular what Subject specific skills andknowledge, what skills and knowledgegraduates in Science and Engineeringbased disciplines might be expectedto have and also what might reason-ably be expected of all graduates.Within the Computer Science andrelated fields, the work of the mostrecent ACM/IEEE project (2001) andthe UK (QAA) benchmark in ComputerScience are probably the most signifi-cant in terms of coverage and accept-ability. This report draws on these doc-uments, particularly that from theACM, since many of the participatinguniversities are based on the NorthAmerican model. Computer Scienceproviders should also assess thedepth and breadth of their curriculaagainst those defined by internationaltesting organisations that develop andadminister worldwide standardisedtests for measuring the performanceof senior students in the field ofComputer Science (as well as othermajor fields of undergraduate stu-
dies). One well-known example is theEducational Testing Services in theUSA.
16. The ACM 2001 argues eloquentlythat all programmes, regardless of theamount of computing in the curricu-lum, should demonstrate the following:� Cover all 280 hours of core material
in the Computer Science body ofknowledge
� Require sufficient advanced course-work to provide depth in at least onearea of Computer Science
� Include an appropriate level of sup-porting Mathematics
� Offer students exposure to “realworld” professional skills such asresearch experience, teamwork,technical writing and project devel-opment if they are to claim to havelaid a rigorous foundation forComputer Science. This reportattempts to use the above as abenchmark for all of the pro-grammes as regardless of title, eachprogramme specification includes astrong computing component andtherefore they could all be expectedto demonstrate a Computer Sciencecore.
17. It is clear from the reports that notall of the universities cover the ACM2001 core, or any closely related core.Weaknesses are reported in the areasof: Theoretical Computer Science,Human Computer Interaction (HCI),professional and ethical issues, and inone programme not strictly ComputerScience both Software Engineeringand Databases are options). Thereviewers strongly suggest that alluniversities in the region should offeran agreed core for all computing-relat-ed undergraduate programmes. Sucha core could be agreed within existingregional organisations, or all universi-ties could simply accept that suggest-
32
ed by the ACM/IEEE 2001.
18. Programming coupled with pro-gramming languages forms thelargest single section of the core(around 20%). Aside from perennialarguments over how to teach pro-gramming, and what language shouldbe used, which are local issues, thereis an issue of academic progressionthat is not always satisfactorilyresolved in the participating institu-tions. One factor operating againstappropriate progression is the treat-ment of programming languages.While it is necessary to teach the syn-tax of one language, in order that stu-dents may test algorithms or design,implement and test software. It isclearly not appropriate to repeat anear identical experience. Curriculawhich included multiple computer lan-guages were common, and evenrequired, by some accreditationboards, until recently. The reportsshow that there is a continuingoveremphasis on programming syn-tax in at least 4 universities. Thereviewers consider that studying dif-ferent paradigms is appropriate; how-ever, after studying the syntax of thefirst language, students should eitherexercise their individual learning skillsor join a training course which is out-side of the university curriculum ifthey are to gain proficiency in multiplecomputer languages.
19. Another major influence on thedesign of academic progression inComputer Science curricula is the mix-ture of introductory, intermediary andadvanced courses. Any of these levelscan contain core material. All of theparticipating universities includedmaterial at each of the three levels.Intermediary courses are intended tobuild both a subject and skills founda-tion for further study and are typicallyfound in the second and third year of
a programme. Advanced coursesrequire considerable preparatory workand are usually found in the final yearor years. Some universities engagewith progression by using a yearbased model, the aim being that stu-dents must pass each year before pro-ceeding to the next year. The remain-ing universities define a system of pre-requisites; however, not all reportsindicate satisfaction with the existingpre-requisites and often feel theyshould be strengthened, and as report-ed elsewhere in this report, enforcedin order that they meet the require-ments specified in paragraph 19.
20. A period of summer training inindustry makes a valuable contribu-tion to a number of programmes. In particular this period, usually of two months, often informs the stu-dent’s graduation project and providesfresh perspectives on industrial andcommercial practices and develop-ments and therefore successfullyaddresses the vocational aims of theprogramme.
21. Final year, graduation or capstoneprojects are an integral part of the cur-ricula of the entire reviewed under-graduate programme. The majority ofthe projects are scheduled to be dou-ble courses usually taken over twosemesters although this is not univer-sal and one university schedules twoseparate projects in two courses.Many of these projects are directlyrelated to ‘real-world’ problems,sometimes arising from periods oftraining in industry undertaken by thestudents. Commendably, such projectsoften require students to work throughthe whole process of building a com-plete computer based system requiredby an external client. In an example ofgood practice, one institution allowsits students to undertake the intern-ship and project in either order. All of
3333
the teams regarded the inclusion of afinal year project as a strength and thisview is very much in keeping with cur-rent international guidelines.
The degree of training for final yearprojects appears to vary betweennone and a full research methodscourse. Project work is always seen asan integral part of the transferableskills curricula and review teams clear-ly support the notion that studentsdevelop not only the core skills, suchas presentation and time manage-ment, but also the higher order skillssuch as independent learning and crit-ical analysis. All the review reports arestrongly supportive of the inclusion offinal-year projects, which contributegreatly to the graduates’ employabilityand is the culmination of the students’independent learning. Providers maywish to consider defining a set of pre-requisites which are to be acquiredprogressively by students, through themain and supporting components ofthe curriculum, to ensure that all students have the necessary skills tosuccessfully undertake a graduationproject.
23. In addition to the ComputerScience programme, each universityhas to define how it proposes to usethe remaining curricular space and thebases on which these choices aremade. The decision is within the con-text of curricula that are frequentlyovercrowded with competing demandson the available time for the studentsto acquire knowledge and skills. Suchchoices always include a number ofsubjects which support the major dis-cipline such as language skills, cul-tural knowledge and study skills. To adegree they also address how weak-nesses inherited from the school sys-tem can be addressed. For example,poor written language skills, weakEnglish or French, poor study skills,
general weak performance and others.
24. The degree to which Transferableskills and advanced technical lan-guage skills are specifically taught,rather than acquired as a result ofother activities, varies. The overallmessage is that they certainly need tobe taught to weaker students. One uni-versity has included such skills, to theextent of 11 credit hours, in its univer-sity requirements. Other universitiesmay wish to consider this idea andreplace less relevant courses by pro-fessional study skills courses. Such amove could enhance the professional-ism of the students’ later work andtake some pressure off the ComputerScience staff who are, in reality, doingthis teaching.
25. At present, many universitiesrequire Computer Scientists to studyPhysics, Chemistry, Biology and evenEarth Sciences in part because theComputer Science department lieswithin the faculty of Science which inturn is dominated by Natural and LifeScientists. The reviewers strongly sug-gest that within the spirit of theComputer Science ILOs, Scienceshould be included in the curriculumonly if it contributes to the ComputerScience students’ education in ameaningful way, perhaps in conjunc-tion with HCI. Any other Science that auniversity or faculty includes in thecurriculum should be justified in termsof its own ILO’s. The reviewers suggestthat where a university includes suchcourses they should now expand theirILOs by defining the purpose of theScience in terms of outcomes andthen which courses are needed tomeet the revised outcomes.
26. The review teams reported thatevery institution covered appropriatesupport Mathematics (Basic Calculusand Discrete Mathematics) meetingthe general requirements of the core
34
of Computer Science. Mathematics is a strength in the Computer Sciencecurricula within the region. However,there is some suggestion that the vol-ume and scope of Mathematics is toohigh at many universities with the uni-versities which follow a broadly Frenchstyle of curriculum covering the mostMathematics in the ‘Classes Prepar-atoires’, and the ‘first cycle’ in at leastone university is run by the depart-ment of pure Mathematics. In general,it is up to individual universities todecide how much, and which, addi-tional Mathematics they need to meettheir aims and learning outcomes.Subjects such as Geometry, OrdinaryDifferential Equations, Linear Algebra,and Numerical Analysis should beincluded in individual programmesonly if justified, and each topic maynot need to occupy a complete course.
27. Many universities identify a needto maintain the currency of their cur-riculum while also maintaining a coreof material that evolves quite slowly.Balancing these potentially conflictingrequirements can be a problem, partic-ularly if universities are to avoid thepitfall of simply following current tech-nology or software packages. The firstproblem that is encountered by mostuniversities in this regard is shortageof staffing, both in terms of their num-ber and their subject expertise.Secondly, some national or universityregulations inhibit an individual uni-versity’s ability to respond rapidly tochanging needs and to maintain theintegrity of the programme as well asits currency. Finally, a provider mustchoose which of a long list of ‘moderntopics’ to include. For example, object-oriented analysis and design, object-oriented databases, interoperability,embedded systems, event driven pro-gramming, hypertext and hypermedia,multimedia, software safety, networksecurity, graphical user interfaces,
wireless computing, web based appli-cations, sophisticated API’s. All featurein up-to-date curricular, but not all inthe same curriculum. Most reviewteams found that the core has beenupdated recently, for example, objectoriented programming is featured inmost curricula; however, the reportsdo not indicate a strong sense of cur-rency, rather there is an indication ofsome up-to-date topics being includedat most universities, sometimes bymeans of non-specific special topiccourses and sometimes by electives.
28. In total, only five undergraduateprogrammes had titles other thanComputer Science and two of theseare directly related to ComputerScience programmes. Judging by anumber of other reports, InformationSystems (three courses) is a growtharea within the region. Insofar as it ispossible to generalise, InformationSystems programmes share many ofthe early courses with ComputerScience up to and including the thirdyear. Most of the comments above areas applicable to Information Systemsas to Computer Science. The one Ge-neral Engineering programme is, inthe opinion of the review team, mis-named as all of the three specialiststreams are in the field of ComputerScience. The one Computer Engineer-ing degree shares much of its work,including an extensive list of options,with the parallel Computer Scienceprogramme. Finally, there is one Soft-ware Engineering and InformationSystems programme. The latter sharesthe first three years with all othercourses in the faculty and is too smalla sample to support meaningful com-ment.
29. Two universities offered postgrad-uate programmes for review. The firstoffers three closely related M.Sc.s allof which are directly associated with
35
its undergraduate programme andprovide a means of specialising thesoftware oriented general Engineeringprogramme. The taught part of theseprogrammes is reported as appropri-ate to the level, and each degree leadsto a project or a dissertation. The se-cond programme is a two-year post-graduate diploma aimed at convertingScientists and Engineers to a specificrange of Computing andCommunications disciplines. The latterprogramme is very broad, as it isintended to be equivalent to a full firstdegree programme, but neverthelessoffers a range of highly specialisedtopics that are informed by currentdevelopments. It places a heavyemphasis on the development oftransferable skills. Both programmesrequire students to undertake ‘realworld’ projects which are related toeither industry or research.
30. These post-graduate programmesrepresent too small a sample of theavailable Master’s provision to makemeaningful deductions about the pro-vision in the region as a whole. In viewof the strong regional need for morequalified academic staff in ComputerScience and the high cost of sendingpostgraduate missions abroad for fur-ther study, there would appear to be ademand for more high qualityMasters’ programmes in the region.Good quality Master’s programmesprovide academic staff with opportuni-ties to carry out fruitful research, whilewell trained M.Sc. graduates canshoulder much of the junior levelteaching and provide the needed uni-versity-wide instruction in BasicComputing skills. Although the num-ber of providers who offer postgradu-ate programmes in Computer Sciencewithin the region is not known, thepresent experience suggests that it islimited sometimes for ambiguous rea-sons. For example one university can-
not run an M.Sc. because it is private.Overall, more Masters’ programmeswould have a virtuous multipliereffect: by investing in increased num-bers of qualified and research-activestaff the learning resources for teach-ing the programme will be enhancedtogether with the provision’s capacityto produce well trained M.Sc. holderswho in turn enhance the capacity ofthe provision to teach better at lesscost.
31. The need to relate ‘real world’experience to the courses is wellestablished for Computer Science andrelated disciplines. In general, suchexperience comes from research andadvanced scholarship or from indus-try. In just over half the reviews theteam found evidence of staff research,although in only one third were thereports positive of the connection withteaching. Similarly, just over half thereports indicate some connectionbetween the staff and industry,although in no case were they report-ed to have a positive impact on thecurriculum. One report suggests thatan industrial liaison committee is to beformed, which would appear to be animportant signpost for developing andsustaining links between industry anduniversities throughout the region.
32. A different view of the curriculumcoverage of core Computer Science canbe gleaned from a separate analysescarried out for the project by the university representatives and thereviewers, with the aim of establishingthe extent to which each reviewed curriculum overlaps with that definedby the Educational Testing Services in the USA for its standard Major Field Test (MFT) in Computer Science.This is a multiple-choice test which ismainly intended for testing the senior(graduating class) students in thisfield. Similar tests are developed for
36
other major fields of undergraduatestudy.
The MFT curriculum provides adetailed list of topics under five coreweighted sections: (1) ProgrammingFundamentals, (2) Software Systems,(3) Computer Organisation andArchitecture, (4) Theory andComputational Mathematics and (5)Special Topics).
The main purpose of the analyses(which was carried out using theSpring 2002 version of the MFT cur-riculum) is to establish the extent towhich the senior students of a givenprogramme are eligible, in principle,to be tested in each core section of thetest. As shown in the chart of key indi-
cators (Appendix 1) the reviewed cur-ricula cover on average 70% of theoverall MFT core curriculum, althoughindividual scores range between 37%and 90%. These figures need to betreated with a degree of caution since,as mentioned earlier, some of thereviewed programmes are not formal-ly undergraduate Computer Sciencedegrees.
The charts of indicators also showwhich of the five MFT core areas arecovered by each reviewed curriculum(to the extent 70% or more). Not sur-prisingly, only the first MFT two sec-tions (programming fundamentalsand software systems) are covered bya majority of reviewed programmes.
III.3 Assessment of Students
33. Providers were asked to prepareprogramme specifications that definedthe ILOs and, importantly, the methodby which these are assessed. As withthe curriculum this was a bottom-upprocess as individual course assess-ments were already in place, and per-haps more significantly, many pro-grammes are constrained by national
or university assessment regulations.
34. While a few universities failed tomap the ILOs to the assessment effec-tively, the majority of universitiesmade a good attempt at mapping ILOsto assignments with respect to theknowledge and understanding aspectsof the provision and they were quiteclear about the role of various exami-nations. They were also generally clear
With regard to Curricula, the reviewers recommend that theuniversities consider the following:
• The desirability of defining its programme and the courses within it on the basis of its aims and intendedlearning outcomes and identify how each course contributes to the achievement of the intended learningoutcomes.
• The need to demonstrate how the curriculum meets its aims and that undue overlap with regard to learningoutcomes is avoided. In particular it should address the following:• Make a clear statement as to how each aspect of the Computer Science core is covered.
• Re-examine the relevance of Science and Mathematics courses.
• Re-consider the design of the curricula to ensure they provide appropriate academic progression, andensure that core and advanced transferable skills are clearly identified within its programmes and teachthese skills at a professional level where it is appropriate to do so.
• Make a specific statement with regard to currency in the curriculum. Such statements might identify spe-cific areas of Computer Science which will form the basis of the advanced and current topics.
• Consider how advanced ‘special topic’ courses can be specified. The actual topic of such courses is leftopen and, therefore, they do not have a syllabus but they do need ILOs one of which specifies the needfor currency.
• Ensure that advanced courses are taught by university staff who are currently experts in the field
• Develop and formalise links with industry.
37
with regard to the role of practicalsand projects with regard to the acqui-sition of skills.
35. Most of the universities use agood range of assessment typesincluding: written closed book (andoccasionally open book) final exami-nations, mid-term examinations,homework, quizzes, programmingassignments, practical examinations,research exposés, reports, projects,discussions, and presentations. Inbroad terms the review teams consid-ered the assessment types to beappropriately used; however, staff didnot always appear to be quite clearabout the purpose of all assessmenttypes and how, or even if, the ILOsshould be assessed. For example, thevaluable industrial training period isnot always formally assessed. The ILOsshould define what skills and know-ledge have to be assessed for summa-tive (to test that they have been cov-ered) purposes and, therefore, itshould be possible to map where eachassessment fits in relation to the ILOs.Similarly, it should be possible to mapthe formative (assessment which isdesigned to help the student learnrather than test the learning) aspect ofassessment into the learning aspect ofthe ILOs.
36. Course leaders at some universi-ties are constrained by regulations,while others have considerable free-dom to decide how to assess theircourse. Although the latter situationcan lead to problems at programmelevel, since no overview is taken of thebalance between different assessmenttypes or whether the overall dietaddresses all the ILOs within eachcourse, the assessment strategy canincorporate interesting and relevantactivities within a developmentalframework. There is also scope for,and some evidence of, the use of inno-
vative technology-based assessment.The experience of some students isconstrained by the methods of teach-ing and some university regulations.For example, some students have littlechance to work on significant prob-lems or case studies until their finalyear project. As a result, the opportu-nities to use assessment to developprofessional, practical, analytical andsynthetic skills are restricted andopportunities for formative assess-ment relating to skills are similarly li-mited.
37. In general the process of ensuringthat examinations and other assess-ments are fair, of an appropriate stan-dard, provide sufficient differentiationbetween weak and able students, andtest the intended learning outcomes,is weak across the region, althoughthere are pockets of better practice.The few universities that teach malesand females separately do ensure thatall students take the same examina-tions at the same time. In a few univer-sities instructors are required to sub-mit a copy of their examination andmarking scheme to the departmentchair in advance. However, this is notthe norm and in too many universitiesthere is no independent review ofexamination papers before they aresat by students. In some cases evenstaff on different sections of the sameprogramme do not confer.
38. Grading criteria are not commonlyused and many staff feel that they arenot necessary as there are clearly rightor wrong answers, with little room forsubjectivity. Review teams are uncon-vinced by this simplistic view, whichwould appear to be reinforcing inap-propriate testing for a B.Sc. degreeand in conflict with the stated aims of the programmes. The reviewersconsider that departments shoulddefine criteria for each assignment
38
and for various grades in order thatthe students’ achievement against theILOs can be measured. This importantstep will also provide greater open-ness and transparency in the pro-grammes.
39. At most of the participating uni-versities individual written feedbackon student work is the exceptionrather than the rule. There are also anumber of universities, where,although written feedback is required,it does not actually happen across theprovision. More commonly, feedbackis provided to the group. Feedback toindividual students on their work isvital to allow the weak student to learnsufficient to pass and the good studentto improve still further and to grow inacademic stature. These benefits arerarely achieved by group feedback.
40. In general, few reports indicatedthat examination and other markswere moderated to ensure fairnessacross courses at the same level oreven multiple sections of commoncourses. Anonymous marking is rareand double-marking extremely rare.However, at most universities stu-dents have the right to appeal againsttheir final grades, in such cases thereis usually a rigorous procedure toensure fairness of treatment.
41. The final grades for all courses arenormally approved by the departmentcouncil or a similar body before theyare submitted to the university regis-trar. These procedures are appropriate.
42. While many of the reports indi-cate satisfaction with the academicquality of examination papers, this isnot universally true. Examples of goodpractice included the use of questionsthat require students to make deduc-tions from their knowledge and othersthat are of different levels of difficulty,and, therefore, enable the differences
between able and less able students tobe measured. Reports also identifyquestions that were very simple evenat the higher levels, a lack of challenge,even in the final year, an absence ofdiscrimination between different aca-demic levels, questions that wererepeated year-on-year, examinationsof an inappropriate standard, andquestions that tested only factualrecall.
43. Projects are widely used through-out the universities for both formativeand summative purposes. In general,projects, mid-term or graduation, are undertaken by teams of studentswho gain considerably in terms of skills, in particular team workingand research, as well as exploringnew areas of knowledge. Group work
is generally assessed with sharedmarks. There is recognition of the diffi-culties associated with group work,and some institutions assign marksaccording to each individual student’scontribution. With regard to gradua-tion projects the universities appear tobe well aware of this problem andmost have sound schemes to ensurethat individuals are given full credit fortheir work.
44. Most graduation projects areassessed by a team of staff with marksbeing allocated for the written report,the presentation and a question andanswer session. Other students areinvited to such presentations at someuniversities. The criteria by whichthese projects are assessed are notalways well defined or documented,although in the best examples they arevery well defined. Some practice withregard to mid-term projects is less sa-tisfactory with individual class assis-tants sometimes being the sole mark-er. It is essential that the methodolo-gies and skills required for the projectmode of learning be progressively
39
built up throughout the programmeand especially through mid-term andin course projects and assignments.
45. Some reports suggest that a stan-dard form or template which identifiesthe headings under which projects areassessed, the maximum marks to beallocated and the criteria, would beuseful. Others identify criteria that areused at individual universities, includ-ing: the functionality of the projectwork, preparation of a bibliography;independence and ability to manageown work; initiative and dynamism;the quality of the written product;presentation skills documentation,and project management.
46. Universities feel that plagiarism is a growing problem and severalhave put in place policies to deal with it, although these are not alwayswell-documented or communicated to students and staff. At least one university is to be commended for taking steps to raise the awareness of students to the issue of plagiarismand is encouraging a culture that such behavior is unacceptable.Unfortunately it remains a fact thatmany universities are concernedabout their ability to maintain thesecurity and integrity of assessment,particularly with regard to unsuper-vised work, such as assignments and,in a positive step, have introduced oralexaminations to alleviate the problem.Two reports addressed the plagiarismwhich results from copying materialfrom the Internet or printed docu-ments without proper referencing andthe steps being taken in the institu-tions to counter it.
47. External examiners are, or areplanned to be, used at two universi-ties. While accepting that such examin-ers are uncommon in the region, thereviewers suggest that the appoint-ment of a critical friend from outside
the university would be of value indefining the academic standards ofthe programmes. Critical friends canbe drawn from other universities inthe region or from outside. They wouldvisit the department as needed andalso offer advice by email. They could,for example, advise a departmentwhich is reviewing its programmes orsetting up new programmes, offeradvice to inexperienced departmentsor those that lack research credibilityregarding the academic standard ofexaminations and other assignments.The reviewers would also recommendthat consideration be given to prepar-ing a regional code of practice onassessment and examining whichcould include the use of externalexaminers.
48. As noted under curriculum, indus-trial training is frequently a pro-gramme requirement; however, thereis no serious assessment of such train-ing or evaluation of the skills students’gain thereby. The declaration of suchtraining as a course with formalassessment would ensure that itappeared on the student’s transcript,so that the profile and significance ofthe training component would beraised.
49. The reports indicate considerablevariation in practice with good andbad practice often occurring within thesame provision. Overall, the heavyteaching load on staff restricts the pro-vision’s ability to maintain properstandards of assessment with nega-tive implications for the level of confi-dence warranted in academic stan-dards as a whole. Nevertheless, withinthe available resource base, an invest-ment in rigorous and transparentassessment processes will make a sig-nificant contribution to raising thelevel of confidence in academic stan-dards. There is a need for national and
40
regional mechanisms for sharing ofpedagogical experiences among uni-
versities with a view to the dissemina-tion of best practice of assessment.
III.4 Student Achievement
50. The reports appear to indicate abimodal distribution with regard toprogression and graduation. At the topend, a number of universities arereported as having excellent progres-sion and graduations at around 90 percent each year, confirming that atthese universities the overwhelmingmajority of students achieve theintended learning outcomes. At theother end of the scale the reviewersare concerned about progression andcompletion rates and suggest that thereasons for such poor rates need to befully investigated. Pass rates at suchuniversities are around 50 per centand rates on individual courses arefrequently lower.
51. The above figure masks other wor-rying factors at some universities, inparticular: high failure rates in the finalyear, high rates of student warningsand probation for poor performance(as high as 55% of all students at some
universities), carried failures, that isstudents who fail their year areallowed to proceed to the next year,(possibly as high as 70% of all stu-dents at some universities) and fewstudents completing in the recom-mended time. The reviewers are slight-ly heartened by improving rates at oneuniversity and recognition of the prob-lem at others. Nevertheless, thereviewers strongly suggest that theseuniversities should analyse the per-formance of all students on all coursesand that consideration should begiven to examining the relationshipbetween entry requirements and pro-gression rates. Given the right entryrequirements followed by good teach-ing, student support and appropriateassessment, there is no reason whythe majority of students should notpass. Failures should be an exception,but in too many universities this is notcurrently the case.
52. The best universities, however,clearly and systematically collect and
With regard to Assessment of students, the reviewers recommend thatthe universities consider the following:• Ensure greater consistency in the marking of student work, particularly across sections producing a
marking scheme for all examination papers and other forms of assessment. Ensure that assessment is inline with the ILOs and tests the full range of ILOs including those related to the higher order skills.
• Ensure a greater fairness and consistency in the marking of student work, that some form of internalmoderation or double marking of all marked student work should take place.
• The absence of transparency in the marking process of projects, although the projects are a potentialstrength.
• Introduce appropriate moderation mechanisms to ensure fairness to students and comparability of stan-dards.
• Revise departmental approach to in-course assessment particularly with a view to providing opportunitiesfor formative feedback to students on their progress throughout the delivery of each course.
• Seek external input to the assessment process to ensure that academic standards are established and main-tained.
analyse student performance data andtake action where appropriate. Not alluniversities, however, have the neces-sary mechanisms to analyse systemati-cally the mark profiles from coursesand more than one review team expe-rienced considerable difficulty inobtaining quantitative informationregarding the level of student achieve-ment. In this case, no statistics wereprovided in the self-evaluation docu-ment and it appears that progressiondata is not systematically collected bythis university. Similarly, another uni-versity did not systematically collectand evaluate data with regard to car-ried failures and, hence, found it diffi-cult to take corrective action where astudent’s performance is consideredto be inadequate.
53. The review teams examined sub-stantial samples of student work at allbut two universities (where the sam-ple of assessed work was confined toprojects). At many universities thegeneral level of achievement shownby this work was commensurate withthat expected of such students andthere was good evidence that manystudents are achieving the ILOs atappropriate levels. There are, however,concerns expressed in some reportswith respect to the presentation of stu-dent work and the level of practicalskills. At other universities the teamsexpressed concerns regarding thelevel of work which was such thatlarge numbers of students either failedcourses or achieved poor grades lead-ing to academic warnings.
54. Graduation projects are frequentlydescribed in the reports as significantpieces of work which are often done incollaboration with local industry orwith a research active member of fa-culty: many are very challenging. Thereviewers clearly regard graduationprojects as a strength in the region. At
least one project is reported as beingoutstanding having won an IEEEregional competition. At many univer-sities teams found good evidence ofappropriate literature survey, goodmodeling of the problem and well-written reports. However, a smallnumber of reports indicate a lessfavorable situation with poor practiceby the students with respect to: reportwriting, weak conclusions, weak eval-uative skills, and failure to observegood Software Engineering practicewhen building software.
55. Some review teams found evi-dence that students mature well afterschool and become independentlearners and that the female studentsare performing better than the malesboth in formal assessments and in the ability to demonstrate their skills.This was demonstrated by the factthat, unlike males, female studentsgraduate with a GPA that is higherthan their secondary school examina-tion GPA.
56. Most reports indicate that employ-ers who attended meetings with thereviewers thought that graduates areable to apply the knowledge and skillsthey have acquired during their study;however, this is not universally thecase. In a few cases, the employersdrew the team’s attention to shortcom-ings in the graduates, in particular,inadequate practical skills and low lev-els of competence in presentation andreport writing. The employers’ appreci-ation of the ability of graduates tospeak and write English is only men-tioned in one report.
57. Only one university indicated thatits students joined exchange pro-grammes overseas; these are reportedas very successful. There are also noreports of exchange programmeswithin the same country or the region.
41
42
58. The reports suggest that post-graduation employment levels and thenature of the employment vary greatlysometimes because of the local politi-cal situation. Some reports suggestthat as many as 95% of graduates findappropriate employment within oneyear while others suggest very muchlower figures, certainly under 50%.However, only one of the universitiesformally collects information regard-ing employment and, therefore, mostof the information above is based onanecdotal evidence, some of whichwas regarded as of doubtful validity.
59. Similarly, information regardingthe number of graduates progressingto further study is not systematicallycollected. However, there is good evi-dence, partly because of the high rate
of employment in their university, thatmany (the highest figure quoted is 20per cent but in general 5 per cent isprobably more accurate) of graduatesproceed to Masters or PhD pro-grammes, frequently overseas.
60. The students were generally able,and sufficiently confident, to tackle themeeting with reviewers in English.This is a testament to the students’resolve to learn the language and tothe teaching of English as a secondlanguage. At some universities, whereEnglish is the main written language,students clearly found it difficult to fol-low the meetings suggesting that agreater use of English in classes wouldhelp them gain command of the spo-ken language.
With regard to Student Achievement, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
• Those universities that have high attrition rates should explore the reasons for these poor rates and takeappropriate action to improve them.
• The reviewers consider it essential that all universities should systematically collect information regardingthe scale and type of employment, or further study, of its graduates.
43
IV.1 Teaching and Learning
61. While written declarations ofteaching and learning strategies arerare, many of the programme specifi-cations indicate how teaching meth-ods relate to various types of coursesand activities. Most lecturers rely onlectures as the basic means of deliver-ing information together with a rangeof student centered activities. Acrossthe universities, laboratory work, stu-dent-led and research-led seminars,workshops, tutorials, problem solvingclasses and case studies were all used,many within the same programme.Students are generally presented witha rich set of learning opportunities.
62. In broad terms the amount of timespent on lectures and student centredwork is satisfactory, although the latteroften attracts a lower credit hour ratethan lectures. At a few institutions thebalance of theory and practical classesneeds adjusting so that all studentshave sufficient time to develop theirpractical skills and also to develop agood understanding of the underlyingconcepts. Both these imbalances werereported in the reviews, and associat-ed with this was a failure to relate thetwo aspects to each other and to thereal world.
63. Each of the review teamsobserved a small number of classes ofvarious types. In general such classesappear to have been well prepared.Lectures were largely based aroundmaterial written on the board,although some use was made of com-puter-based presentations. In three
universities students copy down copi-ous quantities of notes. In such casesreviewers felt that student participa-tion suffered. In other cases the levelof student participation was high, andmost students appear to be well moti-vated. Attendance appears to be regu-larly monitored at most universities.
64. The language of instruction is usu-ally Arabic or some combination ofArabic and English or French, the pre-cise ratio varying by country, universi-ty and course. The value of the multi-lingual aspects of the teaching are wellunderstood in Computer Science, andgenerally well received, but studentsat a few universities had some difficul-ty with the use of oral English. Bestpractice in the region suggests thatdepartments where much of the teach-ing is in Arabic should schedule regu-lar technical classes in English toenable students also to use Englishtexts and references, as necessary.
65 There is evidence of a growing useof written, or web based, courseguides, although many lecturers con-tinue to write the course outline on theboard at the first meeting of the class.At present, many of the printed courseguides are sketchy and provide littleindication of what is expected of thestudent, preferring to concentrate onthe syllabus content. Where courseguides are used they are rarely in astandardised format. The reviewersconsider that printed and/ or webbased, course guides would ultimatelysave staff time and help the studentsto relate their programme of learningand assignments to the curricula andthe ILOs.
66. Many courses are based on a settextbook which the student is some-times expected to buy, while, at other
IV. Quality of Learning Opportunities
Review Outcome: Of the 15 univer-sites, five were graded good, sevensatisfactory and only one unsatisfac-tory for teaching and learning.
44
institutions, because of the cost ofbooks and sometimes their limitedavailability, large scale photocopyingis used to provide handouts. Some lec-turers have prepared their own hand-outs and placed these on the Intranet,some of these being extensive. Verymany of these textbooks and relatedbooks are written in English. This didnot in general create a problem andstudents appear to cope well withreading technical English. In at leastone case, however, poor English com-prehension presented a real barrier tostudent progress. Where textbooks orstructured notes are followed, the stu-dents have the advantage of beingable to concentrate on explanations inclass.
67. Extensive use is made of projectsthroughout the region and is a majorstrength. The reports suggest that ingeneral the supervision of projectsand their assessment is well orga-nised. Projects at some universitiesare related to staff research and post-graduate projects include some workon research papers. Most of the pro-jects are undertaken in small groups,although one report suggests that‘small’ should be more carefullydefined because groups of seven stu-dents inhibit the contribution of indi-viduals. Projects are rightly seen bydepartments not only as a means ofencouraging independent learning,but also as a valuable means of prac-ticing skills which are needed foremployment, such as team work,report writing, presentation, self-reliance, specialised skills, and interac-tion with outside business and profes-sional organisations. Few universitiesprovide training in the skills needed toproduce a project and this omissioncan be critical where the balance ofpractical work in the remainder of theprogramme is low; In-course projectsare extremely common and, therefore,
virtually all students would have previ-ous experience of undertaking a projectbefore starting their graduation project.
68. Class sizes are usually reasonable,although some exceptions are report-ed: for example, one problem class of80 students. The reviewers recom-mend that, where large classes willcontinue to be taught, the depart-ments should explore the extensivepublished literature on the subject inthe UK and elsewhere. In the privateuniversities, and some others, classsizes are limited to 40 students. In suchcases courses that attract large num-bers of students are usually dividedinto multiple sections each of which istaught separately. While this is com-mendable, it creates a need for goodorganisation and is resource intensive.At the best-organised universities asingle course leader manages a teamand ensures that all students receive asimilar experience in terms of teach-ing, the learning experience andassessment, but this is not always thecase. If the universities that have plansto make use of computer-assistedteaching and learning can successfullyapply this technology to multi-sectioncourses, the resource savings could beconsiderable. It could also help over-come the resource implications ofteaching male and female studentsseparately.
69. There is evidence that theresearch and professional activities ofstaff of six universities informs theteaching. To make up for a shortfall infull-time staff, several universitiesemploy part-time staff, many of whomare in fact full-time staff at other high-er education institutions. The review-ers commend the use of visiting part-time staff to import expertise, particu-larly in current industrial practice, inspecific areas.
70. The weekly student workload
45
varies considerably around the region.In a few cases loading the studentheavily is regarded as a pre-requisitefor a good education, while others takea more liberal view. Figures as high as35 hours with 16 hours of lecturers arequoted, although the norm wouldappear to more like 16-20. A number ofreports indicate that the scheduling ofassignments, creates problems forstudents. The reviewers are aware ofthe problems associated with schedul-ing assignments but, nevertheless,feel that better organisation and coor-dination among teaching staff togeth-er with improved information for stu-dents could alleviate the problem.
71. Four of the universities are report-ed as offering staff training in peda-gogy, although in most cases this isvoluntary. New staff are generallyexpected to know how to teach and,although some departments referredto informal help for new teachers,
mentoring is not commonly used. Theoverall effect is that new lecturersrepeat the good, and bad, practice thatthey experienced as students.Similarly, peer review in which staff sitin on each others classes, which cando so much to highlight pedagogicneeds, is as yet a rarity. The picture is,however, improving and three reportsindicate that workshops on pedagogyand other aspects of the student’sexperience have been held and at leastone department now has a committeeto address these matters. The review-ers consider that there is a need todefine and share good practice withregard to all aspects of the organisa-tion of the student learning experiencewithin and among universities.
72. While there are exceptions in indi-vidual aspects of teaching and learn-ing, in general the intended learningoutcomes are addressed in most pro-grammes and most courses.
With regard to Teaching and Learning, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
• Ensure that best practice is widely disseminated, within and between universities, and implemented withrespect to pedagogy and other aspects of the student experience.
• Make greater use of the email, and the web as a platform to support course management and providecourse teaching documents and added resources.
• Review the extensive published literature on the management of large classes and explore ways of creatingtutorial support for individual students in such situations.
• Provide additional resources and support to deal with situations where the language of teaching exacerbatesproblems. For example, extra technical language teaching, extra oral practice in language skills, more textsand notes in the main language, and additional aids such as a simple on line bi-lingual dictionary of com-mon technical computing terms (students could produce this).
• Ensure effective organisation of multi-sectioned courses and their resourcing.
46
IV. 2 Student Progression
73. The majority of entrants in mostcountries are school leavers fromwithin the country, most of whomhave the local national school leaverscertificate. There are some internation-al students, mainly from the region, atsome universities and a few studentsenter with other qualifications, such as the French or InternationalBaccalaureate. As a result of the popu-larity of Computer Science, entrants to public universities are usuallydescribed as being among the best inthe country. The entrants to the privateuniversities are usually described asaverage, although in fact some univer-sities take a number of weaker stu-dents.
74. At most public universities, thedepartment plays little part in theselection of its students. Some coun-tries operate national recruitmentschemes with the would-be studentspecifying preferences, for examplethe geographic region, while in othersrecruitment is controlled solely by theuniversity or the faculty. The latterschemes often involve a common firstyear, or years, and students only startComputer Science at a second stage,frequently still not selected by theComputer Science department. Entryto the university, and where appropri-ate, the department, is almost invari-ably competitive and as few as 25% ofwould-be applicants at some universi-ties finally gain places in Com-puterScience. Private universities controltheir own recruitment, althoughnational accreditation schemes some-times specify the parameters withinwhich they can work; for example the
numbers are constrained by resourcesand the minimum level of entry quali-fication is specified. The reviewerssupport such schemes to avoid excessrecruitment of unsuitable students. Atone public university there is a two-tier admission system: a highly com-petitive admission stream for non-paying students and a much less well-qualified stream for fee-paying stu-dents. The two groups are combinedto form classes of highly polarisedabilities. Such actions will almost cer-tainly undermine the stated aims andthe academic standards of the pro-gramme.
75. A number of reports throw doubton the effectiveness of recruitmentsuggesting that it does not alwaysdeliver students who have a talent forComputer Science or who have theattributes and maturity needed for uni-versity level education. The nationaladmission criteria are in most casesnarrowly defined in terms of the aver-age score in the national secondaryexamination. In addition, national gov-ernments periodically introduce largechanges in the number of students to be accepted onto a programmewithout regard to the real capacity ofthe provision. Such sudden changescan easily double the effective studentto staff ratio, overload the resourcesand lead to the breakdown of otheractivities such as that for advising students on their academic progress.The effect on academic standards ofsuch ill-judged moves can be cata-strophic.
76. The problem of recruiting the rightstudents has led to a number ofschemes that attempt to make recruit-ment more specific and effective.Among the reported problems aredeclining admission grades, weakEnglish, problems with Mathematicsat one university and poor study skills.
Review Outcome: Of the 15 univer-sites, three were graded good, twounsatisfactory and the remainder sat-isfactory for student progression.
47
One university now uses a generaladmission test and others variousdiagnostic tests. A number of universi-ties have identified the problems thatstudents have in the transition fromschool to university. These universitieshave various schemes to alleviate thisproblem, such as using diagnostictesting to identify weaknesses to-gether with adjustments to the pro-gramme by providing, for example,different length English languagecourses. Around half of the universi-ties offer an induction programme,which helps the students to ease intouniversity life. Induction is describedas useful by students and has thegreat advantage of starting a dialoguewith students. It could with advantagebe more widely used.
77. The few reports that mention doc-umentation to support students arecomplimentary. It does appear thatstudents welcome good quality hand-books that describe their programmeand courses, assessment regulationsand related topics. In Western universi-ties much of the documentation is nowheld on the web and is easily availableto all students. The reviewers considerthat greater use of university Intranetsto hold documentation and to commu-nicate with students would be a soundinvestment and reduce the workloadon staff.
78. Personal support, other than aca-demic, is rare within this group of uni-versities, as is specific support for dis-abled students. In an example of goodpractice, one university assigns everystudent, and every member of staff, toa ‘family group’ the members of whichprovide mutual support. Anotherappoints final year students to mentorentrants. Several universities have adean of students, or student affairsofficer, who assumes responsibility fora number of pastoral matters.
79. Formal academic support is avail-able to students in over half the uni-versities, although it is more common-ly organised by level or year than indi-vidually. One other university claimsto have tried support, but their schemecollapsed because they employed somany part-time staff. It certainlyappears that the shortage of availableand appropriate advisors limits theeffectiveness of many of the individualschemes while adding to the workloadof staff. At one institution the ratio ofadvisors to advisees was 1 : 55, whilein two other universities similarschemes are effective and the aboveratio is around 1:20. Year or level advi-sors generally offer a slightly differentservice and are more concerned withadvising on progression than individ-ual academic problems.
80. At most of the universities’ staffpublish office hours during which theyshould be available for individual con-sultations with students regardingacademic matters. While the best ofsuch schemes are clearly very effectiveand well thought of by the students,other appear to be largely inoperativeand the students commented to thereviewers that in their experience staffare not usually available at the statedtimes. The latter problem appears tobe very largely related to work loadsand it is clear that an individual lectur-er cannot make more time availablethan exists within working hours.
81. One of the major advantages thataccrues from formal individual advis-ing is that each student’s work andprogress is monitored on a regularbasis by someone who is knowledge-able about them. The reports indicatethat such monitoring is not undertakenat just over half of the universities andthat this failure may well be a contrib-utory factor in high attrition rates.Where male and female students are
48
segregated, access to staff appears tobe adequate but could be improvedwith better organisation.
82. Academic progression through theprogramme appears to be a problemat several universities that operatelevel based curricula. In such cases theuniversity regulations frequently allowstudents to carry failures through thelevels, although this is usually con-strained in some way, for example nomore than three failures in total. Theproblem lies in the fact that the regula-tions are frequently written for disci-plines with few, if any, pre-requisitesand are unsuited to subjects in whichthe knowledge is progressive. Simplechanges to university regulationscould overcome such problems anddeny weak students the right to con-tinue to higher levels before they areready to do so. Most universities runsummer courses allowing students tore-take failed courses and for the beststudents to complete in less than thenominal time for the programme.
83. Many universities operate a warn-ing and/or probation scheme in whichstudents who are performing badly,though usually passing, are first
warned of the need to improve andthen placed on probation or even sus-pended if they do not do so. Suchschemes are effective but by natureare addressing symptoms rather thanthe problem, which is causing the stu-dents to under-perform. At one univer-sity approximately 47% of students areon probation at any one time; this is anunsatisfactory situation.
84. Formal career advice is a rarity inthe universities; however, there isobviously a large amount of informalsupport from the academic staff whoappear to be well connected with localindustry and in some cases interna-tional concerns like Microsoft. Thereviewers welcome the plans of twouniversities to start alumni associa-tions and feel that they will not onlyhelp the graduates with jobs but alsocollect much needed information ongraduate employment.
Most students are extremely support-ive of the academic staff even at uni-versities where they were highly criti-cal of many aspects of university life.Human resources, it appears, are theuniversities’ most valuable asset.
With regard to Student Progression, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
• Review and improve admission policies to ensure that they are effective in recruiting a manageable numberof well-motivated students who have a talent for the subject.
• Find ways to address the difficulties that many students have in making the transition from school to uni-versity by enhancing both group and individual screening, and activities.
• Ensure that the academic progress of each student is monitored at the individual level and that problemsare rectified as they arise.
• Improve the quality of web based services and documentation for students.• Address the problem of carried failures at some universities.
49
IV.3 Learning Resources
85. Most universities would appear tohave plans to maintain their learningresources, although these oftenappear to be short term and reactiverather than forming a part of a coher-ent, transparent strategy.
86. Library accommodation is fre-quently described as poor; however,overall this situation is improvingslightly as a small number of universi-ties built new libraries. About half ofthe universities fail to provide ade-quate study space for students. Thissituation is exacerbated at some uni-versities which segregate male andfemale students as already inadequatespace is effectively halved. Two univer-sities have solved this problem by providing two libraries or readingrooms.
87. Access to library facilities is gene-rally described as adequate, althoughthere are significant exceptions withone university failing to provide acces-sible library facilities. Most universi-ties open for the working day (about 8hours, although this can fall to 4 hoursin a segregated library), but only a fewmatch the opening hours found in uni-versities elsewhere in the world. At asmall number of universities studentsare restricted with regard to borrowingbooks for a variety of reasons, not allof which appear to be justified.
88. A small number of reports indicateorganisational problems with thelibrary and several still have a manualcatalogue. On-line access, through anIntranet, to an electronic catalogue isan essential feature of a modern
library and needs to become the norm,throughout the region.
89. At 10 of the universities reviewedthe book stock is described as defi-cient. Problems are reported withregard to books include: the total num-ber, their currency, their academiccredibility, their academic level beingtoo low, few alternatives to set texts,too many about programming, andinadequate coverage of the theoreticalaspects of the subject. Students atsuch universities complained, in atleast one case vociferously, about the book stock. The situation with regard to journals is possiblyworse than that for books, althoughthis in general appears to worry thestudents less, possibly because pro-jects are not always obliging them toexecute searches and investigations sufficiently.
90. It is difficult to locate a singlecause for poor library stock. While it isclear that finances play a major part inthe shortages, poor organisation,availability of books within the region,and purchasing policy also feature. Atthe best libraries the academic staffplay a major part in deciding whichbooks and journals should be held,and the stock is continually updatedwith the help of staff to reflect currentadvances in the Computer Science dis-cipline. Some of the libraries appear tohave poorly focused objectives. A firstclass academic library which allowsstudents to study independently intheir own time and provides the mate-rial to stretch young minds is essentialfor all universities and absolutely vitalto those universities with research ori-ented missions. At present, too manyof the universities fail to meet this stat-ed aim. It is possible that one or moreregional centres of excellence, with aninter-library loans scheme, similar tothat used by the British library, could
Review Outcome: The reports indi-cate that six of the review teamsfound the learning resources to beunsatisfactory and that only two uni-versities were reported as havinggood learning resources.
50
provide facilities to overcome many ofthe library problems identified, in par-ticular the need for advanced booksand journals.
91. While there does not appear to bea general problem with the numbersand specifications of PCs or their soft-ware, there are a few universitieswhere the provision is described asinadequate. At best ratios of the orderof three students per computer (goodby international standards) are report-ed but at others there is an inadequateratio of 13:1. However, at a number ofuniversities accessing a PC appears tobe a problem for students because ofover-scheduling of laboratories forclasses, dedicating laboratories to spe-cific tasks or groups of students, soft-ware not available on all computers,poor maintenance of computers,staffing difficulties and even lockedlaboratories (3 universities). Where itis necessary, adequate separate com-puting laboratories are provided formale and female students. Althoughmany (up to 40% in one university) ofstudents have a computer at home,lack of access continues to disadvan-tage some students.
92. Access to peripherals, particularlyprinting, is not good. Printing in labo-ratories is rare and most universitiesopt for a central charged printing facil-ity. The reviewers find it strange thatsimple peripherals, such as scanners,are not more readily available to stu-dents given the essentially practicalnature of many of the programmes.
93. Most reports indicate that there isa wide range of software available tosupport the courses, including CASEtool; however, this is not universallytrue and five universities have insuffi-cient resources to provide all of therequired software. Universities usevarious varieties of Windows on mostof their PCs, although some use is
made of LINUX, for example to pro-vide a multi-access environment.
94. Internet access is sometimesavailable to students, although it is fre-quently constrained: by time (4 hoursper week), by the cost to students, byyear within the programme (onlyfourth years), and by supplier, forexample university-wide open access.Overall, the reports indicate problemswith Internet and Intranet access,although some reports speak of animproving situation. The deficiency isparticularly worrying since many uni-versities are suggesting access to theInternet as a solution to library prob-lems and its use in independent learn-ing is frequently cited in the self-eval-uation documents. Inadequate accessto a local Intranet also implies inade-quate email facilities denying the useof this valuable educational tool tofacilitate staff /students communica-tion.
95. Appropriately equipped laborato-ries are available for most Computer-Engineering subjects.
96. The reports appear to be aboutevenly divided between those that findthe accommodation appropriate andthose that find it unfit for purpose. In anumber of cases, the accommodationis reported as being so poor that it isaffecting the ability of the staff and stu-dents to maintain standards andaffects their lives on a daily basis. In anumber of cases there appear to beproblems with furniture as well as thefabric of the buildings, in others theproblem is simple one of inadequatespace. At two universities the locationof the buildings used appears to createproblems. At the remaining universi-ties accommodation is viewed as fit-for-purpose and suitably equipped, forexample, one university has madeappropriate arrangements for left-handed students. A number of new
51
buildings are coming online at variousuniversities addressing some of theproblems.
97. The provision of ancillary equip-ment to support teaching is variable.Most universities provide whiteboardsand portable data projection facilitiesin teaching rooms, while at one uni-versity data projectors would not beuseful as staff are not provided withPCs or a laptop.
98. While none of the reports findsfault with the quality of the academicstaff, 11 of the 15 reports do citestaffing problems. The central problemis that the latter institutions do nothave sufficient staff to meet their com-mitments in full, while providingopportunities for these staff membersto pursue their scholarly activities. Thisshortfall leads to a further problem inthat collectively the staff of severaluniversities cannot cover all of thematerial and staff has to habituallyteach outside their specialisms, poten-tially affecting the academic rigor ofthe courses. Some measure of thisproblem can be judged by the fact thatat one university the ratio of computerstudents to staff is over 65 : 1 and thisfigure does not include students fromoutside Computing who also takemany courses. There are also very fewfull professors in Computer Science,which hampers strategies to build aca-demic leadership and enhanceresearch activities as well as moves tointroduce postgraduate provision.
99. The universities are well aware ofthe problem of attracting and keepingwell-qualified staff given the world-wide shortage in this discipline.Several universities employ their bestB.Sc. graduates as teaching assistants,
thereby providing a pool of potentiallecturers and also reducing the loadon the academic staff by running labo-ratories and workshops and undertak-ing marking. Such universities selectthe best teaching assistants for furtherstudy, usually abroad. Such staff oftengain scholarships to study and returnafter qualification. In short term, thisstrategy exacerbates the staff short-ages. At several universities consider-able use is made of lecturers (holdersof M.Sc.s) to supplement the professo-rial staff. The level and quality of tech-nical support in laboratories is report-ed as good in all but one case.
100. The staff workload is furtherexacerbated by the need to teach maleand female students separately atsome universities and by restrictionson the number of students in classesat others. The result is that many staffteach identical material more thanonce in each week and can lead toshortened classes for some sections tomaintain synchronisation. One reportsuggests that while officially staffteach each 8 to14 hours per week, thereal figure is probably double this. Thiscan arise because some universitiesquote the number of credit hourstaught by staff, for example, teachingsix hours per week to two separategroups only counts as 3 hours.
101. While some departments havesophisticated web sites others areclearly only at an early stage of devel-opment. At a number of universitiesstudents are undertaking projects orsummer training in web development.Departments may wish to considercollaborating with students in devel-oping their web sites
52
With regard to Learning Resources, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
• Review the objectives and organisation of their library facilities to ensure that they are optimal. Universitiesmay wish to consider introducing service agreements between the library and the academic departments.
• Introduce an on-line electronic catalogue where none is provided and consider the provision of other on-line materials (e-books and journals for example).
• Address issues relating to the quality and number of books and journals as a matter of urgency.• Examine the organisational and access arrangements with respect to PCs the Internet and a university wide
Intranet to ensure that adequate access is available to students.• Address shortcomings in their PC provision (where it is applicable).• There is a major shortfall in the number of academic staff. Qualified academic staff are the main resource
and unless their teaching load is such that they can undertake the other necessary academic work and alsohave time for research most other improvements will not succeed.
• Implement more staff development in pedagogy, technology and research
53
102. More than one of the reportsnoted that the concept of qualityassurance, as it is defined by this andsimilar processes, is new to the uni-versity, and probably to several of theparticipating universities. At least twouniversity presidents are taking a keeninterest in the recommendations withregard to quality assurance systems asthey feel that their universities needsuch systems. However, the commonabsence of a systematic approach toquality assurance does not imply thetotal absence of quality procedures orthat a quality education is not provid-ed for the students. All participatinginstitutions operate a number of theelements that in total comprise a com-prehensive process and which form asound basis for further development.
103. The reviewers suggest that agood quality assurance systemenables each of the departments,schools or faculties within a universityto manage and enhance its quality forthe benefit of the university, and inparticular of the students. The overallsystem has to be hierarchical so thatquality data, analysis and synthesisproduce useful information, which canbe used to improve the overall provi-sion of education and scholarship. Thisin turn implies the need for all of thebodies which make up the universityto be included in a system in whichdata is routinely collected andanalysed, in which there are excellentcommunications between the bodiesand in which quality feedback loopsare seen to be closed. Closure implies
that needs and problems are identi-fied, action agreed and taken wherenecessary and the identifying bodyinformed. Such systems need to bewell documented in a user-friendlyway and accessible for all participants.This implies variants of the documen-tation being written for differentgroups of users, for example whatdoes a new professor, have to do andwhere does this fit into the overallprocess.
104. The reviewers suggest that themain focus of a quality system shouldbe the student experience. For the stu-dent, the first line of quality assurancerelates to courses and their deliveryand the second to programmes.Systematic and regular monitoring ofthese experiences would provide eachpart of a university with invaluableinformation about the quality of itsprovision, and could be coupled withprocedures which manage its quality.For example, if the books and othermaterials needed for a course are notavailable in the library, this informa-tion should be automatically collectedand fed to the library by the system.The library can then investigate the sit-uation and take action, if it is appropri-ate, and feed this information back tothe course team. A quality systemshould not rely on individual lecturersapproaching an individual librarian,although this is not precluded.
105. The students are potentially amajor supplier of data that can beused to inform the evaluation process.The reports indicate that at only threeuniversities students are systematical-ly and regularly canvassed by ques-tionnaire regarding their courses oraspects of the provision, and thatthese are sometimes solely evalua-tions of the lecturers. At a number of
V. Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Review Outcome: The reports indi-cate that ten of the review teamsfound quality assurance andenhancement to be satisfactory andfive unsatisfactory.
54
other universities student opinion issought by open meetings or represen-tation on course committees. Thereviewers consider it essential to knowwhat all students think of all aspects oftheir courses to provide data for eval-uation. While student representationon committees is highly desirable, asare open meetings; both activitiestend to focus on high profile problemsand do not always address compre-hensively more fundamental issues oridentify strengths.
106. All but eight of the universitiesundertake some evaluation of theeffectiveness of their courses on a reg-ular basis, although the management,level and purpose of evaluation variesconsiderably. The evaluations are usu-ally carried out by the head of depart-ment and are often evaluations of theindividual member of staff who ranthe course. Where student feedbackhas been sought this is input to thisevaluation. Such evaluations usuallyinvolve a study of the mark profiles forthe courses to determine and correctaberrations. While the latter is goodpractice it does not always appear tolead to corrective action. At a smallnumber of universities staff also reporton the success or otherwise of theircourses. The reviewers suggest that alldepartments should systematicallycollect data from students and incor-porate this information into coursereview reports which address allaspects of the design, delivery, per-formance and resourcing of the cour-ses. One university is reported as set-ting up a faculty quality office whichwill hold course portfolios for eachcourse. These reviews should be con-sidered by the department head, bythe departmental council and also by acourse committee, which includes stu-dents, and looks at a set of relatedcourses (by subject or level). Each ofthese bodies should instigate action
appropriate to itself, document andpublish its minutes, and where appro-priate summarise information forpresentation to other quality manage-ment bodies such as the faculty. Eachbody should systematically check thateach of the points that it raised hasbeen dealt with, thereby closing thequality loop.
107. One of the purposes of systemat-ic course review is to provide informa-tion for the faculty and university sothat they can assure themselves thatthe courses are healthy. However, italso provides the opportunity for con-sideration of the course content and isa vehicle for maintaining currency atthe first level. Significantly, coursemonitoring provides the basis for pro-gramme monitoring. While the reportssuggest that monitoring the perform-ance of programmes is uncommon,there is evidence of regular review ofthe curriculum and in some casesother aspects of the provision such asresources.
108. The situation with regard to cur-riculum definition and renewal varies:some departments appear to be ableto do whatever they wish, but othersare not allowed to alter the curriculumin any way. Many of the reports dis-cuss the role of national bodies whichfrequently define much of the curricu-lum, usually, it is reported, to the detri-ment of the provision. Such bodies arereported as being too slow (one hasnot allowed changes since 1986) toopedantic, and having a stultifyingeffect which inhibits variety andresults in dated curricula. At a smallnumber of universities there are sys-tems which validate new programmesand require existing programmes tobe regularly reviewed, although theserarely involve external specialists (crit-ical friends for example). The review-ers consider that best practice should
55
be shared across the region and thatvalidation systems which requireappropriate external input to thedevelopment of new programmes andthe regular review of existing pro-grammes based on programme moni-toring are essential to all universities.Such a validation scheme could renderthe clumsy national systems irrelevantand allow the criticisms reported earli-er, relating to the currency of the cur-riculum and its lack of comparability tobe addressed. It would also allow theregion to evolve a richer variety ofComputer Science programmes thancurrently exists.
109. There is evidence in the reportsthat the current review process, in par-ticular the act of writing the self-evalu-ation document and the training work-shops, has already had a significantinfluence on the thinking of some ofthe universities with regard to qualityissues. It is also clear from a numberof reviews that, while there was wideparticipation in the preparation atsome universities, at others it hadbeen prepared by just one or two peo-ple. In one case the self-evaluation hadbeen prepared by someone outsidethe department concerned, and thestaff of the department did not agreewith the views expressed. In othercases this occurred because of thehigh degree of autonomy granted tostaff. The reviewers consider that theprovision of good quality appropriateeducation is too important to be left tothe whims of individual staff, and that,while protecting the academic free-dom of such staff, every effort shouldbe made to persuade, or if necessarycoerce, them into full participation in
an effective quality assurance system.
110. As so many organisations havefound to their cost, quality assuranceonly works if everybody involved is anactive participant and the system andits information are transparent. It isclear from the reports that a number ofuniversities have some procedures forquality assurance, which are not effec-tive. In such cases, the students feelisolated from the process and power-less to influence the forces that shapetheir education. One way of ensuringgreater participation is good training,and universities could, with advan-tage, ensure that all staff are keptinformed of new quality assurancedevelopments and that they aretrained in the use of the procedures.
111. The reports indicate that universi-ties have good informal links withindustry, but few have any formal links. Such links can provide valuableexternal comment, and sometimesresources, for the university.Establishing an employer forum couldbe a wise and useful move for all uni-versities. As noted under Assessment,there are significant weaknesses in theprocesses surrounding the setting andchecking of examination papers andother assignments and the subse-quent marking and moderation of thescripts. Similarly, there are majorweaknesses in the provision of learn-ing resources and attrition rates insome cases are far too high. The fail-ure of the quality systems to identifyand deal with these issues is indicativeof significant shortcomings at a num-ber of the universities.
56
With regard to Quality Assurance and Enhancement, the reviewers recommend that the universities consider the following:
• Establish a well-documented quality assurance and enhancement system that covers all aspects of universi-ty life, that involves the students and ensures that all staff are fully trained in its use.
• Ensure that student opinion is regularly and frequently sought on all matters relating to the delivery,resourcing and monitoring of the educational experience.
• Modify to national accreditation schemes so that they continue to maintain standards while allowing indi-vidual departments to offer different Computer Science programmes which are up-to-date.
• Keep the students fully informed and involved with all aspects of university life.• Establish formal contacts with industry.
57
Appendix 1 University Representatives (Computer Science)
1) University of Sciences and Technology Houari Boumediene (USTHB) – Algeria
Coordinator: Dr Mihrez Drir, Vice President
Representative A1: Prof. Mohammed Ahmed Nacer, Department of Informatics
Representative A2: Prof. Habiba Zerkawi Drias,
Chairperson, Department of Informatics
2) Université Mohammed V (Agdal)- Morocco
Coordinator: Prof. Mohammed Al-Miniar, General Secretary
Representative A1: Prof. Fakhita Regragui, Department of Physics
Representative A2: Prof. Awatef Al-Sayah, Department of Mathematics and Informatics
3) Helwan University - Egypt
Coordinator: Prof. Amr Izzat Salama
Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research
Representative A1: Prof. Ahmed Sharaf Eldin,
Chairperson, Department of Information Systems
Representative A2: Professor Ebada Ahmad Sarhan
Dean, Faculty of Computers and Informatics
4) Sana’a University - Yemen
Coordinator: Professor Hassan Sharaf-Eldin, President’s Office
Representative A1: Professor Hassan Sharafuddin, Department of Economics and Information Systems
Representative A2: Dr Saeed Abdalla Al-Dobai, Chairperson, Department of Computer Science
5) Damascus University - Syria
Coordinator: Prof. Mohammad Ali Al-Munajjed,
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Imad Mustafa, Dean, Faculty of Informatics Engineering
Representative A2: Dr Ammar Khir-Beck, Chairperson, Department of Software Engineering and Information Systems
6) The Lebanese University - Lebanon
Coordinator: Prof. Philip Nabhan, Director, University Centre for Legal Information
Representative A1: Dr Nawaf Kayal, Department of Applied Mathematics
Representative A2: Dr Mohammad Dbouk, Department of Applied Mathematics
7) Sudan University of Science and Technology- Sudan
Coordinator: Professor Izzeldin Mohammad Othman, former University President
Representative A1: Mr Amir Abde-Fattah Ahmad Eisa, Chairperson, Department of Computer Science
Representative A2: Mr Yahia Abdalla Mohammad Hamad, Department of Computer Science
8) Palestine Polytechnic University - Palestine
Coordinator: Dr Dawoud Al-Zatari, University President
Representative A1: Dr Mahmoud Al-Saheb, Chairperson, Department of Information Technology
Representative A2: Mr Ismael Roomi, Department of Information Technology
9) Bahrain University - Bahrain
Coordinator: Dr Yousif Al-Bastaki, Dean, College of Information Technology
Representative A1: Dr Yousif Al-Bastaki, Dean, College of Information Technology
Representative A2: Dr Yacoub Ashir, Chairperson, Department of Computer Science
10) The University of Jordan - Jordan
Coordinator: Prof. Abdalla Al-Musa, University President
Representative A1: Dr Ahmad Al-Jaber, Dean, King Abdullah II School for Information Technology
Representative A2: Dr Ahmad Abdel-Aziz Sharieh, Department of Computer Science
11) Zarka Private University - Jordan
Coordinator: Dr Abdasalam Ghaith, Dean of Scientific Research
Representative A1: Dr Imad Abuelrub, Dean, Faculty of Science
Representative A2: Dr Ahmad Awwad, Department of Computer Science
58
12) The Islamic University-Gaza - Palestine
Coordinator: Dr Rifat Rustom, Chairperson, Resources Development Center
Representative A1: Dr Hatem El-Aydi, Chairperson, Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering
Representative A2: Mr Ashraf Al-Attar, Department of Computer Science
13) Ajman University of Science & Technology - UAE
Coordinator: Dr Basheer Shehadeh, Vice President for Development Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Hakim Khali, Department of Computer Engineering
Representative A2: Dr Riyad Abdelkader Mahdi, Department of Computer Engineering
14) The University of Science & Technology, Sana’a- Yemen
Coordinator: Dr Abdallah Al-Hamadi, Director, Quality Assurance Department
Representative A1: Dr Taher Saleh Homeed, Department of Computer Science and Informatics
Representative A2: Prof. Abdul Raqeeb Abdua Asa’ad, Dean, Faculty of Science and Engineering
15) Al-Akhawayn University in Ifrane – Morocco
Coordinator: Dr Driss Ouaouicha, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Amine Bensaid, Dean, Faculty of Sciences and Engineering
Representative A2: Dr Kevin Smith, Faculty of Sciences and Engineering
59
60
Appendix 2 Milestones of the Review Process
January – February 2002: Identification of university coordinators and representatives.Representatives returned to Project Manager filled question-naires on programmes to be reviewed. Development of training workshop programmes and material for the project by consultants (Review Handbook)
March 22-24, 2002: First training and planning workshop (3 days). Participants include A1 and A2 representatives from each university. Topics: framework for academic subject review. Concepts, criteria and implementation of self-assessment
April 3, 2002: Project Advisory Committee holds one day meeting in Damascus. Project progress is reviewed and work plan for the following phases is reviewed and approved.
April and May, 2002: Representatives embark on self-assessment process with support from home departments and advisory support (through email) from project.
June 1-3, 2002: Second training and planning workshop (3 days). Participants include all A1 representatives. Group discussionof progress on self-assessment and identification of common issues. Individual tutorials on progress in each programme are held between the consultants and the programme's representatives.
June 4-6, 2002: Third and final training and planning workshop (3 days). Participants include all A1 Representatives. Topics: theoretical and practical training on conduction of external reviews.
June 2002: Representatives continue work on self-assessment.
June 30- 2002: Representatives submit to project first draft of Self-Evaluation Document (SED).
July 2002: Training Consultants send feedback comments on each SED draft to respective representatives. Representatives modify SEDs in light of comments.
August 10, 2002: All representatives submit finalised SED documents.
August 2002: External review teams are formed from 12 QAA-registered UK reviewers and 15 project-trained Arab reviewers. Relevant SEDs are sent to each team.
August 29, 2002: Coordination meeting convened by Project Manager for all UK reviewers. Topic: Discussion of review method as outlined in the Review Handbook. Common policies for conduction of reviews. Schedules for report submission and editing.
61
September 2002: Review visit schedules are finalised by Project Manager in consultation with UK and Arab reviewers and host universities. Memoranda on host requirements for hosting review visits are communicated to all universities.
September and November, 2002: September 21 - Nov 1 and December 7-18, 2002 (with a one-
month break in between for Ramadan): All fifteen review missions are implemented on schedule.
December 31, 2002: All review reports are submitted by team coordinators in first draft to Project Manager.
January 6, 2003: Final coordination meeting convened by Project Manager forall review team coordinators (one day). Topic: editing requirements for individual and overview reports.
February 2003: Reports are finalised. Each of the final individual reports is sent, in confidence, by the RBAS Director to all university presidents.
62
63
PART TWO
Quality Assessment of Business
Administration Education in
Arab Universites
Regional Overview Report
Based on detailed internal and external reviews of Business Administrationprogrammes in a group of 16 Arab universities
64
65
1. General
This report presents a regionaloverview of the quality of BusinessAdministration education in sixteenpublic and private universities intwelve Arab countries: Morocco,Algeria, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan, Oman,Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Palestine,Bahrain and United Arab Emirates. (Alist of the names of universities andtheir representatives is given inAppendix 1). It represents the out-come of the second phase of theUNDP RAB/ 01/002 project“Enhancement of Quality Assuranceand Institutional Planning in ArabUniversities” which was launched bythe UNDP Regional Bureau for ArabStates (RBAS) in January 2002. Thereport presents a synopsis of the indi-vidual review reports that were pro-duced by the project on each of thereviewed programmes. It provides up-to-date information and informedjudgment on the quality of thereviewed programmes and signals, byvirtue of its methodology of imple-mentation, an important stage in thedevelopment of the universities’ ownarrangements to evaluate andimprove their undergraduate pro-grammes.
The project is sponsored and fundedby the Regional Bureau of Arab Statesin collaboration with the UnitedNations Development Programme(UNDP). The project’s developmentalobjective is the introduction in Arabuniversities of independent systems ofquality assessment of programmeswith reference to internationallyaccepted criteria, procedures andbenchmarks.
The programme of reviews in 2003-2004 addressing Business
Administration education pro-grammes follows a successful pilotproject in Computer Science pro-grammes in 2002. Each review result-ed in a detailed review report, whichwas sent in confidence by UNDP/ RBASto the president of the university in question. This report presented the reviewers’ analyses, evaluationand judgements in relation to eachmain aspect of the reviewed provisionand identified main areas of strengthsand those areas needing action orreform.
In addition to an individual report oneach university’s provision, the pro-gramme also provided the evidencebase for this overview report that iden-tifies regional issues and patterns ofstrength and weakness, as well aslines of needed reform for the highereducation sector in the Arab region.The main text of this overview reportpresents the aggregated findings thatarise across the group of participatinguniversities. It identifies some goodpractice. However, it also draws atten-tion to issues that may, unlessaddressed in the schools, by the uni-versities and at regional level, hinderthe further development of undergrad-uate education in BusinessAdministration.
This summary section of the overviewreport highlights its main findings andrecommendations under five sub-sec-tions: The Main Outcomes of theReviews; Common Regional Issues;Key indicators; Emerging GoodPractice; and Recommended Prioritiesfor Strategic Reform. The nine steps ofreform, proposed under the last head-ing, require collaborative approachesbetween universities, departmentsand between universities and min-istries. This report concludes that a
Report Summary
66
regional initiative to adopt and imple-ment these nine steps should be ashared priority for Arab policymakersin higher education.
2. Summary of the MainOutcomes of the Reviews
The main outcomes of the review pro-gramme are as follows:
• The participating universities aremaking an important contributionin the region in producing gradu-ates in Business Administration,the best of whom are highlyregarded by their employers andby other universities internationallywho accept them for further study.
• Academic standards were judgedto be good in two of the participat-ing universities and satisfactory inall except four of the others, whichwere deemed to be unsatisfactory.Students’ knowledge and under-standing of the more measurableand quantifiable aspects of Busi-ness Administration were general-ly a strength. However, there wereweaknesses in areas relating topeople-oriented aspects and in thedevelopment of higher-level skillssuch as critical analysis and evalu-ation.
• Universities show significant vari-ation in the quality of learningopportunities which they makeavailable to their students. In par-ticular, a lack of teaching andlearning strategies leads to highlydidactic teaching approaches andlittle development of students’learning skills. Furthermore, in sixuniversities, learning resourceswere considered and henceunable to adequately support stu-dent learning.
• Quality assurance and enhance-ment were judged to be good in
only one university, satisfactory innine and unsatisfactory in six. Thisprofile indicates that this is theweakest area overall. In particular,there is a general lack of formalsystems, including the collectionof data, for the monitoring of pro-vision. This has resulted in manysituations where individual aca-demics enjoy considerable auton-omy with little accountability, andwhere there are no mechanismsfor taking an overview of qualityissues.
• Many areas of strength or weak-ness appear, as expected, to beshared by many of the participat-ing universities.
3. Common Regional Issues
a. Valuable progress has been madein developing Intended LearningOutcomes (ILOs) and programmespecifications. However, these haveyet to become embedded and to pro-vide the focal point from which con-tent, delivery, learning resources, andstudent support can be developed andmatched to purpose. ILOs are oftenmore developed at course level than atprogramme level, they are often inter-nally inconsistent and concentrate onknowledge and understanding, whilstfailing fully to cover the developmentof skills.
b. There is little systematic bench-marking of programmes. Hence, uni-versities cannot ensure that their pro-grammes match those offered else-where, meet the needs of employersand students, and match acceptedinternational benchmarks.
c. In many cases, constraints imposedcentrally (by the university or ministry)on programme design and contentneedlessly stifle innovation andrestrict the ability of programmeteams to react to the changing needs
67
of international business.
d. Curricula generally cover measur-able and quantifiable aspects of Busi-ness Administration but are less suc-cessful in covering people-relatedareas such as Human ResourceManagement. Curricula in most uni-versities also lack practical inputs,which could come from, for example,internships and industry based proj-ects.
e. Curricular content is not alwayswell matched to level. In particular,introductory material is often includedin final level units. More significantly,content concentrates on technicalknowledge and skills and ignoreshigher-level cognitive skills.
f. Many institutions do not havemechanisms in place to regularlyreview curricula to ensure currency.
g. Many students are provided withinsufficient language inputs to supporttheir studies in the language(s) ofdelivery, and inadequate access to suf-ficient texts in the relevantlanguage(s). Further, in those institu-tions where the language of instruc-tion for a course or the whole pro-gramme is not Arabic (such as Frenchor English), the application of that cho-sen language through the arrange-ments for language development,teaching, recommended texts, assign-ments, and assessment is often notconsistent.
i. Overall, there is a poor matchbetween methods of student assess-ment and ILOs. Assessment generallyconcentrates on the knowledge com-ponents of ILOs and fails to addressskills requirements. Rigorously fol-lowed, rigid, centrally imposed assess-ment regimes are preventing theappropriate assessment of students.Programme teams are not providedwith sufficient flexibility in the design
and implementation of assessment.There is too much reliance on closed-book examinations, particularly thosebased on short answer and multiple-choice questions (which dominate inseveral cases). Such examinations areoften poorly designed, and encouragememory recall at the expense of criti-cal analysis and evaluative writing.
j. Whilst most students receive feed-back on assessed work, this is ofteninformal and oral. The lack of formalwritten feedback means that studentsdo not have a permanent record forfuture reference.
k. Universities do not have appropri-ate mechanisms in place for the mod-eration of assessment; these are need-ed to ensure fairness to students andcomparability of standards. In addi-tion, students are often not providedwith clear and transparent assessmentcriteria.
l. In many universities, the number ofstudents achieving higher gradeawards is very low. The reasons forthis are not being investigated, and,hence, no action is being taken toaddress this issue. Reasons for thegenerally poor showing of students inthe ETS Major Field Test*, which hasbeen available to English-based pro-grammes, are also not being investi-gated by the institutions.
m. In six of the universities, a gradua-tion project provides a good platformfor students to demonstrate higher-level skills and an ability to applythem. However, in other universities,
* Under another component of the project the MajorField Test of the Educational Testing Services (ETS) inBusiness Administration was administered in theSpring of 2003 to the senior students of the reviewedprogrammes that use English as the teaching lan-guage. A translated version of the test was adminis-tered in the Spring of 2004 to the students of thosereviewed programmes that use Arabic or French asthe teaching language. A separate regional overviewreport on the results of these tests will be publishedby UNDP/ RBAS.
68
this opportunity is not available to stu-dents or is not being used effectively.
n. Student work is often failing toreveal higher-level skills and todemonstrate abilities to apply techni-cal knowledge and skills to businessproblems.
o. The universities are not systemati-cally collecting information regardingthe scale and type of employment, orfurther study, of their graduates. Theyare, therefore, lacking valuable infor-mation which would be helpful to cur-rent students and in the developmentof programmes.
p. Universities have not developedteaching and learning strategiesaimed at improving students’ learningskills in line with ILOs. Current teach-ing methods encourage students to bepassive learners rather than the moreactive learners they should become ifthey are to meet the needs of today’semployers. Teaching also lacks practi-cal inputs, such as case studies ofeffective business practice and expo-sure to simulated and real businessproblems.
q. There is little provision of process-es and opportunities aimed at enhanc-ing teaching and learning, for exam-ple, through more targeted staff devel-opment and peer observationschemes.
r. The monitoring of progression andcompletion is poor; as a result, prob-lem areas are not being identified andremedial action taken.
s. Most universities are challenged bytheir selection of the language ofinstruction. Those that teach in Arabichave difficulty in providing studentswith adequate up-to-date learningresources. There is no evidence that acollaborative effort – national orregional - is being mounted to addressthis problem. Those who teach in
English or French often resort tohybrid combinations of these lan-guages with Arabic in order to com-pensate for the weaknesses of theirstudents (and some of the staff) inthese languages. Furthermore, thesehybrid approaches on occasions causeconfusion and fail to ensure an ade-quate resource of appropriate textsand students’ assessments in the cho-sen language of instruction.
t. Whilst provision of general academ-ic support for students is satisfactory,targeted specific support, notably inlanguages and numeracy, is too vari-able. Universities lack appropriateprocesses for identifying academicweaknesses in students and providingappropriate support to overcomethem. Furthermore, reviewers foundthat much of the support offered tostudents is provided in an ad hoc man-ner, with the consequent risk thatproblems will be missed.
u. Many universities offer appropriatesupport for students with specialneeds, but in a few cases this supportis lacking.
v. Universities do not have strategicapproaches to resource planning toenable priorities to be agreed in linewith curricular needs.
w. In a few universities, difficulties inthe allocation of staff resources leadsto poor coverage of the curricula, andinadequate opportunities for staff toundertake scholarly activities in sup-port of their teaching.
x. The management of library provi-sion is poor in several universities,and fails to ensure that students haveappropriate access, useful borrowingrights and study facilities. In manycases, library book-stocks are inade-quate and out-of-date. In severalcases, students were using outdatedand misleading texts. In addition, stu-
69
dents generally do not have access tospecialist software, and developmentof intranet support for students hasbeen slow.
y. Systems for the annual monitoringof programmes are often poor, with lit-tle use of data on key aspects of provi-sion. Such systems are often beingviewed simply as compliance withcentrally imposed requirements,rather than as means for enhance-ment. Periodic major reviews of pro-grammes are not being used and,hence, there is limited control toensure that the programmes are andremain current and relevant.
z. External parties are rarely involvedsystematically in the review or devel-opment of the programmes. This mustchange. Key stakeholder groups havea significant part to play in ensuringquality and academic standards. Thepool of trained academic reviewersresulting from this project, should beseen as a valuable resource for thispurpose and as a nucleus for thedevelopment of a significant group of“critical friends” throughout theregion.
aa. The processes for gathering stu-dent views are inconsistent and oftenunsystematic, they are also lacking intransparency and responsiveness inmany cases.
4. Key Indicators
A summary chart of the main judg-ments and other key indicators thatare based on the outcomes of the indi-vidual reviews (reports) is given inFigure 1. The first eight indicators rep-resent the formal subject review judg-ments as stated in the individualreports. Of the remaining fifteen indi-cators eight have been defined to rep-resent selected academic aspects ofthe reviewed provisions, and seven torepresent selected aspects of the pro-
vided learning resources and facilities.The distribution of the last two groupsof key indicators is shown in Figure 1.aand Figure 1.b. The chart is not intend-ed to be a league table but to quantifythe regional profiles of the review out-comes.
5. Emerging Good Practice
In presenting the full range of evalua-tions together with many findings andrecommendations, an overall patternof the strengths and weaknesses ofthe quality and academic standards ofBusiness Administration programmesin the region is emerging. Notwith-standing the criticisms in the report, itis also established that BusinessAdministration is a vigorous and com-petitive field of academic study in theregion. Demand is strong (requiring,in some cases, more stringent admis-sion policies) and the programmesattract highly qualified students. Topgraduates are valued by employersand many are able to compete interna-tionally, particularly when going on tofurther study. There is visible growthand large potential for much neededimprovements, in terms of quality andimpact. In working towards this goal,the departments, the universities andthe region can build on the presentstrengths which also include:
• A willingness in the universities anddepartments reviewed to take up thechallenge of evaluating and improv-ing their programmes, not least,through their active involvement in,and important contributions to, allstages of this project. The group oftrained academic reviewers from theparticipating institutions representsa valuable potential resource.
• In almost all of the universities, thecurricula provide students with anappropriate breadth of coverage.
• The emerging willingness of some
70
departments to bring practical fea-tures into their programmes,through, for example, internships,visiting practitioners and field trips,is worthy of wider dissemination.
• Almost half of the universities havedeveloped a range of approaches tostudents’ assessment to try andaddress the complexities of pro-grammes in Business Administration.
• Where used, graduation projectsoften demonstrate appropriate high-er-level skills.
• Completion rates are high in manyof the participating universities.
• Overall academic support for stu-dents is at least satisfactory in mostuniversities.
6. Recommended Priorities forStrategic Reform
Nine key steps are identified for rais-ing the quality of BusinessAdministration programmes acrossthe region. They have significance forthe region, for national ministries ofhigher education and for the universi-ties and their stakeholders. These are:
Academic Programmes andCurricula:There is a need for proac-tive and strategic approaches tothe reform, design, organisationand delivery of the programmes.Intended learning outcomes (ILOs)have to date been developed inisolation, often by a small coreteam of staff. They must now berefined to reflect internationalrequirements in the field, and thendisseminated, accepted and ownedby programme teams. Once this isachieved, there is a need for thefundamental review of pro-grammes to ensure that curricula,their delivery and assessment fullyreflect the ILOs.
Academic freedom and control:Whilst appreciating that pro-grammes should meet minimumstandards for ensuring academicrigour and confidence, there is aneed to ensure that academic staffhave sufficient freedom to developpractices which meet the needs ofstudents and potential employers.Some controls imposed centrally,either by higher education min-istries or central university policy,are unnecessarily rigid and are pre-venting the programmes from pro-viding students with opportunitiesto develop and demonstrate neces-sary skills and to meet the chang-ing needs of international busi-ness. However, such delegatedauthority should be accompaniedby a clear responsibility upon theuniversities and their schools, fac-ulties and departments to havesystems and procedures for qualityassurance in place that are open,transparent and responsive toexternal comment.
External Reference Points andInputs: All of the universitiesreviewed need to improve theirwillingness to seek external inputsinto their programmes. Althoughmany have some external bench-marks against which to judge theircurricula, these are often informal.Most rely on the experience of staffin other institutions, often onMasters or Doctoral programmes.These are of limited value forbenchmarking undergraduate pro-grammes. There are some limitedattempts to gauge the views ofemployers, but these are not pro-perly linked to a systematic reviewof curricula and student assess-ment as well as confirmation ofstudents’ achievements. As a resultof this project, there is now a poolof trained and experienced aca-
71
demic reviewers in the region. Thisrepresents a valuable resourceboth for offering external inputsbut also for developing this role inother academics. There needs to bea major change in attitudes, so thatexternal consultation and com-mentary is seen not as an infringe-ment on the academic freedom ofindividual teachers, but as a posi-tive contributor to programmedevelopment. There needs to begreater willingness to share goodpractice. In addition, references tointernational benchmarks, such asthose developed by QAA and theETS Major Field Test coverage,should be systematically built intoreview processes.
Cognitive Skills development: Thedevelopment of students’ higher-level skills, such as those involvingevaluation and critical analysis, is a weakness in almost all of the universities visited. Such skills are often included in ILOs and insome curricular documentation.However, they rarely feature in theactual content of programmes,they are not encouraged by thepredominant teaching methodsused and are not properlyassessed. Given the requirementsof modern international business,this weakness needs urgent con-sideration.
Teaching, Learning and Assess-ment: Universities need to adopt amore strategic approach to thedevelopment of teaching andlearning as well as to assessment.Teaching needs to become lessdidactic, with the emphasis onmoving towards encouraging stu-dents to become independentlearners, in line with declared mis-sions. There should be less relianceon single texts for courses, and
assessment must become morevaried and designed to require stu-dents to analyse and evaluate top-ics in a real business setting. Toachieve this, centrally imposedteaching and assessment rules willhave to be reconsidered and mademore flexible. The current lack ofsupport for staff developmentrelating to good practice in teach-ing and learning as well as inassessment must be addressed.
Student Support: The provision ofgeneral academic support in mostuniversities is satisfactory or good.However, the provision of targetedspecific support, notably in numer-acy, information and communica-tions technology (ICT), and lan-guage needs to be improved. Amore systematic approach is need-ed to ensure that problem areasare not overlooked. Better monitor-ing of student performance andprogression would help to identifysupport needs and address thoseareas which cause most difficultiesfor students. Furthermore, all uni-versities should adopt the goodpractice of the many in supportingstudents with special needs.
Learning Resources: There waslittle evidence within most of theuniversities of considered resourc-ing strategies informed by ILOs oran analysis of the curricula. Libraryprovision, in terms of both organi-sation and holdings, needs signifi-cant improvement in many of theinstitutions, and needs to featuremore prominently in the learningstrategies, if it is to support thedevelopment of appropriate inde-pendent learning skills amongststudents. The number of qualifiedacademic staff is ‘satisfactory’ inmost universities, but was notfound to be ‘good’ in any of the
72
universities. This reduces the abili-ty of the institutions to offerresearch-informed teaching, and togive sufficient attention to courseand programme development.Whilst teaching accommodation isgenerally satisfactory, there waslittle evidence of teaching aids suchas projectors and data show equip-ment being used, hence reinforc-ing the over-didactic teachingapproaches seen.
Quality Assurance andEnhancement: The universitieshave responded positively to theopportunity presented by this proj-ect to specify and self-evaluatetheir educational programmes.They now need to develop appro-priate internal quality assuranceprocesses that build upon existingelements of regulation and report-ing. Annual monitoring and report-ing need to improve, there is inparticular an urgent requirement toimprove the systematic recordingand management of data/ informa-tion for monitoring and reportingupon good practice, progress andsuccess/ failure. Such reportingshould be organised to ensure thatthe loops of monitoring, action andfeedback are closed and effective.A culture of continuous improve-ment and learning needs to be fos-tered. A regular cycle for the fullreview of programmes, say everyfive years, should be establishedas normal practice. This is neces-sary to ensure that programmesstay current and reflect the chang-ing requirements of students andpotential employers. In half of theuniversities, canvassing of stu-dents’ views on such matters asteaching, learning resources andassessment needs to be improved.
The language of teaching: More
concerted effort and resources areessential for addressing the issueof the language of instruction.Universities that teach in Arabicneed to work together nationallyand across the region to ensurethat texts and other teaching mate-rial (in both paper and electronicform) are available to students andstaff. In addition, students in theseuniversities should be providedwith extra training in technicalEnglish to enable them to use addi-tional texts and other learningresources in English, especiallythrough the Internet. Universitiesthat teach wholly or partly inEnglish or French should ensurethat their students are providedwith sufficient language training,not just with regard to comprehen-sion of lectures (without resortingto mixed language modes), butalso with regard to the ability ofstudents to clearly express theirthoughts and ideas in sound aca-demic writing and in their ownwords. The approach to the lan-guage issue should be addressedby the university and the school ina strategic plan. It should furtherbe periodically reviewed andinformed by regular monitoring ofthe students’ and graduates’ profi-ciency in the relevant foreign lan-guage or their performance ininternational tests, such as the MFT(ETS).
73
Academic Subject Review
The project, “Enhancement of QualityAssurance and Institutional Planningin Arab Universities” is sponsored andfunded by the Regional Bureau of ArabStates (RBAS) in collaboration with theUnited Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP). The project’sdevelopment objective is the introduc-tion in Arab universities of independ-ent systems of quality assessment ofprogrammes with reference to interna-tionally accepted criteria, proceduresand benchmarks.
The programme of reviews in 2003-2004 addressing Business Administra-tion education programmes follows asuccessful pilot project in ComputerScience programmes in 2002. Sixteenuniversities in twelve countries partici-pated in the 2003-4 programme. Inaddition to an individual report on eachuniversity’s provision, the programmealso leads to an overview report thathighlights areas of regional strength,weakness and needed reform for thehigher education sector in the Arabregion.
The method used for review is a mod-ified version of Academic SubjectReview as developed for implementa-tion in 2000 by the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA) inthe United Kingdom. This method isitself a direct development of the earli-er Subject Review methods used toreview academic disciplines at UK uni-versities over the period 1992 to 2001.Full details of the process of subjectreview can be found in the project’s Handbook for AcademicReview. A summary follows. The proj-ect included workshops for represen-tatives of participating universitiesand reviewers recruited from the Arab
states and the UK.
Academic subject review takes placeaccording to the published Handbook.It places responsibility on the universi-ty to evaluate and report on the aca-demic standards of its programmes ofstudy and the quality of learningopportunities. This evaluation takesplace within the agreed framework forreview. This framework, described inthe Handbook, includes the use ofexternal reference points to establishand improve the academic standards.In most Arab states, the academicstandards are prescribed and /oraccredited by the ministry of highereducation or an equivalent centralbody. In the UK, the QAA has pub-lished a wide range of materialsdesigned to provide a backgroundagainst which the reviews can takeplace, for example subject benchmarkstatements, a framework for HigherEducation Qualifications and a code ofpractice. With regard to the reviewscarried out in the context of this pro-ject, each university was asked toidentify its external subject referencepoints so that its academic standingmay be judged. Participating universi-ties were also invited to take part inMajor Field Tests of their final year stu-dents conducted by the EducationalTesting Service (ETS) based in theUSA.
The Academic Subject ReviewProcess
Subject review is a peer reviewprocess. It starts when institutionsevaluate their provision in a subject ina self-evaluation document and pre-pare a programme specification foreach named award-bearing pro-gramme. The self-evaluation and theprogramme specifications are submit-
I. Introduction
74
ted to the project for use by a team ofreviewers. The reviewers are academ-ics and practitioners experienced inexternal scrutiny and review process-es, drawn from the Arab region andthe UK. They read the document andvisit the university to gather evidenceto enable them to report their judge-ments on the academic standards, thequality of learning opportunities andthe ability of the university to assureand enhance academic standards andquality. Review activities include meet-ing staff and students; scrutinising stu-dents’ assessed work, reading rele-vant documents, and examining learn-ing resources. The team gives an oralsummary report to the university atthe end of the review visit and pre-pares the written academic subjectreview report.
Judgements on AcademicStandards
Reviewers make one of the followingjudgements on academic standards:
• Good
• Satisfactory
• Unsatisfactory
To reach this judgement, reviewersevaluate:
• intended learning outcomes
• the curriculum
• student assessment and
• student achievement.
A programme may be judged satisfac-tory where on balance it demonstratesthe need to address many issues andmake substantial improvements, orgood where it demonstrates a sub-stantial number of good features out-weighing any matters that deserve tobe addressed. If the arrangements arejudged to be inadequate in any one ofthe four elements that comprise thesection of academic standards, the
overall threshold judgement on aca-demic standards is unsatisfactory.
Judgements on the Quality ofLearning Opportunities
Reviewers make one of the followingjudgements for each of the threeaspects of learning opportunities:
• Good
• Satisfactory
• Unsatisfactory.
The three aspects of quality of learn-ing opportunities are:
• teaching and learning
• student progression
• learning resources.
Judgements on the QualityAssurance and Enhancement
Reviewers also report the degree ofconfidence they have in the institu-tion’s ability to assure and enhancequality and academic standards in thesubject under review. They make oneof the following judgements:
• Good
• Satisfactory
• Unsatisfactory.
75
Participating Universities
1. Business Administration pro-grammes in sixteen universities intwelve Arab states were reviewed in2003-04. The purposes of this overviewreport are to present the main find-ings, highlight common areas ofregional strength, and report patternsof weakness as well as issues thatneed to be addressed as part of thereform programme for the higher edu-cation sector. In addition to thisoverview report, there is a reviewreport for each of the participating uni-versities.
2. This project provided the partici-pating universities in the region with arare opportunity to undertake a com-prehensive review of their BusinessAdministration programmes, receive asite visit from external reviewerstogether with an oral feedback reportand at a later stage, a written reviewreport.
3. For the majority of the universi-ties, such a review process with inter-nal and external elements was a newexperience. Feedback received fromthe universities in the course of thereview programme indicates that allthe participating universities and theexternal reviewers viewed the reviewprocess positively. The qualitativeinformation reported in this overviewreport, in conjunction with the sepa-rate review reports, is expected toinform the continuing development ofsystems that form elements of theproject and also to provide valuable
insights into the quality and academicstandards of higher education.Although there are difficulties extrapo-lating into other institutions and disci-pline areas without evidence, readersof this overview report may well findevaluations arising from the BusinessAdministration review programme ofsome relevance and value in consider-ing the wider issues of improving aca-demic standards and the quality of thelearning opportunities more generallyin other disciplines and across theregion.
Subject Provision
4. Fifteen of the reviews were ofBachelor degrees. Twelve were desig-nated as Bachelor degrees in BusinessAdministration; one was a Bachelordegree in Accounting, one a Bachelordegree in Business Management andone a Bachelor degree in BusinessScience. The other review was of anMBA programme.
5. The universities involved do notfollow a uniform model for theirundergraduate programmes. Variousprogrammes are based on the French,or the American credit hours systems,usually with local variations. Similarly,the main language of instructionvaries, with institutions teaching inArabic, French or English, or morecommonly, some mixture of eitherFrench or English and Arabic. Inalmost all cases, undergraduate pro-grammes consist of a mixture of uni-versity, faculty and specialist courses.
II. Subject Provision
76
III.1 Intended Learning Outcomes
6. The concepts of ILOs and pro-gramme specifications are new tomost of the institutions, and in almostall of them, involvement in the UNDPproject was the spur to their develop-ment. All of the universities had madeuseful progress in producing ILOs, andthis is welcome. In most cases, theILOs have been developed from exist-ing documentation and represent afresh articulation of intended out-comes for existing programmes. Theyhave not yet been used to inform thedevelopment and design of pro-grammes. Reviewers concluded thatILOs are not yet embedded in pro-grammes and are not reflected inassessment, delivery (including theorganisation of appropriate learningresources) or student support prac-tices.
7. In most cases, ILOs have beendeveloped for both individual coursesand programmes. However, in fouruniversities, there has been a concen-tration on course level ILOs and limit-ed development of programme-wideILOs. Furthermore, in four universities,whilst ILOs covered knowledge andunderstanding, they failed adequatelyto cover aspects of skills development.
In particular, whilst the broad aims ofthe programmes included the devel-opment in students of higher-levelskills, these were not addressed inILOs, which only referred toKnowledge and Understanding.
8. In most cases, ILOs are articulatedto students, particularly at courselevel. Good practice includes stan-dardised course documentation out-lining ILOs, content and assessmentpractices, and well-written, informa-tive student handbooks. In three insti-tutions, there was no articulation ofILOs, as student handbooks and otherwritten guidance were not provided. Intwo other cases, practice is not consis-tent across the programme, whilst inanother, information is very limitedand has to be purchased by students.
9. Many staff show a good under-standing of ILOs, particularly for thosecourses they teach. In three cases, thisunderstanding and acceptance is notuniversal. For example, in one univer-sity, the development and articulationof ILOs was all carried out in English, alanguage with which the majority ofstaff are not familiar. In another case,ILOs were stated in a very general andperfunctory manner, indicating limitedunderstanding and commitmentamong staff.
10. Benchmarking of ILOs and otheraspects of programme design are notgenerally formally acknowledged.
III. Academic Standards
Review Outcome: Overall, the review teams concluded that academic standards weregood in two universities, satisfactory in ten and unsatisfactory in four. In the best performinguniversities the review teams acknowledged good practice in at least two aspects of aca-demic standards, with curricula and student achievement featuring as the strongestaspects, with four universities achieving a grade of good in both cases. None of the univer-sities were considered to merit a grade of good for assessment. Those universities judgedto have unsatisfactory academic standards, were acknowledged to be unsatisfactory in atleast one aspect of academic standards, in one case all aspects were judged to be unsat-isfactory and in two cases two aspects were judged to be unsatisfactory.
Intended learning Outcomes (ILOs)were judged to be good in one uni-versity, satisfactory in twelve andunsatisfactory in three.
77
Most institutions have made use of some external reference points,largely resulting from staff experiencein other universities, often in Europe or the USA. Because suchbenchmarking is unsystematic, thereis no way of ensuring that it is relevantto the programmes concerned, nortested against the legitimate views of the full range of stakeholder groups. The experience in other universities, for many staff, is asDoctoral or Masters students, andtherefore, in this respect, of limited relevance to the needs of Bachelorprogrammes.
11. Some universities acknowledgedthe use of other benchmarks, includ-ing QAA subject benchmark state-ments and the ETS Major Field Testcore areas. These should be used withcaution in some subjects such as thesocial and legal environment as wellas finance, as aspects of these are cul-turally, nationally or regionally specif-ic. There is a need for a more consid-ered approach to benchmarking, toensure that programmes reflect inter-national standards, whilst also reflect-ing the specific requirements of
Business Administration graduates inthe Region.
12. In several countries, ILOs andcurricula are significantly constrainedby centrally imposed requirements,often emanating from the ministries ofhigher education. Given that many ofthe universities are relatively younginstitutions, such control has helped toensure that minimum standards havebeen met. There is evidence that someof this central control is being relaxed.This is welcome, as such control,whilst initially valuable, stifles innova-tion and restricts institutional ability toreact to the quickly changing needs ofinternational and regional business.
13. Government and university regu-lations often require students toundertake courses which are notdirectly related to their chosen field ofstudy. Such studies are of value inwidening student experiences andputting their studies into a cultural andethical context. However, in a fewcases, reviewers concluded that theserequirements, when taken to excess,reduce the time available for specialiststudies below a necessary level.
With regard to the Intended Learning Outcomes, the reviewersrecommend that the universities consider the following:
� It is important that the valuable progress made on developing ILOs and programme specifica-tions is maintained. As institutions review and modify their programmes, ILOs need to becomemore embedded and to provide the focal point from which content, delivery (including learningresources) and student support can be developed and matched to purpose.
�All universities should ensure that ILOs are developed at both programme and course levels, areinternally consistent and fully cover skills development as well as knowledge and understand-ing.
�Benchmarking of programmmes needs to improve. Universities should ensure that their pro-grammes match those offered elsewhere, meet the needs of employers and other stakeholdergroups, and meet accepted international benchmarks. In so doing, they must ensure that suchbenchmarks are used in a way which reflects the specific needs of the region.
�Centrally imposed constraints on programme design need to be relaxed to ensure that they donot stifle innovation and restrict the ability of programme teams to react to the changing needsof international business.
78
III.2 Curricula
14. Core business topics covered inthe programmes include Accounting,Marketing, Statistics, Computing, Law,Management, Economics, Finance,Human Resource Management andBusiness Organisation. In all but threeof the universities, the overall cover-age is appropriate to the award beingreviewed. In two universities, the cur-ricula are lacking in coverage of peo-ple-focused aspects of business suchas Human Resource Management,whilst this is also considered to be aweak area in two other institutions. Inanother university, curricula are weakin Statistics and Finance. Very few uni-versities had used the ETS Major FieldTest to inform curricular design, butoverall content showed a broad matchto the test coverage.
15. There is considerable emphasison knowledge and theory within cur-ricula. There are few practical inputs, apoint often commented on by studentsand employers. There have been someuseful attempts to address this issue.For example, work placements orinternships feature in the curricula ofeight of the universities, although thisis optional and limited in three ofthese. The arrangements for workplacement at Abdelmalek EssaadiUniversity in Morocco represent par-ticularly good practice. Students gofor three periods of placement, whichprovide a progressive and valuableexperience culminating in a projectreport.
16. There is good flexibility in thecurricula of many of the universities.For example, some programmes allowfor various entry and exit points, many
permit students to change specialismpart way through their studies, whilstothers allow students to speed-up orslow-down their progression to suittheir circumstances. In almost allcases, this flexibility is coupled with asystem of pre-requisites to ensure thatthe curricula are progressive.However, in a few cases, the position-ing of courses within the programmesis less than satisfactory. For example,a lack of grounding in some subjectsleads to inappropriate introductorymaterial being taught and assessed atfinal level. In one case, university-based courses, including IslamicCulture, scheduled for the first year,were taught in the fourth year.Furthermore, students reported thatthe content of these units did not rep-resent any progression from theirstudies at school.
17. Curricula are generally very theo-retical with a strong emphasis withinthe programmes on technical contentand skills. This is rarely supported byany requirement to apply technicalsolutions to practical problems or toconsider their limitations. Whilst manyof the ILOs refer to the higher levelskills of critical analysis and evalua-tion, scrutiny of schemes of work andassessments show that these are sel-dom addressed in the curricula asdelivered.
18. There are few mechanisms inplace for the formal review of curricu-la to ensure currency. The detailed con-tent is generally determined by theteacher concerned. Some degree ofcurrency is provided through the useof current editions of textbooks.However, this is itself a problem, asthere is frequently an over-reliance ona single text to the exclusion of others.Students are not developing skillsrelating to critical analysis and thesynthesis of material from multiple
Curricula were judged to be good infour universities, satisfactory in tenand unsatisfactory in two.
79
sources. Business Administration is acomplex area of study with manyapproaches and views. One textbookis unlikely to encompass this diversity.Lack of currency is evident in seven ofthe universities; in others, the treat-ment of current theories, models andpractice in business was satisfactorybut was not assured through any sys-tematic review process. It is rare forthe universities systematically to seekthe views of employers, practitionersor alumni to ensure currency or rele-vance of content.
19. Some of the universities teachprogrammes exclusively in Arabic,some in French and some In English.Others teach in a combination of lan-guages. Where students are taught in
Arabic, it is not clear whether studentshave access to sufficient texts at high-er levels. In such cases, students willneed to access texts in French orEnglish. Reviewers found that stu-dents are often not being providedwith sufficient language inputs todevelop their language abilities to thenecessary level. This was often alsothe case in courses taught wholly orpartly in French or English; in thesecourses there is also some inconsis-tency between the chosen language ofinstruction, the recommended texts,the assignments, and assessments.Many employers and students statedthat there is a particular need for moreEnglish language provision, given itsimportance in international business.
III.3 Assessment of Students
20. The aim of assessment should beto judge, in a fair and transparentmanner, the extent to which studentsdemonstrate achievement of intendedlearning outcomes. A sufficient and
appropriate variety of opportunitiesmust be provided to enable studentsto demonstrate the knowledge, under-standing and skills relevant to theircurrent level. Furthermore, assess-ment should, wherever possible, sup-port student learning through the pro-vision of constructive feedback ontheir performance.
21. In six of the universities, there is agood match between assessment and
With regard to Curricula, the reviewers recommend that the universitiesconsider the following:
�Ensure that overall curricular coverage matches the needs of business, including people-focused areas such as Human Resource Management.
� Increase practical inputs into the curricula, through such measures as internships and industrybased projects.
�Ensure, in those institutions criticised, that material is appropriately matched to level. In particu-lar, introductory material should not be included in final level units.
�Ensure that actual content does not concentrate solely on technical knowledge and skills butshould also addresses higher-level cognitive skills.
�Review curricula regularly to ensure currency and relevance. �Ensure that students are provided with sufficient language inputs to support their studies in the
language(s) of delivery, and access to sufficient texts in the relevant language(s).
Assessment was judged to be satis-factory in fourteen universities andunsatisfactory in two. None wasjudged as good.
80
ILOs, however, in two of these, there isa need for a more formal mapping ofthe two. The six universities employ arange of assessment methods includ-ing, examinations, case-studies, proj-ect work and assignments, whichensures that ILOs relating toKnowledge and Understanding, aswell as to Transferable, Intellectual andSubject-specific skills are assessed.The other institutions have significantshortcomings in their arrangementsfor assessing students’ achievements.The scope and methods of assess-ment do not match the stated ILOs.These institutions (the majority) tendto concentrate assessment on theknowledge elements of ILOs and fail toassess the skills elements satisfactori-ly.
22. In many of the universities,assessment regimes are centrallyimposed. Typically, some 80 or 90% ofmarks available have to come fromexaminations, with the final examina-tion for each course contributing 50%.These regulations are generally rigor-ously followed, and this severely limitsopportunities to assess higher-levelskills. It is not clear how much flexibil-ity is actually available within theseregulations, and there was uncertaintywithin institutions. For example, someteachers believe that case study basedexaminations can be used, whereasothers believe that this is not so.
23. In eight of the universities, there istoo much reliance on formal closed-book examinations. Furthermore theform of the examinations is often inap-propriate, particularly at the laterstages of programmes. Five institu-tions were criticised by reviewers forthe preponderance of short-answerand multiple-choice question paperswhich rely almost entirely on memoryrecall from limited sources. Suchpapers fail to develop or test students’
critical abilities or their writing skillsand erroneously support the notionthat the effective application of knowl-edge and skills to problems inBusiness Administration depends onclosed, safe, and unchallenged solu-tions. In several cases, final level pro-ject units play a valuable part in theassessment of a range of attributes.However, in two universities only themost able students are allowed to takethis unit, thus severely limiting itsimpact. In other universities, there isno final project unit and a valuableopportunity for students to demon-strate their critical and evaluative abi-lities is missed.
24. Students generally receive feed-back on at least some of their assessedwork. On many of the programmesthey can discuss their work with theirtutors, whilst many teachers workthrough solutions to tasks in class anddiscuss major areas of difficulty.However, in ten universities, feedbackis largely oral and informal and thereis a need for the provision of formalwritten feedback. This will ensure thatstudents have a permanent record ofthe feedback for future reference. Inone university, the lack of formalmechanisms to provide students withfeedback often means that none isgiven and hence an opportunity tosupport student learning is lost.
25. Assessment is generally rigorous,but there is limited internal or externalmoderation of assessment. Somegood practice was seen at theLebanese University which operates asystem of anonymous double markingof assessment. Reviewers recommendthat all universities put in place someform of moderation such that exami-nation papers and other forms ofassessment are reviewed before beinggiven to students. Such a reviewshould be focused on ensuring
81
II.4 Student Achievement
27. Demand for these pro-grammes is generally high. As aresult, most of the universitiesrecruit highly qualified students.
These students have good gradesin their high school examinationsand often have to pass additionalentrance examinations. In severalcases, there are two streams ofentry, some students enter througha competitive process with veryhigh grades, whilst others, ofwhom some pay higher fees, enterthrough a parallel process andrequire lower grades. Even so,
that assessments are of appropriatestandard, reflect ILOs and are clearlyworded. Once assessments have beenmarked, there should also be someform of sample double marking, eitherinternal or external, to ensure rigor,consistency and fairness. There aresome developing practices which canbe built upon to attain these aims.
26. Fairness can also be enhanced bythe provision of clear and transparentassessment criteria to students. Sixuniversities provide well-consideredand helpful assessment criteria, whichinform students of grade distributions,
mark allocations between differentelements and the requirements foreach grade. In other cases, there is little or no articulation of criteria, lead-ing to a lack of transparency in assess-ment processes. For example, in twouniversities, marks can be added ordeducted from a student’s overallgrade on the basis of a tutor’s view oftheir participation in class. However,the basis for such decisions is unclear.In another university, the marks allo-cated to each question on an examina-tion paper are rarely shown and do noteven appear to be used when thepaper is marked.
With Regard to Assessment of Students, the reviewers recommend that the universities consider the following:
�There is generally a poor match between assessment and ILOs. Assessment must address skillsrequirements as well as the knowledge components of ILOs.
�Rigorously followed, rigid, centrally imposed assessment regimes are preventing the appropri-ate assessment of students. Programme teams must be provided with greater flexibility in thedesign and implementation of assessment.
�Reliance on closed-book examinations, particularly those based on short answer and multiple-choice questions (which dominate in several cases), must be reduced. Such examinations areoften poorly designed, and encourage memory recall at the expense of critical analysis andevaluative writing.
�Whilst most students receive feedback on assessed work, this is often informal and oral. There isa need for more formal written feedback to provide students with a permanent record for futurereference.
�There is a need for appropriate moderation mechanisms to ensure fairness to students andcomparability of standards.
�Students should be provided with clear and transparent information on such matters as assess-ment criteria, mark allocations between elements of assessment and grade distributions.
�The need for external input to the assessment process to ensure that academic standards are estab-lished and maintained.
Student achievement was graded asgood in four universities, satisfacto-ry in ten and unsatisfactory in two.
82
these latter students still tend tohave good grades. The ministry ofeducation is responsible for univer-sity admissions in several coun-tries; in these cases, the universi-ties have no control over admis-sions and the students only have alimited say in the course they enter.
28. In almost all of the universi-ties, the overall achievement of thetarget award is at least satisfactoryand often good. However, in manycases where final awards are grad-ed, the number of students achiev-ing the higher grades is disappoint-ingly low. This indicates that eitherassessment is inadequately dis-criminating between students ofdiffering abilities, or that better stu-dents are not being sufficiently pre-pared to demonstrate their full abil-ities. In such cases, institutionsneed to identify the causes of thisproblem and to consider ways ofensuring that the best studentsachieve to their potential.
29. During the visits, reviewerssaw a range of student work,including projects, case studyanalyses, reports and examinationscripts of various types. In six ofthe universities, reviewers con-cluded that student achievement infinal level projects was good andwas the main vehicle whereby stu-dents demonstrated higher levelskills such as synthesis of diversematerial, critical analysis and eval-uation of alternative courses ofaction. Given these findings, it isrecommended that other universi-ties consider introducing such proj-ect-based courses, with appropri-ate assessment criteria.
30. Other work seen by review-ers was of mixed quality. In four ofthe universities, reviewers com-mended the standard of work seen
and confirmed that the best workdemonstrated achievement of ILOs.In five others, work was found todemonstrate good levels of techni-cal knowledge and skills. However,in these and the other universities,there was rarely any demonstrationof higher-level intellectual skills.Furthermore, reviewers confirmedthe views of many employers, thatthe work does not demonstrate thestudents’ ability to apply their tech-nical knowledge and skills to prac-tical problems. Such weaknessestend to be more of a reflection ofthe nature of the assessment andcontent of the programmes ratherthan of student ability per se. Inone university, for example,reviewers found that students werearticulate and analytical whenquestioned, but they were notbeing required to demonstratethese skills in assessment.
31. Graduating students fromeight of the universities undertookthe English language based ETSMajor Field Test in June 2003,under the auspices of the UNDP.Students from Al AkhawaynUniversity in Morocco, achieved amean score of 157.30 compared tothe international mean score of152.70. Students from the otherseven universities achieved signifi-cantly below the international aver-age. Overall the average for theeight universities was 140.85.Insofar as the tests are a measureof graduates’ comparative abilities,the institutions may wish to investi-gate the particular areas of weak-ness which led to this outcome.
32. More than half of the univer-sities teach all or a large part oftheir programmes in English. Infour of these, students’ proficiencyin English was praised by review-
83
ers, whilst in the others, theEnglish language skills of studentswere considered to be satisfactoryoverall. However, in one case, thepreponderance of short answerquestions in examinations and thelack of a graduation project, meansthat students are not beingrequired to write sufficiently andsome are failing to develop ade-quate language skills. The languageof tuition in the other universities isArabic or French, or in some cases,Arabic with limited teaching inEnglish. It is important that, what-ever the main language of instruc-tion, students are given adequatesupport to develop sufficient profi-ciency in the business use of thelanguage and that adequate learn-ing resources are provided in thatlanguage. It is not sufficient thatonly one of these two requirementsis met. In one university, students’limited proficiency in French pre-vents an effective use of texts andother resources, and also restrictsprogression in those coursestaught in French. Many studentsand employers recognise the roleof English as the international lan-guage of business. They thereforewelcome any opportunities todevelop the students’ English lan-guage proficiency.
33. There is no consistent pic-ture of the development of generaltransferable skills or of any struc-tured programmes to developthem. Generally, students develop
good numeracy skills, whilst ITcompetence is well developed insix of the universities. Most stu-dents access the Internet to obtaininformation, but generally are notsufficiently discriminating or evalu-ative in its use. In fact, students inmany institutions show a lack ofcritical awareness when accessingeither printed or electronic sources.Good practice in citing sources,together with the use of standardreferencing, is also rare.
34. The universities do not gen-erally keep formal records of stu-dent destinations or links toemployers. However, other evi-dence, including interviews withgraduates and employers, writtentestimonies from employers andrepeat recruitment of graduates,indicated that students enter rele-vant employment or progress topostgraduate studies, oftenabroad. Some of the universitieshave good links with institutions inthe USA, Canada and Europe. Thefact that several universities andemployers return to recruit gradu-ates on a regular basis, testifies totheir general suitability for employ-ment and further study. However,the universities should investigateimproving their arrangements forobtaining evidence regarding thedestinations and subsequent per-formance of graduates. Such evi-dence can be valuable in informingthe continuing development of theprogrammes.
84
IV.1 Teaching and Learning
35. Only one university had a clearteaching and learning strategy aimedat helping students achieve ILOs. Ingeneral, teaching approaches areeither left to individual teachers, withlittle or no guidance, or are dictated bycircumstances. For example, one insti-tution has such large numbers of stu-dents, that only large group teachingis feasible. Institutions need to consid-er developing articulated strategiesaimed at developing students’ learn-ing skills in line with ILOs.
36. In six of the universities, there isan appropriate range of teachingapproaches. These include lectures,workshops, practical classes, role-plays, student presentations and tuto-rials. In several cases, the smallermore student-centred types of sessionbecome more prevalent in later stagesof programmes, as students’ learningskills develop. In the majority of theuniversities, however, the range of
teaching methods is too limited.Lectures predominate, with limitedsupport from other types of activity.Students are therefore passive ratherthan active learners. Prescribed text-books often determine teaching pro-grammes, encouraging an over-reliance on a single reference source.Use of teaching aids such as overheadprojectors and computerised presen-tations are not common. In somecases, this is because of a lack of facil-ities, in others, it is because of a lack ofrelevant skills or willingness on thepart of the teachers.
37. There are some valuable attemptsto introduce practical inputs intoteaching. In five of the universities,staff bring their research, consultancyand practical experiences into theirteaching. In others, visiting/ guestspeakers provide valuable inputs,sometimes supported by fieldtrips.Students value these aspects of theprogrammes. Staff in other universi-ties have valuable research, consultan-cy and practical experiences, but fail tocapitalise on these in their teaching,which is a lost opportunity. Many ofthe universities are making attempts
With regard to Student Achievement, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
• Investigate the reasons for the low numbers of students achieving higher-grade awards in manyuniversities, with a view to taking corrective action.
• Consider introducing a graduation project unit with appropriate assessment criteria (given itsvalue in several universities as a platform for students to demonstrate higher-level skills).
• Student work is often failing to demonstrate higher-level skills and to demonstrate abilities toapply technical knowledge and skills to business problems.
• Investigate the reasons for the generally poor showing of students in the ETS Major Field Test .• Systematically collect information regarding the scale and type of employment, or further study, of
graduates.
IV. Quality of Learning Opportunities
Teaching and learning was judged to begood in four of the universities, satisfac-tory in nine and unsatisfactory in three.
85
to improve links to employers andgraduates. This will provide a valuableopportunity to increase the use ofguest speakers and field trips and,hence, provide students with a helpfulcontext for their studies.
38. There is a need for greater encour-agement of independent learning ineleven of the universities. The highlydidactic approaches to teaching andover-reliance on a single textbook donot develop good learning skills in stu-dents. Whilst most of the universitieshave at least satisfactory library provi-sion, students are often not encour-aged to use it or Internet facilities todevelop learning. When they do usesuch sources, they do not have thenecessary skills to use them criticallyand in a discriminatory fashion.
39. There are a few examples of goodpractice of students’ learning skillsbeing developed in line with ILOs. Thisis demonstrated, for example, in learn-ing achieved through internships andthe development by teachers of theirown website to support students, as atthe University of Jordan. The Centrefor Academic Development at AlAkhawayn University has played a keyrole in helping students to develop asindependent learners through thedevelopment of compulsory introduc-tory study skills modules and the pro-vision of drop-in Writing and StudyCentres.
40. The language of teaching variesacross the region. In some caseswhere a combination of languages isemployed, different teaching approach-es are used in the different languages,leading to inconsistencies. In severaluniversities where English is the pre-dominant or only language of instruc-tion, students’ language skills are
insufficient for dealing with complexissues, the teachers then revert toArabic, which is not helpful in thelong-term. In one university whereArabic is the main language of instruc-tion, one unit per year is taught inFrench. Performance in these units isconsiderably poorer than that in otherunits.
41. There is a general lack of strate-gies for the enhancement of teachingand learning. Staff development acti-vities relating to teaching and learningare very limited. Several institutionshave induction and mentoringarrangements for staff new to teach-ing, but established staff have fewopportunities provided. In one case,external short courses and trainingprogrammes overseas provide appro-priate opportunities, whilst in a fewothers, a weakness in this area hasbeen identified and processes arebeing introduced. Peer observation ofteaching and other means of sharinggood practice are not a feature of theprovision. However, several universi-ties have introduced student evalua-tion of teaching on courses, which pro-vides some feedback to teachers andmanagers to enable some weaknessesto be addressed. This representsemerging good practice worthy ofwider adoption. Overall, there is aneed for considerable improvement inthe provision of processes and oppor-tunities aimed at enhancing teachingand learning. There is also a need forincreased awareness amongst teach-ers of the importance of enhancementin this aspect of their work. A shift inemphasis is needed in teaching awayfrom simply “purveying knowledge “towards “developing students aslearners”, in line with declared univer-sity missions.
86
IV. 2 Student Progression
42. The programmes enjoy healthyrecruitment. Six of the universitieshave good admissions processeswhich provide helpful and clear adviceto applicants. This advice not only pro-vides information on joining proce-dures, but also on programme struc-ture and option choices. In several uni-versities, admissions proceduresinvolve testing of basic language andnumeracy skills, on the basis of whichstudents are required to take specifiedcourses to bring them up to accept-able levels. In one university, admis-sions are organised centrally by thegovernment, and in another case, thegovernment sets the admissions criteria.
43. Many of the universities provideinduction or orientation programmesfor new students, and in one case forreturning students. Such programmesare usually supported by written mate-rial in the form of handbooks andguides. Five universities were criti-cised by reviewers for inadequate ornon-existent induction arrangements.It is important that students are pro-vided with early guidance on suchmatters as use of library facilities,assessment practices, codes of prac-
tice for citing references and againstplagiarism, tutor support and studyskills. This helps them to functioneffectively from the start of their stud-ies. Such guidance should includewritten material, so that students canrefer back to it when necessary.
44. Progression and completion rateshave been at least satisfactory, andoften good. In seven universities, 80%or more of a cohort consistently com-plete the named award. In many othercases, the rates are difficult to com-pute, usually because inadequate datais available. However, this problem isoften compounded because of theflexibility inherent in many of the insti-tutions, which enables students tomove between programmes at variousstages without detailed records of theindividual student’s progression.
45. Specific problems relating to pro-gression were seen in several univer-sities. Low overall progression andcompletion was only identified as anissue in one university. However,problems of delayed progressionbecause of difficulties in particularsubject areas were identified in fouruniversities. In another case, progres-sion rates amongst evening studentswere problematic. It is important thatthe universities improve monitoring ofprogression and completion. It is onlyin this way that they can identify prob-lem areas and take remedial action.
46. Overall academic support is a
With regard to Teaching and Learning, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
�Develop teaching and learning strategies aimed at developing students’ learning skills in linewith ILOs.
�Develop teaching methods need to develop so that students become more active learners ratherthan the passive learners most are currently encouraged to be.
� Introduce more practical inputs into teaching.� Improve the provision of processes and opportunities aimed at enhancing teaching and learn-
ing, for example, through more targeted staff development and peer observation schemes
Student progression was judged tobe good in four universities, satis-factory in nine and unsatisfactory inthree.
87
strength in most of the universities.Six institutions assign academic advi-sors to students. Their main role is tomeet with each student, usually onceper semester, to advise on andapprove the student’s choice of cour-ses for the following semester. Therole is generally well understood andvalued by students. In one university,each advisor is allocated 80 studentsand it is difficult for the role to be prop-erly carried out in such circumstances.Furthermore, a new on-line systemhas been introduced so that studentscan register their course choices with-out recourse to their advisor. This wasreported to have led to inappropriatechoices being made.
47. Reviewers considered that otherprocesses of academic support areeffective in eleven of the universities.General support is usually providedthrough a system, whereby staff indi-cate office hours during which they areavailable for consultation by students.This system is generally effective. In afew cases, whilst academic support issatisfactory, it is ad hoc and could beimproved by being made more formal.In one university, students can onlyobtain academic support by seekingout staff willing to provide it, in twoothers, little or no support is available.In another, responsibility for academicsupport lies with one member of staff;given that the Department has 1,000students this is a totally inadequatearrangement.
48. Identification of, and provision for,specific academic support needs ismore variable and generally less satis-
factory. Several institutions have addi-tional support in English or French andin one case for Mathematics. However,in nine universities, there is a need forimprovement in the processes foridentifying academic weaknesses instudents and providing appropriatesupport to overcome them. Suchweaknesses are often in the areas oflanguage and numeracy.
49. In nine of the universities, stu-dents expressed satisfaction with pas-toral/ welfare support. This oftenincludes counselling and advisoryservices, and guidance relating toseeking and gaining employment.Support covers help with CV writing,interview techniques and job seeking.Examples of good practice include theembedding of these skills within thecore curriculum, and the distribution,to potential employers, of a bookletcontaining the CVs of all graduatingstudents. These arrangements aresometimes informal and ad hoc, withsubject specialist staff providing guid-ance and links to potential employers.In other cases, there are specialist cen-tres within universities which providethese services.
50. Provision for students with specialneeds is inconsistent. Several institu-tions have well-considered policiesand have specialist facilities to supportstudents with disabilities. Other insti-tutions have given little or no thoughtto the matter. This issue needsaddressing, as it is important that allstudents are given the opportunity toachieve to their potential.
88
IV.3 Learning Resources
51. Academic staff are appropriatelyqualified for the programmes in thir-teen of the universities, although inone of these there is poor coverage ofStrategic Management. Most staffhave doctoral qualifications and manyare active in research and or consul-tancy. In two of these twelve universi-ties, high staff turnover has impactedon stability, whilst in two others highteaching loads mean that teachershave little time for other scholarlyactivities. In many cases, someinvolvement of part-time teachers withcurrent commercial experienceenhances the provision. There is noconsistent provision of staff develop-ment relating to teaching, learning andassessment. Academic and technicalsupport staffing levels are generallyappropriate. In two of the universities,there are considerable weaknesses inthe quality of staffing. In particular, asmall full-time staff base relative tostudent numbers means that both use
an extensive number of part-timeteachers. This adversely affects boththe quality of teaching and the curren-cy of the material delivered.
52. Library provision is of extremelyvariable quality. In three of the univer-sities, it was considered to be good,with book, journal and e-journalresources offering good support to theprogrammes. In addition, the librariesprovide an appropriate environmentfor study. In many other cases, libraryprovision had strengths, notably in theavailability of journals and e-journals,but also had weaknesses, usually inthe book-stock. Books were often limit-ed in number and outdated, with evi-dence of students making use of out-dated material. In such cases, not onlyis there a need for the acquisition ofmore up-to-date texts, but also theneed to rid the library shelves of out-dated material, which is often mislead-ing to students.
53. In six of the universities, libraryprovision is totally inadequate. Thereis insufficient material of all formsavailable, often poor or no borrowingrights for students, restricted openinghours and no study facilities. Giventhe need to develop independentlearning skills in students, the situa-
With regard to Student Progression, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
� Improve the monitoring of progression and completion, so that problem areas can be identifiedand remedial action taken.
�Whilst provision of general support for students is good, or at least satisfactory, targeted specif-ic support, notably in languages and numeracy, is too variable. Universities need to have inplace processes for identifying academic weaknesses in students and providing appropriate sup-port to overcome them.
�Make support arrangements for students more formal to reduce the risks that problems aremissed as reviewers found that much of the support offered to students is provided in an ad hocmanner.
�Ensure that, wherever possible, they make adequate arrangements to support students withspecial needs.
�Address the problem of carried failures at some universities.
Learning resources were judged tobe good in four universities, satis-factory in six and unsatisfactory insix.
89
tion in these universities needs immediate and urgent attention.Furthermore, in one of these universi-ties, staff asserted that there is no cul-ture of using libraries amongst theirstudents. If this is the case, such atti-tudes need to be vigorously chal-lenged, not used as a justification forpoor library provision. In one case,government policy, which forbids pay-ment for goods in advance, affects theuniversity’s ability to subscribe to jour-nals.
54. Most of the universities have orare developing appropriate ICTresources. Many have extensive mo-dern facilities with good access forstudents. There is also good technicalsupport for both hardware and soft-ware. In only three of the institutionsthe facilities are considered to be total-ly inadequate. In others, there aresome weaknesses, notably in theabsence of specialist software and ofInternet access for students. A few uni-versities are developing an intranet tosupport student learning and thisdevelopment needs wider encourage-ment.
55. The universities are generallyhoused on pleasant campuses, with agood range of social and leisure facili-ties. In most cases, teaching accom-modation is appropriate, and in someis of high quality. One university hasvery poor classroom accommodation,with insufficient seating for the num-ber of students on the programme,
which clearly impacts on the quality ofthe student experience. In two otherinstitutions, there is no staff accom-modation; as a result, staff are not ableto provide consultation opportunitiesto students on campus. In two others,there is sufficient accommodation, butit is inflexible, with fixed seating whichmakes it unsuitable for certain types ofteaching. Whilst, new, purpose-builtteaching accommodation in anotheruniversity consists solely of large lec-ture rooms, with no provision forsmaller seminar/ tutorial classes.
56. Teaching aids, such as overheadprojectors and data-show equipment,are available in most of the universi-ties, although there is a serious lack ofsuch facilities in three cases. Evenwhere such equipment is available,many staff are reluctant to use it, rely-ing instead on traditional “chalk andtalk” and dictation as methods ofdelivery. Training in the use of thesefacilities, for both staff and students,would enhance the learning experi-ence, and provide students with expo-sure to valuable presentational skills.
57. Whilst there was evidence in se-veral universities of resourcing priori-ties being identified, there was littleevidence of strategic resource plan-ning. There is a need for this to beaddressed, so that resourcing needscan be identified and priorities set.Such priorities should reflect ILOs andthe needs of the curricula, and deliveryand assessment methods.
90
58. Almost all of the universities havesome elements of quality assuranceprocesses in place. In some cases, thisis through a clearly defined formalstructure, but often the processes aread hoc and unsystematic. Whilst infor-mal arrangements can be effective,particularly in smaller institutions,they have clear weaknesses. In partic-ular, lack of proper structures increas-es the likelihood that problems will notbe identified and/ or appropriatelyaddressed. In those institutions withthe more effective systems, qualityassurance processes are based onclearly defined responsibilities andoperated through well-consideredcommittee structures, as at An Najahand Yarmouk universities. In other
cases, less structured and formal sys-tems nonetheless enable issues to beidentified and appropriate actionstaken.
59. In some universities, quality sys-tems are clearly articulated, transpar-ent, and understood and accepted bystaff. In many cases, however, there islittle documentation available and sys-tems lack transparency. As a result,there is little ownership and accept-ance of processes.
60. Annual monitoring of pro-grammes is very variable. It occurs insome form in almost all of the univer-sities. The more formal systems usual-ly result in the preparation of an annu-al report which is channelled from theprogramme team or department, up tofaculty and then often to universitycommittees. However, even in thesecases, compliance is the prevailingmotive, and there is little evidence ofthe procedures leading to enhance-ment of the provision. In eight of theuniversities, the monitoring of the pro-grammes is ad hoc and lacking in con-sistency and transparency. In none ofthe universities, is quantitative databeing compiled and used for the mon-
With regard to Learning Resources, the reviewers recommendthat the universities consider the following:
�Consider aspects of staffing In a few universities to ensure adequate coverage of the curricula,and adequate opportunities for staff to undertake scholarly activities in support of their teaching.
� Introduce targeted staff development opportunities.� Improve the management of library provision in several universities, to ensure that students
have appropriate access, useful borrowing rights and study facilities.�Replenish in many cases, library book-stocks and remove dated stock from the shelves.�Students need to be provided with access to specialist software and universities should speed
up development of intranet support for students.�Develop a more strategic approach to resource planning, so that priorities can be agreed in line
with curricular needs.
V. Quality Assurance and Enhancement
Quality assurance and enhance-ment were judged to be good inonly one university, satisfactory innine and unsatisfactory in six. Thisprofile indicates that this is theweakest area overall. In particular,there is a general lack of formal sys-tems, including the collection ofdata, for the monitoring of provi-sion. Individual academics enjoyconsiderable autonomy with littleaccountability, and there are nomechanisms for taking an overviewof quality issues.
91
itoring and enhancement of pro-grammes. There is a need for the col-lection and analysis of data on, forexample, such areas as success rates,withdrawal rates and student perform-ance. When systematically incorporat-ed into the regular monitoring of pro-grammes, such data is very useful forindicating areas for further investiga-tion and possible remedial action.
61. Periodic strategic reviews of pro-grammes are even less establishedthan annual monitoring and reporting.In a few universities, there was evi-dence of programmes being reviewedand of changes being made inresponse to identified needs.However, such reviews are nearlyalways ad hoc in nature and not insti-gated as part of an established reviewprogramme. In order that the universi-ties can be assured that the pro-grammes are current and relevant,there needs to be a set cycle of regularprogramme review, say every fiveyears. Without such a cycle, education-al programmes risk becoming increas-ingly dated and ill matched to theneeds of business and students.
62. None of the universities has con-vincing arrangements for routinelyobtaining opinions and inputs fromexternal parties. It is acknowledgedthat many staff have experience out-side of their own institutions and thesecan provide useful reference points.However, there is a need for institu-tions to establish better formal exter-nal links to help ensure that pro-grammes remain current, that stan-dards are appropriate and that stake-holders retain a high level of confi-dence in the graduates. Regular inputsfrom practitioners and employers willhelp to ensure that programmes con-tinue to meet the needs of business,whilst inputs from academics in otherinstitutions will help to ensure that
standards are maintained in line withthose applying elsewhere.
63. This project has involved the train-ing of many Arab reviewers, who nowhave practical experience of academicreview. These reviewers constitute avaluable pool of expertise to be calledupon to advise on issues of standardsand also to help others to undertakethis role. There needs to be a muchgreater willingness, not only to be pre-pared to learn from others, but also toshare and disseminate good practice.
64. Universities attempt to obtain theviews of students mainly throughquestionnaire surveys and, in a fewcases, through student membership ofcommittees. Students also often useinformal channels to make their viewsknown. Reviewers found that in five ofthe universities, there is clear evidencethat student opinion is effectively can-vassed, taken seriously and actedupon if appropriate. In three othercases, evidence is less convincing;nonetheless, reviewers feel that stu-dents have appropriate channels formaking their views known. In sevencases, there is little evidence of stu-dents’ views being routinely sought orof them impacting on the provision.However, three of these universitiesare aware of this weakness and are inthe process of introducing mecha-nisms to address the issue.
65. Questionnaire surveys are used toobtain student perceptions in six uni-versities, but their impact varies. Insome universities, for example, thereare formal processes whereby the out-comes of the surveys are reported andfollowed up to ensure that any neces-sary action has been taken. On theother hand, the surveys are consi-dered to be ineffective in two institu-tions where they are not subject to anydissemination or discussion. Forexample, in one institution, the ques-
92
tionnaire responses are confidential tothe tutor concerned, and studentsreported that they are reluctant to becritical in case their grades areadversely affected.
66. The universities generally havegood arrangements in place for sup-porting the academic development ofteaching staff. Masters and doctorallevel study is routinely supported,often in universities in Europe, Canadaand the USA. There is, however, a lackof awareness of the need for staffdevelopment to help teachers to
develop their skills in the areas ofteaching, learning and assessment.Given the widespread weaknesses inthese areas, this is a priority area forimprovement. It is also an area whereinstitutions would probably benefitfrom country and region wide consul-tation and collaboration and fromlooking outside for such developmentexpertise, to supplement that availableinternally.
With regard to Quality Assurance and Enhancement, the review-ers recommend that the universities consider the following:
�Systems for the monitoring of programmes need to be made more formal, to involve better useof accurate data on key aspects of provision and to be used to enhance quality rather than sim-ply being viewed as compliance with centrally imposed requirements.
�Periodic major reviews of programmes must be established to ensure that the programmes areand remain current and relevant.
�External parties are rarely involved formally in the review or development of the programmes.This should be addressed. The pool of trained academic reviewers resulting from this projectshould be seen as a valuable resource for this purpose and as a nucleus for the development ofa significant group of “critical friends” throughout the region.
�The processes for gathering student views have to be generally improved, for ensuring thatissues arising from them are identified and, if necessary, action is taken. Such processes need tobe seen to be responsive and transparent if they are to be of value in enhancing provision.
93
Fig. 1: Judgements on Academic Standards and its Four Components
University ILO Curricula Assessment Student
achievement
Overall
academic
standards*
U-1 G S S S S
U-2 S G S G G
U-3 S S S S S
U-4 U S U S U
U-5 S S S U U
U-6 U U U U U
U-7 S S S S S
U-8 S G S S S
U-9 S S S S S
U-10 S G S G G
U-11 U U S S U
U-12 S S S S S
U-13 S S S S S
U-14 S S S S S
U-15 S S S S S
U-16 S S S G S
G = 1 S= 12 U = 3 G = 3, S = 11, U = 2 G = 0, S = 14, U = 2 G = 3, S = 11, U = 2 G = 2, S = 10, U = 4
* If any of the four aspects of academic standards is rated unsatisfactory, then the overall academic standards are rated unsatisfactory
Fig 1.a: Graded Judgements
Fig. 1.b: Distribution of Graded Judgements
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Intended learning
outcomes
Student
assessment
Curriculum Student
achievement
Overall academic
standards
Graded Judgement
Nu
mb
er
of
Un
ive
rsit
ies
Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
94
Fig. 2: Academic Indicators
University Work
placement /
Internship
Coverage of
MFT
curriculum*
Strategies of
independent
learning
Effectiveness
of graduation
project
Competence in
relevant
foreign
language **
Internal /
external
moderation of
assessment
Impact of staff
research on
teaching
Evidence of
critical thinking
U-1 G S S G S U U S
U-2 U G S U G U S G
U-3 U G S G S S S S
U-4 U U U U S U S U
U-5 U U U U U S U U
U-6 U U U U S U U U
U-7 U S S U G S S S
U-8 U S S S G U S S
U-9 U S S U S U S S
U-10 G S S U G S S S
U-11 G U S G U S U U
U-12 S S S G U S S S
U-13 U S U U S U U U
U-14 S S S U G U G S
U-15 S S G G G U S G
U-16 G S S S G U S G
G = 4, S = 3, U = 9
G = 2, S = 10, U =4
G = 1, S = 11, U =4
G = 4, S = 3, U = 9
G = 7, S = 6, U = 3
G = 0, S = 6, U = 10
G = 1 . S = 10, U = 5
G = 3, S = 8, U = 5
Fig. 2. a: Values of Indicators (Academic)
* Based on % overlap between curriculum and detailed syllabus of the Major Field Test (ETS) in Business Administration.
** The relevant foreign language could be either the primary language of teaching (if teaching is in English or French), or the main support language of teaching (if the primary language of teaching is Arabic).
Fig. 2.b: Distribution of Indicator Values (Academic)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Work placement / Internship
Coverage of MFT curric
ulum
Support for in
dependent learning
Role and organisation of graduation project
Students' competence in relevant foreign language
Internal / external m
oderation of student assessment
Impact of staff research on teaching
Evidence of critical th
inking in learning and achievement
Average over Indicators
Indicators
Nu
mb
er
of
Un
ivers
itie
s
Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
95
Fig. 3: Learning Resourses Indicators
University Sufficiency of
academic staff
numbers
Academic
standards and
rank structure
of existing
staff
Sufficiency and
standards of
support staff
Relevant
library
holdings in
language of
teaching
Library
organisation
and space
accomodation
Facilities and
arrangements
for Internet
access and use
Number and
Organisation of
PCs
U-1 S G U U U U S
U-2 S S S G G G S
U-3 S S G S G G S
U-4 U S S U U U U
U-5 S U S U U U U
U-6 U U U U U U U
U-7 S S S U S S S
U-8 U S S U G S G
U-9 S G S G G S G
U-10 S G S S G G G
U-11 S U U U U U S
U-12 S G S U U U U
U-13 S U S S U S S
U-14 S S S U S U U
U-15 S G G G G G G
U-16 S S U S S S SG = 0, S = 14 , U =2
G = 5, S = 7 , U =4
G = 2, S = 10 , U = 4
G = 3, S = 4, U =9
G = 6, S = 3, U = 7 G = 4, S = 5, U = 7 G = 4, S = 7, U = 5
Fig. 3.a: Values of Indicators (Learning Resources)
Fig. 3.b: Distribution of Indicator Values (Learning Resources)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Su
ffic
ien
cy
of
ac
ad
em
ic s
taff
nu
mb
ers
Ac
ad
em
ic
sta
nd
ard
s a
nd
ran
k s
tru
ctu
re o
f
sta
ff
Su
ffic
ien
cy
an
d
sta
nd
ard
s o
f
su
pp
ort
sta
ff
Su
ita
bil
ity
of
lib
rary
ho
ldin
gs
in t
he
la
ng
ua
ge
of
tea
ch
ing
Lib
rary
org
an
isa
tio
n
an
d s
pa
ce
ac
co
mm
od
ati
on
Fa
cil
itie
s a
nd
arr
an
ge
me
nts
for
inte
rne
t
ac
ce
ss
an
d u
se
Nu
mb
er
an
d
org
an
isa
tio
n o
f
PC
s
Av
era
ge
ov
er
Ind
ica
tors
Indicators
Nu
mb
er
of
Un
ivers
itie
s
Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Appendix 1 University Representatives (Business Administration)
1) Oran Es-Senia University, Oran - Algeria
Coordinator: Prof. Abd Elkader Derbal, University President
Representative A1: Prof. Boukaabar Boudjelal, Department of Commercial Sciences
Representative A2: Dr Mohammed Kheir Eddine Dellil, Vice-Rector for Planning, Department of Commercial Sciences
2) University of Bahrain, Manama - Bahrain
Coordinator: Dr Amin Al-Agha, Dean, Faculty of Business
Representative A1: Dr Nadhem Al-Saleh, Chairperson, Department of Economics and Finance
Representative A2: Dr Jawaher Shaheen Al-Mudhahki, Chairperson, Department of Accounting
3) University of Cairo - Egypt
Coordinator: Prof. Ahmed Farghally Hassan, Dean, Faculty of Commerce
Representative A1: Prof. Ahmed Farghally Hassan, Dean, Faculty of Commerce
Representative A2: Dr Galal Abdu El-Halim, Chairperson, Department of Mathematics and Insurance
4) Arab Academy for Science & Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria -Egypt
Coordinator: Prof. Mohamad Nabil Fahmy, Dean, Faculty of Management & Technology
Representative A1: Dr M. Asaad Elnidani, Chairperson, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Prof. Mohamad Nabil Fahmy, Dean, Faculty of Management & Technology
5) University of Jordan, Amman - Jordan
Coordinator: Prof. Abdalla Al-Musa, University President
Representative A1: Dr Rifat Shannak, Chairperson, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Prof. Mamoun M. Al-Debi’e, Associate Dean, Faculty of Business Administration
97
6) Yarmouk University – Jordan
Coordinator: Prof. Hisham Gharaibeh, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Jamal Daoud Abu-Doleh, Chairperson, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Dr Loay Salieh, Department of Business Administration
7) University of Balamand - Lebanon
Coordinator: Prof. Nadim Karam, Vice President for Development
Representative A1: Dr Haissam Haidar, Acting Dean, Faculty of Business Administration
Representative A2: Dr Marwan Owaygen, Faculty of Business Administration
8) The Lebanese University, Beirut - Lebanon
Coordinator: Prof. Philip Nabhan, Director, University Centre for Legal Information
Representative A1: Dr Hassan Saleh, Director, Faculty of Economic Sciences & BusinessAdministration
Representative A2: Dr Wadad Saad, Department of Business Administration
9) Jinan University - Lebanon
Coordinator: Dr Bassam Hijazi, University Vice-President
Representative A1: Dr Mohamad Alameddine, Department of Marketing
Representative A2: Mr Ammar Yakan, Faculty of Business Administration
10) Abdel Malek Al-Saadi University - Morocco
Coordinator: Prof. Ahmed El Moussaoui, in charge of University Cooperation & Research
Representative A1: Prof Houdaifa Ameziane, Dean, School of Management
Representative A2: Prof Khalid Chafik, Department of Management
11) Al-Akhawayn University, Ifrane - Morocco
Coordinator: Prof. Driss Ouaouicha, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Prof. Mohamed Derrabi, Associate Dean, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Prof. Assane Diagne, Assistant Professor, School of Business Administration
12) Sultan Qaboos University, Muskat - Oman
Coordinator: Dr Darwish Al-Moharby, Assistant Dean, Faculty of Commerce and
Economics
98
Representative A1: Dr Darwish Al-Moharby, Assistant Dean, Faculty of Commerce and Economics
Representative A2: Dr Fahim Al-Marhubi, Chairperson, Department of Economics and Finance
13) An-Najah National University, Nablus - Palestine
Coordinator: Prof. Maher Natsheh, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Mohammad Hisham Jabr, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Dr Maher Natsheh, Vice President, Academic Affairs
14) Al-Azhar University, Gaza - Palestine*
Coordinator: Prof. Abdel Kareem Najem, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Nihaya El-Tebani, Deputy Head, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Mr Wael Thabet, Department of Business Administration
15) University of Khartoum - Sudan
Coordinator: Dr Mohammed Osman M. Hamza, Dean, School of ManagementStudies
Representative A1: Dr Mohammed Osman M. Hamza, Dean, School of ManagementStudies
Representative A2: Mr Abubker Osman Abuidris, Department of Accounting & Financial Managment
16) Aleppo University - Syria
Coordinator: Prof. Mohammad Nizar Akeel, University President
Representative A1: Dr Said Al-Amoum, Faculty of Economics
Representative A2: Prof. Maher Badawi, Faculty of Economics
17) Aden University - Yemen
Coordinator: Dr Saeed Abdo-Gabali, Vice President for Academic Affairs
Representative A1: Dr Awad Mohammed, Department of Business Administration
Representative A2: Dr Abdul Rahman Salem, Department of Business Administration
* The final stage of the review of the Business Administration program at Al-Azhar Universitywas nor completed due to the inability of the external review team, to enter Gaza. The citywas closed-off by the occupation army on March 21, 2004, shortly after it had carried out oneof its assassination raids inside the city.
99
Appndix 2 Milestones of the Review Cycle
May – June 2003 Identification of university coordinators and representatives. Projectquestionnaires on participating programmes filled and returned byrepresentatives. Workshop material developed by consultants anddistributed. UK external reviewers for the Business Administrationcycle are nominated on the recommendation of QAA and contacted by the project.
July 14- 17, 2003(Tunis) First training and planning workshop (4 working days). Participants
include A1 and A2 representatives from each university. Attended byeach university’s two appointed representatives. Topics: frameworkfor academic subject review. Concepts, criteria and implementationof self-assessment.
August 2003 Representatives embark on the long process of internally evaluatingtheir programmes and on the preparation of self-evaluation documents (SED) with support from home departments and advisory support (through email) from project.
August - November 2003 Contractual agreements with terms of reference signed by UK
reviewers. A second edition of the training handbook that includesnew adaptations is developed by the training consultants in closeconsultation with the Project Manager.
October 18, 2003 Project Advisory Committee holds its annual meeting in Amman. Project progress is reviewed and work plan for the following phaseis reviewed and approved.
November 2003 Preliminary drafts for the self-evaluation document (SED) for each programme prepared by representatives and reviewed and commented upon by training consultants.
November 6, 2003 One-day coordination meeting convened in London by the Project Manager for the selected UK reviewers and attended by the projects’ training consultants and QAA advisor.
November 30 – December 3, 2003 Second training and planning workshop (3 days) held in Amman for
university representatives. Group discussions held for universityrepresentatives. Group discussions and individual tutorials organised to review progress of SED preparation and to identify andaddress remaining issues. A plan for final submission of SED agreed.
101
December 4 – 8, 2003 Third and final training and planning workshop (5 days) held in
Amman for university representatives. Interactive theoretical andpractical training (with simulations and role-playing) on the conductof external reviews. Final schedule of review missions to participating universities are agreed. A detailed plan for hostingmissions by each programme is agreed.
January 31, 2004 Final drafts of SEDs submitted to project and copies forwarded toappointed review teams.
February – May 2004 External review missions carried out on16 of the 17
participating universities, apart from Al-Azhar University in Gaza.The review mission to Al-Azhar University was not carried out dueto travel restrictions by the occupation army.
April – May 2004 First draft of review reports submitted to project by mission coordinators and for review by the project editing team.
June 2004 Final drafts of the (16) review reports are produced. A completedraft of the overview report is also produced.
102
