Contents:
Appendix A: List of immediate Action Points/Targets for QECs
Appendix B: Sample Proforma
Appendix C: Sample Roadmap: “Stages of QA system development and implementation”
Appendix A:
List of immediate Action Points/Targets for QECs
Note: Progress to be reported back via the QEC Quarterly Report due on 31 August, and a brief QEC Progress Presentation
to be made by the Dean, QEC at the Second QAA Workshop to be held by 15 September 2005.
1)
Student Course Evaluation/Feedback Questionnaire: (sample Proforma attached) – This should be filled at the
end of each term/semester by all full-time and part-time students for each Course that they have studied. The
completed forms should be sent to the QEC for analysis and publication of the statistics (including onward
transmission of the results to the Head of Department).
2)
Faculty Course Review Report: (sample Proforma attached) – This self-reflective report should be completed at
the end of each semester/term by the Course Instructor (for each Course he/she is responsible for teaching). This
should be submitted to the Head of Department for monitoring of any identified action points (with a copy to the
Dean, QEC for the respective Department’s Self-Assessment records/archive).
3)
Student Program Completion (Graduation) Survey: (sample Proforma attached) – This questionnaire should be
completed by each undergraduate and post-graduate student at the completion of his or her degree program to
provide feedback at both, the Program level as well as on the overall student experience at the University. This
should be submitted to the QEC for analysis and publication of the resulting statistics. This Survey will help
improve both academic Program quality & University services.
4)
Academic Program Monitoring Report (sample Proforma attached): This self-reflective Report should be
completed by each Program Director/Head of Department annually, and submitted to the Dept. Board of Studies
(or equivalent) for monitoring of any identified action points (with a copy to the QEC for the respective
Department’s Self-Assessment records/archive).
5)
PhD/MPhil Research Student Progress Review Form (sample Proforma attached) – This report should be
completed by each full-time and part-time research student every six months and submitted to the Director, Board
of Advanced/Research Studies (or equivalent) for follow-up (and copy to the QEC). This review mechanism will
help ensure that the student’s progress is regularly monitored and benchmarked against the HEC Quality Criteria
for PhD/MPhil studies.
Note that as part of the HEC QAA’s proposed Quality Enhancement Framework which was elaborated at length and agreed
upon by all the Workshop participants, the suggested QA mechanisms will form part of each Department’s required annual
Self-Evaluation process. All the required sample Proforma for these mechanisms are attached in Appendix B for your
reference and you may adapt these if required, or integrate them with your existing Proforma.
For your information and reference, a complete (sample) road map for stage-wise implementation of institutional Quality
Assurance systems is given in Appendix C.
As outlined in the QA Roadmap in Appendix C, each Department’s Self-Evaluation will be conducted annually by the
Department’s internal Assessment Team, and this will be followed by the University’s own internal Audit/Review to assess
the effectiveness of each Department’s Self-Evaluation process. The University’s internal Departmental review will be
conducted on a two year cycle with the help of external QAA trained and approved Advisors/Reviewers, and this exercise
will be followed by the final external institutional audit/review of your University which will be conducted by the QAA
every four years.
In the light of the Workshop participants’ feedback, the revised draft (detailed) documents/guidelines relating to the above
elements of the Quality Enhancement Framework (including the additional development of a future HEC QAA Database of
Good Practice in Learning & Teaching, and draft guidelines for the QECs relating to publication of required institutional
information on quality) will shortly be sent to all the QEC staff to encourage further discussions within their respective
University circles and to present/discuss your feedback at the next (second) HEC QAA Workshop on Department Selfevaluation, to be held in September 2005. Final dates will be intimated to you very shortly.
1
Appendix B:
1. Sample Proforma (for required Institutional QA processes and procedures)
-Electronic copies of these proforma are available (as Microsoft Documents) upon request from the HEC QAA.
Proforma 1: Faculty Course Review Report
Proforma 2: Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire
Proforma 3: Annual Academic Program Monitoring Report
Proforma 4: Student Program Completion (Graduation) Survey/Questionnaire
Proforma 5: PhD/MPhil Research Student Progress Review Form
(Additional: for Information)
Proforma 6: University Learning & Teaching Committee: Possible Remit & Membership
Proforma 7: Template for University Learning, Teaching & Quality Enhancement Strategy
2. Draft Guidelines for Composition & Purview of Departmental Student:staff Consultative Committee
(SSCC)
2
Faculty Course Review Report
(Proforma 1)
For completion by the Course Instructor and transmission to Head of Department or his/her
nominee (Dept. Quality Officer), together with copies of the Course Syllabus outline
Department:
Faculty:
Course Code:
Title:
Session:
Semester:
Credit Value:
Level:
Name of
Course
Instructor:
Autumn
Spring
Summer
Prerequisites:
No of Student
Contact Hours
Lectures
Other (please state)
Seminars
Assessment Methods:
give precise details (no &
length of assignments,
exams, weightings etc)
Distribution of Grades/Marks and other Outcomes: (adapt the grading system as required)
Undergraduate
Originally
Registered
%Grade
%Grade
B
%Grade
Originally
Registered
%Grade
%Grade
%Grade
A
B
C
A
C
No
Grade
D
E
F
D
E
No Grade
Withdrawal
Total
Withdrawal
Total
No. of Students
PostGraduate
No. of Students
Overview/Evaluation (Course Co-ordinator’s Comments)
Feedback: first summarise, then comment on feedback received from:(These boxes will expand as you type in your answer.)
1) Student (Course Evaluation) Questionnaires
2) External Examiners or Moderators (if any)
3) Student/Staff Consultative Committee (SSCC) (or equivalent)
3
4) Curriculum: comment on the continuing appropriateness of the Course curriculum in relation to the intended
learning outcomes (course objectives) and its compliance with the HEC Approved/Revised National
Curriculum Guidelines
5) Assessment: comment on the continuing effectiveness of method(s) of assessment in relation to the intended
learning outcomes (course objectives)
6) Enhancement: comment on the implementation of changes proposed in earlier Faculty Course Review
Reports
7) Outline any changes in the future delivery or structure of the Course that this semester/term’s experience
may prompt
Name:
____________________________________
Date:
_________________
Date:
_________________
(Course Instructor)
Name:
____________________________________
(Head of Department)
4
Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire
(Proforma 2)
Department X
Course No X
Year of Study:
Semester/Term:
Course Title X
Ideally, this Questionnaire should be provided to the students on-line by the QEC (if possible).
Please give us your views so that Course quality can be improved. You are encouraged to be frank & constructive in your
comments.
CORE QUESTIONS
Course Content and Organisation
1.
2.
3.
4.
The learning outcomes (course objectives) were clear
The Course workload was manageable
The Course was well organised (e.g. timely access to materials,
notification of changes, etc.)
Comments:
Strongly
Agree
Agree






Disagree
Strongly
Disagree






Student Contribution
5.
6.
7.
8.
Approximate level of your own attendance on the whole
Course:…..%
I participated actively in the Course
I think I have made progress in this Course
Comments:
Learning Environment and Teaching Methods
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
I think the course was well-structured to achieve the learning
outcomes (there was a good balance of lectures, tutorials,
practicals etc.)
The learning and teaching methods encouraged participation
The overall environment in the class was conducive to learning
Teaching rooms were satisfactory
Comments:
Learning Resources
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Learning materials (Course Notes etc.) were relevant and useful
Recommended reading Books etc. were relevant and appropriate
The provision of learning resources in the Library was adequate
and appropriate
The provision of learning resources on the Web was adequate and
appropriate (if relevant)
Comments:
< 25%
26-50%
51-75%
>75%
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree




Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
















Strongly
Agree
Agree














Disagree
Disagree


Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree




5
Quality of Delivery
19.
20.
21.
22.
The Course stimulated my interest and thought on the subject area
The pace of the Course was appropriate
Ideas and concepts were presented clearly
Comments:
Assessment
23.
24.
25.
26.
Strongly
Agree
Agree






Strongly
Agree
Agree



The methods of assessment were reasonable
Feedback on assessment was timely
Feedback on assessment was helpful
Comments:



Disagree



Disagree



Strongly
Disagree



Strongly
Disagree



Additional Core Questions (which can be customised by each Dept.)
Faculty member (Name) – repeat for EVERY Instructor &
Teaching Assistant involved in the Course
27. I understood the lectures
28 The material was well organised and presented
29. The lecturer was responsive to student needs and problems
Tutorials
Strongly
Agree



Practicals
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Agree


33. The material in the practicals was useful
34. The demonstrators dealt effectively with my problems



Strongly
Agree



30. The material in the tutorials was useful
31. I was happy with the amount of work needed for tutorials
32. The tutor dealt effectively with my problems
Agree





Disagree



Disagree



Disagree


Strongly
Disagree



Strongly
Disagree



Strongly
Disagree


Overall Evaluation
35. The best features of the Course were:
36. The Course could have been improved by:
Equal Opportunities Monitoring (Optional)
37. The University does not tolerate discrimination on any irrelevant distinction (e.g. race, age, gender) and is committed to
work with diversity in a wholly positive way. Please indicate below anything in relation to this Course which may run counter
to this objective:
Demographic Information: (Optional)
38. Full/part time study: Full Time  Part time 
39. Do you consider yourself to be disabled: Yes  No 
40.
41.
42.
43.
Domicile:
Gender: Female
Male
Age Group: less than 22  22 – 29  over 29 
Campus: XYZ 
Other  Distance Learning/Collaborative

Thank You
6
Annual Program Monitoring Report
(Proforma 3)
For Undergraduate & Taught Postgraduate
Programs
For completion by the Program Director or Head of Department. Completed forms should be sent to the QEC (via the Head of
Department, or Dept. Quality Officer) before the end of each academic year
Department:
Faculty:
Program Title(s)
Academic
Year:
Program
Director
/HoD:
Have ALL relevant Course
Review Reports been
competed for this Program?
Qualifications Awarded (to be adapted by each Dept.): (enter % of student numbers)
4-year Bachelor Degrees Awarded (enter no.)
3-year Bachelors Degree (if relevant)
Degree Classification (Division)
First
General Degree (or equivalent)
2nd
Diploma of HE (or equivalent)
3rd
Other (if relevant)
Fail
Masters
with
distinction
PG
Dipl
Not Completed
with
distinction
PG Cert
with
distinction
Learning and Teaching
Feedback: first summarise, then comment of feedback received from:1) Student Program Completion (Graduation) Survey
2) External Examiners or Moderators (if any)
3) Faculty Course Review Reports (for all Courses making up this Program)
4) Assessment: comment on the range, balance and appropriateness of methods of assessment used across
the Program (in relation to achievement of Program objectives).
7
5) Curriculum: comment on the continuing appropriateness of the curriculum in relation to the intended learning
outcomes (Program objectives), and its compliance with the HEC Approved/Revised National Curriculum
6) Learning Resources and Deployment: comment on the adequacy of learning resources
7) Comment on the quantity and quality of any professional placements, student exchanges & field trips:
8) To what extent have any identified shortcomings been addressed:
9) Professional Accreditation: If an external review has taken place by an Accreditation Council in the current
academic year, append and comment on any outcomes.
10) Comment on any issues raised in connection with the required (future) professional accreditation of the
program
11) Enhancement: Comment on the implementation of changes proposed in the previous Program Monitoring
Report.
12) Outline and Explain any proposed changes in design/structure/curriculum/assessment of the Program in
light of this year’s report.
Name:
________________________________
Date:
________________
Date:
________________
(Program Director)
Name:
________________________________
(Head of Department, Dept. Quality Officer)
8
Student Program Completion
(Graduation) Survey
(Proforma 4)
Academic (Undergraduate or Postgraduate) Program Name:
………………………………………………………………………………………
Please give us your views on your experience at our University so that Program quality & University
services can be improved. You are encouraged to be frank and constructive in your comments.
Ideally, this Survey form should be provided to the students on-line by the QEC (if possible); otherwise, the completed forms
should be passed to the QEC (via the Head of Department or Dept. Quality Officer) for analysis.
PART 1: Your Academic Program
On completion of my Academic Program of study, I believe that:
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
My expectations of my Program have been met



There was a good balance of core and optional Courses



The sequence of core Courses was logical and built on previous



study
4.
The overall combination of Courses worked well together



5.
I have gained knowledge and skills that are relevant to further



study and future employment
6.
What attracted you to this Program (e.g. quality of the Faculty, Program, location of the Campus, employability
etc.)?
1.
2.
3.
7.
Is this the Program you applied for? Yes
8.
If you answered ‘No’ to Question 7, what Program did you apply for and why did you change?





No
Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree




I am satisfied with my experience of the following on my
Program:
9.
10.
11.
Overall quality of teaching
Overall quality of assessment
Comments:




Overall Program evaluation
12.
The best features of my Program were:
13.
My Program could have been improved by:
9
PART 2: Your University experience
Strongly
Agree
Information Services [Library and IT]
I am satisfied with my experience of:
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Library and IT facilities
Library opening hours
The range and availability of books, journals and other library
Resources (required for the Program)
Availability of online learning and teaching resources
Availability and reliability of computers on campus
Library and IT Training and advice/support
Comments:
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Academic guidance & support from my Adviser of Studies
Student Information and Support Services
Students Association Advice & Welfare
Registry Services
Careers Advisory Service
Comments:
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
Learning and teaching facilities (teaching rooms etc.)
Student residential accommodation
Catering services
General campus facilities (shops, entertainment etc.)
Sports facilities
Comments:


















Disagree
Strongly
Disagree










Disagree
Strongly
Disagree










Disagree
Strongly
Disagree


Agree










Agree





Strongly
Agree
Overall University evaluation
Strongly
Disagree



Strongly
Agree
Campus services and facilities
I am satisfied with my experience of:
Disagree



Strongly
Agree
Welfare and Student Support (or equivalent)
I am satisfied with my experience of:
Agree





Agree

33.
I am satisfied with my overall student experience at the
University
34.
Were there any factors which impacted on your studies, positively or negatively?
35.
The best features of my student experience were:
36.
My student experience could have been improved by:

Demographic Information (Optional)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Year of entry: 00/01
01/02
02/03
03/04
Other
(please specify: )
Mode of study: Undergraduate
Postgraduate Taught
Postgraduate Research
Full/part time study: Full Time
Part time
Do you consider yourself to be disabled: Yes
No
Domicile:
Gender: Female
Male
Age Group: less than 22
22 – 29
over 29
Campus: XYZ
Other
Distance Learning/Collaborative
Other
(please specify: )
THANK YOU
10
PROFORMA 5:
RESEARCH STUDENT PROGRESS REVIEW FORM
To be submitted by the HoD / Dept. Quality Officer to the QEC
For Research Student to Complete:
1.
Please outline details of progress in your research since your last review (including any research
publications):
2.
Do you have any comments on the level of supervision received?
3.
What do you plan to achieve over the next 6 months?
4.
Do you have any comments on generic or subject-specialist training you may have received or
would like to receive internally and/or externally?
Student
_________________________
Date: ____________
Supervisory Committee Comments
(please comment on and benchmark the student’s progress against your University’s internal and
external HEC Quality Criteria for PhD/MPhil Studies)
Principal Supervisor
___________________
Date: __________
Co-Supervisor
___________________
Date: __________
Co-Supervisor
___________________
Date: __________
Head of Department Comments:
Signature:
______________________________
Date: ______________
Director, Board of Research Studies (or equivalent) Comments:
Signature:
__________________
Date: _____________
Dean, QEC Action: (including monitoring of Follow-up action) Date: _______________
11
PROFORMA 6:
University Learning & Teaching Committee: Possible Remit &
membership
COMMITTEE
REMIT
COMPOSITION
To advise Academic Council on matters
relating to the assurance and enhancement of
the quality of the educational provision
throughout the University;
Dean, QEC
Learning and
Teaching Committee
(a)
Reporting to: Academic
Council
(b)
To advise Academic Council on regulations
and procedures relating to the academic
standards of all academic Programs of study
and research;
4 (or more) Heads
of Departments
nominated by
Academic Council
Director, Research
Studies;
Director, Advanced
Studies
Secretary:
PA to Dean, QEC
(c)
To monitor academic policy and practice in
the light of relevant external benchmarks and
legislative requirements;
Deans,
Dept. Quality
Officers (nominated
by Academic
Council)
Chair:
Vice Chancellor
(d)
To make recommendations to Academic
Council on pedagogical policy to ensure
consistency and fairness of practice across
the University;
Dept. Quality
Officers (nominated
by Academic
Council)
(e)
To present to Academic Council for approval
a Learning, Teaching and Quality
Enhancement Strategy, and to monitor and
report on its implementation;
To recommend to Academic Council the
establishment of academic associations and
collaborative arrangements whereby the
University
grants
academic
awards
(degrees/Diplomas) to external affiliates.
Dean, QEC
(f)
(g)
To advise on responses on behalf of the
University to external enquiries from
institutions and other responsible bodies in
so far as they affect learning and teaching;
(h)
To
formulate
and
oversee
the
implementation of the University’s growth
and expansion strategy;
(i)
To consider and approve proposals for new
academic Programs in the context of agreed
planning statements.
Membership
2005/06
Deans,
Director, Academic
Units,
Dept. Quality
Officers (nominated
by Academic
Council)
In attendance:
Academic Registrar
(or nominee)
Representative of
InformationServices
Director, Training
and Development
Unit (or equivalent)
Deans,
Director, Planning
& Finance (or
equivalent)
Deans & relevant
Heads of Departments
12
PROFORMA 7
Template for University Learning, Teaching & Quality Enhancement
Strategy
Part 1: Purpose & Objectives of the Strategy:
An example Strategy could be expected to have a dual function: first, it should enable the University to
identify characteristics of learning and teaching which are to be cherished and sustained, and those which
are in need of review or development; secondly, it should enable the University to take account of external
developments in its forward planning for quality assurance and quality enhancement. The overarching goal
should be to ensure continuing development of the University as an effective and inclusive learning
community in which all students and staff (academic and non-academic) are both learners and active
participants.
Part II: (describe) The Context of your University (comprising)
-
Characteristics of your graduate
-
The University experience
-
Student Learning Experience
-
Student Support
-
Teaching Infrastructure
-
Quality Assurance & Enhancement
Part III: External Environment
Part IV: Action Plan (updated annually - for continuous improvement with targets that are
specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound - SMART)
-
The Action Plan should list Strategic Objectives of the University, associated Actions,
Responsible Body/Agent & deadlines, for each of the following areas of University’s
educational provision: Student Experience; Enhancement of Teaching & Assessment;
Learning & Teaching Environment; Quality Assurance & Enhancement; & Links with the
External Environment)
-
Progress in attaining the targets should be reviewed annually by the University’s Learning
and Teaching Committee (LT&C) which should (via the Dean, QEC) pass to the Academic
Council (AC) for approval, a revised and updated Strategy.
Part V: Appendices
Appendix V.1: Completed Actions (updated annually)
Appendix V.2: Summary of Mechanisms for Assuring Quality & Standards
13
2. Draft Guidelines for Composition & Purview of Dept. Student-Staff Consultative
Committee (SSCC)
2.1 Introduction:
In addition to university mechanisms for generating and acting upon student feedback via student course
evaluation & program completion (graduation) surveys, both of which are designed to elicit student feedback
at the completion of the course and academic program, all Departments should also have a Student/Staff
Consultative Committee (SSCC).
The aim of the SSCC is to provide a forum in which student representatives may comment on any aspect of
departmental activity during the course delivery, specifically including matters relating to learning and
teaching, and in which the Department can inform and consult its students about proposed changes and
developments.
2.2 Proposed Composition & Purview of SSCC:
All Departments of the University should convene the SSCC at least twice in each semester. The
membership should comprise the Head of Department or his/ her nominee, the Dept. Quality Officer, all
Course Instructors, relevant Program Directors, such other departmental officers as may be deemed
appropriate, and student representatives for ALL Courses and/or Programs as appropriate, reflecting, as far
as practicable, the different modes of study in operation (full-time, part-time, distance learning etc.).
It shall be the normal expectation that Course Instructors are expected to attend all SSCC meetings.
However, Departments may exercise some flexibility in arrangements, particularly where large numbers of
staff are involved. It will be the responsibility of the Head of Department or his/her nominee (e.g. the Dept.
Quality Officer) to ensure the transmission of comments to the relevant parties. Student: Staff Consultative
Committees (SSCCs) should routinely address issues arising from student feedback on Courses, as well as
broader issues of academic policy.
All meetings of the SSCC should be formally minuted and a written report of the proceedings transmitted to
the Departmental Board of Studies (or equivalent) for follow-up and monitoring of any identified action
points. As a minimum requirement, the Minutes should be routinely posted on the Departmental
noticeboard/website (and the Head of Department is responsible for monitoring compliance).
Departments may also wish to consider convening a special SSCC meeting early each semester to
disseminate information to the previous semester’s cohort of student representatives on follow-up action
arising from that (previous) semester’s review of Courses.
14
Appendix C:
Sample Roadmap: “Stages of QA system development and implementation”
Overview:
The central role of the HEC QAA is encourage and assist the growth of an organizational culture in higher education that
values quality and is committed to continuous improvement.
In line with international practice, the HEC QAA believes that each university’s approach to quality should be rooted in the
conviction that the quality and standards of the university’s educational provision are best assured by the members of
professional academic staff on the basis of peer group scrutiny and expert opinion at the academic Program, Department and
Academic Council (or equivalent) level. This can only be achieved by the unequivocal support and commitment of the
university senior management to promoting and institutionalising a ‘quality culture’ in our HEIs.
In discharging its responsibility to assure standards and to enhance quality, each university should devolve substantial
responsibility and accompanying resources to the Departments. At each level of the university, executive functions are
expected to be generally carried out by designated officers, whilst academic decisions ought to be the responsibility of
formally constituted committees. Policy development, review of performance and dissemination of good practice should be
undertaken by the university’s committees and specialist working groups and panels.
The HEC QAA has proposed a three phased approach to Institutional Quality Assurance & Enhancement as below:
Phase 1: Annual Department Self-Evaluation: The first phase (of the current HEC QAA project) will involve each
University Department carrying out its critical Self-Evaluation through its own Performance Assessment Team. This
annual Departmental Self-Evaluation exercise will provide a holistic critical review of all aspects of a Department’s
operations including:
 Strategy & Organization
 Learning & Teaching for both undergraduate & post-graduate provision.
 Research
 Resources
Each Department’s Self-evaluation approach will be constructively self-critical, discussing both strengths and
weaknesses and external points of reference are expected to (eventually) include:

HEC QAA Code of Practice/Guidelines for the assurance of academic quality & standards in higher education
 HEC Approved/Revised National Curriculum Guidelines
 HEC National Qualifications Framework, National Subject Benchmark Standards & Academic
Program Specifications (if available)
 HEC QAA, LI & NAHE Approved ‘University Teaching Standards’ (if available)
 University’s internal Strategy for Learning, Teaching and Quality Enhancement
 Other reports, publications and requirements of professional, accrediting or funding bodies as
appropriate.
The annual Departmental Self-evaluation exercise should be co-ordinated and monitored by the University’s Quality
Enhancement Cell (QEC) in accordance with HEC QAA guidelines, and, in line with international practice, the
exercise is expected to help each Department continuously improve the quality and standards of its educational
provision.
Phase 2: University’s ‘internal’ Departmental Review/Audit on a two year cycle: In the second phase of the HEC QAA
project, the Departmental annual Self-Evaluation exercise will be followed by the University conducting (via the QEC)
its own internal Audit/Review exercise every two years with the help of external HEC QAA trained
Advisors/Reviewers, in order to assess the effectiveness of each Department’s Self-Evaluation process. The aim will be
to benchmark each Department’s performance (in the areas of learning & teaching, organization & strategy, research &
resources) against national data (including internal & external points of reference) and to evaluate its record in relation
to relevant comparator institutions. The University’s internal Departmental review/audit will also identify good practice
in all aspects of the Department’s work and make recommendations for the future development of the Department.
Phase 3: External Insitutional Review/Audit by the HEC QAA on a 4 year cycle: The University’s internal
Departmental review/audit exercise will be followed by the final (third) QA stage involving external institutional
audit/review of each University by the HEC QAA on a four year cycle. This so called ‘Enhancement-led Institutional
Review’ (ELIR) exercise will be a peer review process which, while providing information on the security of the
institution's management of quality and standards, will be focused on the institution's strategic management of quality
enhancement.
15
A detailed and explicit stage-wise breakdown of the first HEC QAA phase (described above) is outlined below:
Note:
Stage 1 below has been completed by almost all universities to-date.
At present, following the conclusion of the first HEC QAA Workshop on 25-26 July 2005, the QAA Project staff will now
work with all the QECs to facilitate implementation of stages 2 and 3 below (in time for the next/second HEC QAA
Workshop around 15 September 2005), and stages 4-10 are required to be completed by the end of this financial year, as
part of the first phase of the QAA project. Note that some of these stages may be implemented in parallel.
Stages 11-12 relate to the future (second and third phases) of the HEC QAA project.
HEC QAA Phase 1 (2005-6): Stage-wise implementation of Annual University Departmental SelfEvaluation procedures
1.
Establishment of a Quality Enhancement Cell (or equivalent) resourced with appropriate full-time staff.
 the aim of the QEC should be to develop and manage procedures for academic Quality
Assurance (QA) and Enhancement within the University, and it should support the Academic
Council, the central University Learning & Teaching Committee (or equivalent) and associated
Working Groups.
2.
Development of effective (HEC QAA approved) internal QA procedures (via the QEC) for generating, considering
and acting upon feedback from students at the Course, Academic Program & University level
 The internal student feedback mechanisms should make use of a Student Course Evaluation
Questionnaire and Academic Program Completion (Graduation) Survey as well as feedback via
Departmental Student:Staff Consultative Committees (SSCC) (or equivalent).
 Sample QAA Proforma for Student Course Evaluation Questionnaire & academic Program
Completion (graduation) Surveys are available which are designed to help improve the quality of
the academic programs, the student learning experience and the quality of university services.
 Draft guidelines for the composition and purview of the proposed Dept. SSCC are also available.
3.
Development of effective (HEC QAA approved) internal QA procedures for generating and acting upon critical
review from the Faculty members, at both the Course & Academic Program level for ensuring that the Program
learning outcomes (objectives) are being achieved by the students and that the Program curriculum design and
structure are in compliance with HEC Approved/Revised National Curriculum guidelines & other relevant external
benchmarks.
 The internal institutional QA processes involving the Faculty should include, at least:
o Faculty Course Self-Review, by the Course Instructor after each term/semester (sample
QAA Proforma available)
o Annual Academic Program Monitoring by the relevant academic Program Director/Coordinator (or Head of Department) (sample QAA proforma available)
 Additional feedback mechanisms could include regular Alumni and Employer surveys (sample QAA
Proforma will be provided at the next HEC QAA Workshop)
 The above QA mechanisms will enable universities to improve the quality of academic programs and
respond effectively to market needs.
4.
Development of a central University Learning & Teaching Committee (or equivalent) with Institutional
responsibility for quality assurance, quality enhancement and maintenance of academic standards (sample QAA
Proforma available for Committee composition & remit)
 The Learning & Teaching Committee should serve as an Advisory body to the Academic Council for
developing new (HEC QAA, LI approved) policies and procedures in the areas of learning, teaching,
assessment and student support, and should support the Dean, QEC for monitoring the implementation of
Institutional QA processes and procedures..
 The Learning & Teaching Committee should develop, monitor and annually update an effective
University Teaching, Learning and Quality Enhancement Strategy with an associated Action Plan (sample
HEC QAA template available).
5.
Development (via the QEC & the University Learning & Teaching Committee) of an (HEC QAA approved) draft
“Academic Quality Guide” (or equivalent) for all Faculty members (comprising an Organization Chart and
16
Committee structure, an outline of Institutional Roles, Responsibilities and authority of different bodies within the
university, and a Summary of the Institution’s internal Mechanisms for assuring academic Quality & Standards).
6.
The QEC should organize regular internal (HEC QAA, LI supported/approved) Orientation and Training
Workshops in QA processes and procedures (particularly focusing on effective Teaching, Learning & Assessment)
for all Department Faculty members and teaching assistants.
7.
Appointment and capacity building (with HEC QAA assistance) of a Departmental Quality Officer who would
liaise with the QEC (on behalf of the Head of Department) and form/manage a Department Assessment Team to
carry out annual Department Self-Evaluation.
8.
Each Department’s Assessment Team should conduct an annual Self-Evaluation (approved by the HEC QAA) and
submit a satisfactory Annual Self-Evaluation Report to the HEC QAA (via their QEC)
 The annual Dept. Self-Evaluation process (monitored by the QEC & the University Learning & Teaching
Committee) should provide a holistic review of all aspects of a Department’s operations including:
Strategy & Organization; Learning & Teaching for both undergraduate & post-graduate provision;
Research; and, Resourcing factors. More detailed guidelines are available.
 The Dept. self-evaluation approach should be constructively self-critical, discussing both strengths and
weaknesses.
 External & internal points of reference for the Dept. Self-Evaluation should include: HEC QAA draft
Code of Practice/Guidelines for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education; HEC
Approved/Revised National Curriculum Guidelines, HEC PhD/MPhil Quality Criteria, and the
University’s internal Learning & Teaching Quality Enhancement Strategy.
 Future external points of reference for learning & teaching will include the HEC National
Qualifications Framework, Subject Benchmark Standards, Academic Program Specifications
& requirements of external Accreditation Councils.
9.
Timely and accurate publication (via the University QEC or otherwise) of Quantitative and Qualitative Information
on the Quality of educational provision (in accordance with QAA guidance/checklist)
 the public information on quality should meet the needs of a range of stakeholders, including
prospective & current students, employers & employer organizations, professional &
accreditation bodies, the HEC & the QAA (including specifically, for University &
Departmental Ranking purposes, via the various HEC Proforma).
10. Submission of quarterly progress reports and a detailed annual report to the HEC QAA outlining the progress
achieved against the roadmap.
HEC QAA Phase 2: University’s ‘internal’ Departmental Review/Audit on a two-year cycle:
11. The University QEC will arrange for each Department to be internally audited/reviewed by the respective
University every two years with the help of HEC QAA approved and trained External Advisors/Reviewers.
 The university’s internal Departmental review exercise will assess the effectiveness of each department’s
self evaluation process every two years.
 The required documentation for prior consideration by the Review Panel should include: a reflective Dept.
Self-Evaluation document, Organisation Chart and Committee Structure, academic Program
Specifications (QAA Proforma available), external examiners or moderators’ reports (QAA Proforma
available); previous external and internal review reports; student feedback statement (via the Dept.
Student Staff Consultative Committee); all relevant departmental documentation and Committee minutes.
 The internal Review will be designed in two parts, the first part, looking at organisation and strategy,
research and resources, and the second part, looking at learning and teaching, and it can be conducted over
one and a half days, including meetings with staff and students.
 The internal Review Panel’s report (draft HEC QAA Proforma available) will cover organisation and
strategy, learning and teaching, research and resources, highlighting strengths and weaknesses and
identifying good practice.
 The Review Report and recommendations will be considered by the University Learning & Teaching
Committee.
 The Head of Department’s response to the Review Panel’s recommendations will be considered by the
University Learning & Teaching Committee who will monitor follow-up action.
 Detailed guidelines for these will be provided in due course.
17
Phase 3: External Insitutional Review/Audit by the HEC QAA on a four year cycle:
12. Each QEC will co-ordinate and manage its University’s external institutional audit/ review by the HEC QAA’s
every 4 years.
The HEC QAA conducted external institutional review exercise will begin in the third operational phase of the
QAA and will cover all the Universities over a four year cycle. It will focus on the strategic management of
enhancement; a focus on the effectiveness of student learning; the use of a range of reference points; appropriate
reference to employer and international perspectives; and, a published report which will include a commentary on:
 the ability of the Institution’s internal Departmental review/audit systems to monitor and maintain quality
and standards at the level of the academic programme or award. This commentary will lead to a
judgement on the level of confidence which may be placed in the institution's management of quality and
standards;
 the institution's arrangements for ensuring that the information it publishes about the quality of its
provision is complete, accurate and fair;
 the combined effect of the institution's policies and practices for ensuring continuous improvement in the
quality of teaching and learning;
 the effectiveness of the institution's implementation of its strategy for quality enhancement.
 Detailed guidelines for the external institutional review process will be provided in due course.
Optional:
13. Each University may also additionally opt for external institutional quality checks and reviews (such as ISO9000 or
other quality awards)
18