REPORT ON THE
ACCREDITATION
&
QUALITY AUDIT
WORKSHOP
14TH – 17TH NOVEMBER 2011
RAFFLES GATEWAY HOTEL, NADI, FIJI
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction
3
2.0
Workshop objectives and programs
4
3.0
Workshop outcomes
5
4.0
Workshop budget
6
5.0
Conclusion
6
6.0
Closing remarks
7
7.0
Acknowledgements
7
8.0
Appendices
8.1
Opening address
8
8.2
Facilitators’ profiles
10
8.3
Workshop finances
11
8.4
Summary of daily activities
12
8.5
Feedback analysis
21
8.6
Workshop reflections on the Senior Secondary School Qualifications
Quality Assurance
25
8.7
Workshop program
27
8.8
List of participants
29
2
1.0 Introduction
The decision of the Pacific Islands Forum Ministers of Education meeting in Auckland in 2001 and the
reaffirmation of the commitments of the Executive Officers and Permanent Secretaries of Education
Ministries in later successive meetings culminate to the development of the Pacific Register of
Qualifications and Standards (PRQS) within the Secretariat of the Pacific Board for Educational
Assessment (SPBEA) in February 2009.
In September 2009, SPBEA conducted its first regional consultation to determine the scope of the
Register. Following the consultation, SPBEA committed itself to fine-tuning the then Pacific
Qualification Register (PQR)1 template, the developments of, the Pacific Qualifications Frameworks
(PQF), the operational policies and procedures for Qualifications Registrations and Accreditations
and the Quality Assurance of National Agencies2 documents.
A second regional consultation was called for and was held in May 2011 to seek endorsement from
the Pacific island countries of the four documents SPBEA had developed. Among successful
achievement of the outcomes of the consultation, one of the agreements secured was the piloting of
the PRQS. The agreement was to start the Pilot from July to November 2011. Further fine-tuning of
the operational policies and procedures will be carried out on reviewing the results of the pilot.
The Pilot is a combined effort of both the SPBEA and the seven countries who agreed to take part.
With the responsibilities of the countries and the SPBEA mapped out for the pilot in the
consultation, it was realised that:
i.
different countries were in different stages of developments of their national qualifications
systems and therefore
ii. training was needed for capacity building and to further strengthen both the national and
the regional systems.
With the need for capacity building, SPBEA sought the assistance of NZQA for training on Program
Approval and Accreditation and Quality Audit. NZQA thankfully consider the request and SPBEA
initially scheduled the training for September. However, the two trainers identified for the training
due to their September work commitments were only able to make space in their already tight
schedules to have the training on the 14th to 17th of November. The venue was the Raffle Gateway
Hotel in Nadi, Fiji.
The participants were from the countries who volunteered for the Pilot; these were Fiji, Niue, Papua
New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu. The seventh country Tokelau did not send a representative
to the workshop. Fulton College of Fiji as a provider was also represented in the workshop. SPBEA
who coordinated the workshop was represented by five of its officers (see full list of participants in
Appendix 8.8)
1
Pacific Qualifications Register (PQR) was later changed to Pacific Register of Qualifications and Standards
(PRQS) to better reflect that the register registers standards as well
2
This document is now called “The PRQS Quality Assurance Standards”
3
2.0 Workshop Objectives and Programs
2.1
Objectives
The workshop trainers planned and developed the program and the objectives of the
training.
The participants were expected to:
(i)
Understand the quality assurance processes involved in programme accreditation
and quality audit
(ii)
Discuss and apply criteria against evidence in real and simulated situations
(iii)
Explore what has been learned and how it can be applied in the Pacific
2.2
Workshop Opening
The workshop started with an opening prayer by the Principal of Fulton College, Dr. Steve
Currow.
The opening address was delivered by the Director of SPBEA, Mrs Anaseini Raivoce. The
director’s address started by rekindling the long standing relationship between SPBEA and
NZQA where the former benefited from professional assistance on the development of the
Pacific Senior Secondary Certificate (PSSC) that replaced the outgoing New Zealand
University Entrance (UE) examination at the time. Mrs Raivoce said that NZQA responded
again to SPBEA’s request in 2000 for the development of a Form 7 qualifications equivalent
to the New Zealand Bursaries. SPBEA started offering its South Pacific Form Seven Certificate
(SPFSC) in 2004.
The Director went on to say that with New Zealand being a pioneer country in the
development of qualifications framework, SPBEA continued to benefit from the wealth of
professional assistance from NZQA as in this workshop where participants would learn from
the two facilitators on two important areas of quality assurance; program approval and
accreditation and quality audit.
The full opening address by the Director is given in appendix 8.1.
2.3 Program and Training Sessions
The first two days of the workshop were devoted to the training on Program Approval and
Accreditation. All sessions here were conducted by Ms Reshmi Prasad.
Mr. Ewen Holstein facilitated the sessions on Quality Audit in the last two days of the
training. Overall, the program was flexible allowing sufficient times for interactions and
sharing of real life experiences from the NZQA facilitators on their work on program
accreditation and quality audit. The participants participated well in these interactions.
The full program is given in appendix 8.7
4
Figure 1:: Participants at the Accreditation and Quality Audit Workshop
Back Row (L-R): Opeti Pulotu (TNQAB -Tonga), Parneet Singh (FHEC -Fiji),
Fiji), Joe Lokes (PNG-NTC),
(PNG
Sam Samuels (VNTC-Vanuatu),
Vanuatu), Siaosi Pohiva (SPBEA), Dr Steve Currow (Fulton-Fiji),
(Fulton
Molia Mata’u
(SPBEA), Rajendra Prasad (FHEC--Fiji), David Lambukly (VNTC-Vanuatu), Lemalu L. Sanerivi (SPBEA)
Front Row (L-R): Janet Tasmania (Niue), Merina Gae’e (SQA-Samoa),
(SQA Samoa), Reshmi Prasad (NZQA),
(NZQA)
Anaseini Raivoce (Director SPBEA), Ewen Holstein (NZQA), Sereseini Vuki (FHEC-Fiji),
(FHEC
Nellie Manuca (Fulton-Fiji),
Fiji), Selai Qereqeretabua (SPBEA)
3.0
Workshop Outcomes
The achievement of the objectives of the workshop was imperative as a capacity building exercise on
program accreditation and quality audit processes. The workshop is also seen as a window to further
improve the quality of existing quality
quality assurance systems of accrediting bodies both at the national
and regional levels as SPBEA and the national agencies proceed with the Pilot of the PRQS.
The extent of achieving the objectives is better reflected on the responses of the participants to the
feedback of the workshop (see analysis of the feedback in appendix 8.5). Overall, the two main
outcomes are:
Outcome one:
Capacity building in Accreditation and Quality Audit - The participants were trained on skills in
program accreditation and quality audit activities. In the case of those agencies that have started
program accreditation and quality audit or site visits, the knowledge and skills from the workshop
will be utilised to fine-tune
tune or fill gaps in their own policies and procedures and may be to review the
whole quality assurance system. Countries have yet to develop their quality assurance system adapt
and modify some of the principles, processes and procedures of NZQA
NZQA to suit their own context.
Overall, the answers to questions of what, why, how and who of program approval and accreditation
and quality audit posed in the introductory session of the workshop are now better understood.
5
Outcome two:
Quality Assurance in PSSC and SPFSC - the workshop has confirmed the need to review its quality
assurance system for the operation of its two secondary schools’ qualifications at Form 6 (PSSC) and
Form 7 (SPFSC). The existing system needs to be fine-tuned and consolidated to ensure the
achievement of quality for these Senior Secondary Schools qualifications. Proper policies and
procedures are to be in place for approving and registering schools to take the qualifications; clearer
criteria for accreditation and quality audit should be developed. Systems to monitor and sustain
quality through self evaluation require validation through external quality audit. Policies to register
schools to ensure standards are continually met have to be considered; those falling below
standards be suspended or deregistered. A brief report on the reflections of the workshop on the
senior secondary schools qualifications quality assurance is attached as appendix 8.6
4.0
Workshop Budget
An initial budget was allocated to effectively run the workshop in four days and to cover the cost of
travel, accommodation, per diems, meals and refreshments and administrations. To help cut costs,
the workshop was held back to back with the Asia Pacific Quality Network (APQN) workshop so that
participants for the APQN stayed on for the Program Accreditation and Quality Audit workshop on
the following week.
At the end, the expenses for this workshop amounted to FJD$21,288.40
5.0
Conclusion
The Program Approval, Accreditation and Quality Audit workshop was indeed a success in a number
of ways:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
The outcomes were successfully achieved – the capacity building of participants in
quality assurance systems in terms of program accreditation and quality audit was
beneficial to all participants.
The workshop was also ‘wake-up call’ to SPBEA in upgrading its quality assurance
system for its two secondary schools qualifications; PSSC and SPFSC
The practical approach of the training in the use of simulated and real life activities
and the wealth of experiences shared not only from the facilitators on the topics
covered but also among the participants to exchange ideas which could be used to fill
gaps or to fine-tune their systems
The flexibility of the program to allow sufficient times for discussions and interactions
The capacity and competent of the facilitators in their own specific areas of specialty.
The ability of the facilitators to guide and immerse the forum in active participation in
the interactions.
It is expected that the knowledge received by the participants from the workshop will be valuable
not only to their respective agencies and will contribute to expediting the Pilot of the PRQS.
However, the countries may still be in need of training in areas like standard setting, qualification
referencing, qualification development and the development of internal quality management
systems. In this regard, further assistance could be sought from organisations who have had years of
experience on these new developments like NZQA, APQN and INQAAHE.
6
6.0
Closing Remarks
Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi, the Senior Educational Assessment Specialist and Head of the Accreditation
Unit of SPBEA summed up the workshop before he thanked the two NZQA facilitators and officially
closed the four day activity.
In his summing up, Lemalu Lafi reiterated the 2001 Forum Education Ministers Meetings’ (FEdMM)
decision and later leaders’ decisions; the latest the Pacific Forum Leaders Communiqué September
2011 that support and reaffirmed the leaders commitment to raising educational standards. This
Workshop contributes significantly to the achievement of those sentiments and aspirations.
He reiterated the Director of SPBEA’s comments on the historical relationship between SPBEA and
NZQA and the benefits that SPBEA has enjoyed from the relationship initially with the development
of PSSC and SPFSC qualifications and now the training using the NZQA quality assurance systems that
the Pacific can adopt.
Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi re-emphasised the importance of Accreditation and Audit as too important that
any education and training provider must embrace to ensure there is value for money,
accountability and that national priorities are realised.
He also maintained that this maintenance of quality systems in all levels is important to ensure the
quality of qualifications coming to PRQS for registration from the providers to the national agencies
and then to SPBEA.
Lemalu called for an improvement of our quality assurance processes at all levels; provider, national
agencies and regional as a reflection on the objectives of the workshop. He reminded the forum that
any fine-tuning to our quality assurance systems on the basis of the workshop outcome should
always be taken as work in progress and should be taken with excitement.
Finally Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi thanked NZQA, Mr Ewen Holstein and Ms Reshmi Prasad for sharing their
expertise and facilitating the workshop. It was a job well done. He declared the workshop closed at
4.23pm.
7.0
Acknowledgements
SPBEA wishes to thank the following for making this workshop a success.
•
•
•
•
The NZQA in approving Mr. Ewen Holstein and Ms Reshmi Prasad to facilitate the workshop.
The two had been dynamic in their areas of expertise and their approaches to the training.
The continuous support from the government of Australia through AusAID for the five year
funding of the PRQS project.
The Asian Pacific Quality Network for assistance in funding the workshop in the previous
week which brought some of the participants
All the participants for the professional and collegial sharing of experiences and expertise
during the interactions
7
8.0
APPENDICES
8.1
Opening Address
The following is the full opening address delivered by Mrs Anaseini Raivoce, Director of
SPBEA.
Opening Remarks
Capacity Building Workshop on Accreditation and Quality Audit
14 – 17 November 2011
It seems a long time ago, and indeed it is a long time ago, since SPBEA first had professional
contact with NZQA. And although it was not called that at the time, quality assurance was
very much central to the work that we did together.
New Zealand was, along with Australia and the United Kingdom, a founding member of the
original SPBEA. And from the early years NZQA has been represented at the Annual General
meetings or Board meetings, and at meetings where educational assessment has been the
focus.
In the early 1980s SPBEA member countries called for a qualification to be established at
sixth form (year 12) level to replace the NZUE. New Zealand at that time had decided to
move into school based assessment. The arrangement at the time was that each country had
its own qualification at that stage of schooling. In 1986 experienced subject specialists from
New Zealand were nominated by NZQA to travel to Fiji to lead subject panels in order to
develop regional prescriptions for a range of subjects that would become known as the
Pacific Senior Secondary Certificate (PSSC).
In the early days of PSSC, subject examiners were often professionals who had held similar
positions with NZQA. For many years SPBEA benefited from the experience that these New
Zealanders brought to our Pacific qualification. This qualification as you know has grown
both in terms of number of subjects as well as its internal assessment component.
In the early 2000s this whole process was repeated through the development of the South
Pacific Form Seven Certificate (SPFSC) to replace the NZ Bursaries which as the name
suggests is intended as a pre-degree qualification at seventh form (year 13) level. Again at
that time NZ had decided to move into standards based assessment with their NCEA.
It was NZQA who provided the leadership for SPFSC development through the identification
of experienced subject professionals. To ensure that this qualification is recognised
elsewhere, SPBEA through the assistance of NZQA went through the NZVCC for its
endorsement.
Over the years several professional officers have spent periods attached to NZQA in
Wellington, always with the purpose of transferring skills to SPBEA. SPBEA in turn has tried
to transfer these skills to the countries especially at this time of nationalising PSSC.
And so it has been until today, where yet again we are benefitting from the wealth of
experience that NZQA holds.
New Zealand was very much a pioneer in the field of developing a qualifications framework.
This involves an enormous amount of rigorous attention to detail, and a monitoring system
8
that ensures that the quality of registered qualifications meets the exacting standards that
have been defined. In short, putting into practice a quality assurance programme.
It is one thing to have rules and paper regulations, it is quite another to ensure that there is
ongoing and sustained assurance that top quality is in fact practiced.
We are hoping to learn more from the NZQA experience in this area, and in areas that
impinge upon the realization of quality assurance.
With development of national assessment frameworks, with the development of the Pacific
Register of Qualifications and Standards (PRQS) it is imperative that the quality assurance
aspect of our work is given the attention that it demands. Last week you have developed a
Pacific Quality Assurance Framework and the principles of Quality assurance. You have
begun registration of providers and accreditation of programmes which are important for
transparency to our stakeholders.
Over the next few days, we will, under the guidance of Ewen and Reshmi of NZQA, explore
ways in which this aspect of our work can do justice to the registers or frameworks that we
are developing.
Not only do we need to have confidence in our own quality assurance mechanisms, but
others around the world may one day, and perhaps not in the too distant future, call for
evidence that qualifications drawn from the region have proven quality assurance.
Calls for labour mobility are growing. That mobility is dependent upon the rigour with which
the quality of a qualification is assured.
Your work this week may well affect the lives of many people. I wish you luck.
9
8.2
Facilitators’ Profiles
RESHMI REEMA PRASAD
7 Bridgefield Cr
Dannemora. Auckland
Home:09 2744070
Cell: 0212168874
Email: shiddu@hotmail.com
Ms Prasad completed a Masters in Management (Award winning thesis on:
Business Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility) at Massey
University in 2006 and a Post Graduate Diploma in Business Studies in 2005. Ms
Prasad attended the University of the South Pacific and graduated with a Post
Graduate Certificate in Education in 2000 and a Bachelor in Arts
(Accounting/Economics)-assessed by NZQA as equivalent to BCom-NZ in 1995.
Ms Prasad is Team Leader- Service Delivery. The Service Delivery business unit
is made of four teams of analysts who are responsible for the quality assurance
of all non-university qualifications, programmes leading to qualifications, and
assessment standards (and associated AMAPs), and for undertaking the
associated PTE registration, consent to assess and accreditation to deliver
approved programmes.
EWEN HOLSTEIN
Lead Evaluator
External Evaluation and Review
Quality Assurance Division
New Zealand Qualifications Authority
125 The Terrace
PO Box 160
Wellington 6140
New Zealand
Phone: 64 4 463 4274
Email: ewen.holstein@nzqa.govt.nz
Ewen Holstein’s work history and quality experience includes:
Teacher of adult learners; secondment to Singapore Ministry of Education; English teacher
and head of department; standards-based assessment developer, NZQA; language resource
and professional development, Ministry of Education and New Zealand Association for the
Teaching of English; workplace assessor Learning State; Tertiary Assessment and Moderation
and trials facilitator, NZQA; lead quality auditor, NZQA; acting manager audit team transition
to evaluative approach.
10
8.3
Workshop Finances
Audit Workshop
14-17 November, Raffles Gateway Hotel, Nadi
Accmdtn
Fare
Per diem
(Raffles)
Total per
pax
Country
Participant
Fiji
Rajendra Prasad
-
654.00
455.00
1,109.00
Samoa
Merina Litara Gae'e
-
654.00
470.00
1,124.00
Tonga
Opeti Pulotu
David Lambukly
-
763.00
538.00
1,301.00
-
763.00
538.00
1,301.00
Vanuatu
NZ - facilitator
Reshmi Prasad
1,051.40
654.00
498.00
2,203.40
NZ - facilitator
Ewen Holstein
1,780.00
654.00
498.00
-
2,932.00
SPBEA
Ana Raivoce
Lafi Sanerivi
-
109.00
-
654.00
558.75
1,212.75
SPBEA
109.00
SPBEA
Molia Mata'u
-
545.00
366.25
911.25
SPBEA
Selai Qereqeretabua
-
545.00
366.25
911.25
SPBEA
Siaosi Pohiva
-
545.00
471.25
1,016.25
SPBEA
Titilia Rabuka
-
327.00
222.00
549.00
6,867.00
4,981.50
14,679.90
SUB TOTALS 2,831.40
Other costs
Hotel costs: Catering, lectern, cordless mic & internet
access
Gifts (2
facilitators)
Stationery
Grand Total
(FJ$)
14,679.90
5,620.00
135.00
83.5
Group dinner
695.00
Salusalus (3 for opening of workshop)
75.00
6,608.50
Total cost of Audit workshop
21,288.40
11
8.4
Day 1:
Summary of Daily Activities
Monday 14th November
Session 1:
Open Discussion Quality Assurance
R. Prasad & E. Holstein
This introductory session was more or less a brainstorming session. Ewen set the pace by posing
questions like what quality assurance is, why we do it, how we do it, how we all do it. Sharing of
ideas and discussions began to open up and participants responded in reference to quality as “best
practice”, “industry standards”, “self review”, “ongoing improvement”, “excellence”, “consistency in
decision making”, “customer satisfaction”, “achieving threshold”, “fit for purpose” etc. SPBEA and
country participants shared and compared documented definitions of quality assurance and it
appeared that despite of the slight variations due to unique national context, the principles and the
focus are similar. It’s about planning and implementing systematic processes that secure
stakeholders’ satisfaction on the education and training services provided by organisations. This is
normally under the responsibility of national quality assurance agencies setting benchmarks
providers must meet in the development of courses and training programs and ensuring the fitness
of such providers to deliver programs in terms of resources and systematic processes in place to
ensure achieving outcomes that stakeholders have confidence in.
Amongst the most important aspects of any quality assurance system at the national level is the
program accreditation and quality audit of providers and it was clear from the brainstorming session
that countries are at different stages in the implementation of these two areas. Furthermore, slight
variations in the procedures of provider accreditation and program and quality audit exist according
to the experiences shared by the country representatives; even NZQA is not immun to this variation.
One of the noted differences was the treatment of a quality management system as a benchmark in
the different systems; all except for one country in the like of NZQA do not require providers to
develop viable internal quality management system. For these countries, this was a real challenge.
This was identified by a number of participants as a lesson learned and an action plan for their
respective national agencies, (see Analysis of feedback, Appendix 8.5 question 10).
The facilitators raised a number of interesting issues in their experience of course approval and
accreditation and quality audit which maybe relevant to the Pacific context. One of those was the
reality in the quality of submissions from providers. In the aggressive quest to seek approval, some
providers contract consultants to solely write course approval submissions. In a number of cases,
providers submit documents they have little understanding of. The real issue here is paper based
versus reality; this is a justification for quality audit. They were these interesting interactions of real
life experiences particularly from the NZQA context that got the attentions of the workshop forum
and kept the interactions going.
Session 2:
How NZQA does Course Approval and Accreditation and Quality Audit
Ms Reshmi Prasad facilitated all sessions on Course Approval and Accreditation or Program
Accreditation.
This session was to take the participants through the NZQA processes and procedures and the
criteria for approving and accreditation of programs.
Reshmi started with a flowchart detailing the process of program accreditation from the point when
an application is received until it is approved, provider notified and the NZQA database is updated
with the new approved program leading to an approved qualification. The essence of the process is
in the quality checks embedded into it that any program submitted must meet. These involve the
initial assessment by an expert which may have two possible results:
12
i.
ii.
initial assessment satisfied and program proceeding to the next check by a peer review. If
the peer review is satisfied with the outcome, recommendations are made for the approval
of the program.
initial assessment recommending additional information from provider. Program with
additional information is sent for the peer review. The peer review if satisfied may make
recommendations for program approval otherwise may request for further additional
information from the provider. A second analysis will take place and upon requirements
being met, recommendation is made for the approval of the program.
The target turnaround times to process an application is around 30 to 55 days.
The session continued with the discussion of the NZQA seven Criteria for Program Approval and
Accreditation. These are
Criterion 1:
The adequacy and appropriateness of the title, aims, stated learning outcomes and the coherence of
the whole course. Included also in this criterion are:
•
the outcome components
•
content
•
level; certificates, diploma
•
length
•
credits
•
recognising traditional knowledge and indigenous skills
Criterion 2:
The adequacy and appropriateness of delivery and learning methods for all modes of delivery given
the stated learning outcomes. The criterion looks at
•
methods and modes
•
traditional / cultural methods
•
delivery schedules
•
integration of theory and practicals
•
work placements
•
safety of students
Criterion 3:
Assessment: The adequacy of the means of ensuring that assessment procedures are fair, valid,
consistent and appropriate, given the stated learning outcomes. It further looks into
•
assessment planning – schedule/tools/weightings
•
sample assessment
•
moderation
•
feedback to learners
The facilitator stopped at criterion 3 and started the next session with a mock exercise on program
approval and accreditation. The interactions between the facilitator and the participants sharing
different countries’ experiences on this area continued throughout the sessions.
13
Session 3:
Mock Exercise on Program Application Analysis against the First Three Criteria
The purpose of the activity was to train and practically involve the participants with approving and
accreditation of programs from the point of receiving applications up until the final outcome is
reached whether it’s approved or not.
The exercise was done in three groups working with real materials except that the identity of
provider and officers was withheld for confidentiality purpose. Participants were supplied with the
overview of the application document, identifying details like course title, application type,
particulars of the provider, duration of the course, aim, content, outcome, entry requirement etc. In
the next document, the provider details and supplies clarifications and evidences to convince NZQA
how their submission would meet the requirements of each of the assessment criteria. For the
purpose of the training, an expert report on this same application was also given to guide the
participants’ analysis if the first three criteria are met or not. The facilitator provided valuable
assistance and glues as the groups engaged themselves with the exercise making it more fun and
informative.
The group presentations focused on whether each of the first three criterion was met or not, and if
not what could be the suggestions/recommendations for the provider to resubmit for further
analysis. The Vanuatu and the PNG representatives seemed to relate well with the exercise given the
status of their developments and the context of their organisations – TVET base. Nevertheless, Fiji
Tonga and Samoa also made worthy contributions to the live discussions.
This session spilled over to the second day of the workshop
Day 2: Tuesday 15th November
Session 4:
Assessment Criteria 4 – 7 for Program Approval and Accreditation
Further discussions on the application of criteria 1 – 3 for assessing and analysis of a program for
approval and accreditation continued for twenty five minutes of session 4.
Reshmi then took the forum through the rest of the criteria (4 – 7).
Criterion 4:
Acceptability of the course: The acceptability of the proposed course to the relevant academic,
industrial, professional and other communities, in terms of its stated aims and learning outcomes,
nomenclature and structure
•
other similar qualifications
•
rationale
•
stakeholders’ input
•
letters of support
•
professional bodies
•
local advisory committee (LAC)
Criterion 5:
The adequacy and appropriateness of the regulations that specify requirements for admission, credit
for previous study, recognition of prior learning, course length and structure, integration of
practical/based component, assessment procedures and normal progression within a course.
•
Entry , cross credits, appeals, re-assessment, pre-requisites, maximum period for
completion, aegrotat pass, RPL
•
Withdraws and refunds
•
Grading, merit, distinction
14
•
Student information, handbook, prospectus
Criteria 6:
The capacity of the provider to support and sustained delivery of the course, in all delivery modes,
with regards to appropriate academic staffing, teaching facilities, physical resources and support
services
•
staff student ratio
•
CVs and JDs
•
professional developments
•
teaching facilities and physical resources
•
reading resources
•
budget/acquisition plan
•
student support and guidance system
Criterion 7:
Evaluation and Review: The adequacy and effectiveness of the provision for evaluation and review of
course delivery against defined course standards and regulations; for monitoring improvement
following evaluation and review and for determining if the course shall continue to be offered
•
feedback forms
•
LAC
•
destination surveys
Session 5:
Continuation of Program Application Analysis against Criteria 4 – 7
The training activity on analysing the program/course for approval and accreditation continued using
criteria 4 to 7 to see if the submission meets these criteria. The groups worked with the same
documents as they did in the analysis against criteria 1 – 3.
During the group presentations reporting on the extent of the criteria being met or not, the
following was the brief finding of the groups:
Criterion 4:
The three groups unanimously agree that the materials and information submitted for accessibility
of the course meet the requirements for this criterion.
Criterion 5:
One of the groups thought that entry regulations are not clear in the submission while another
group believed that students’ regulations on entry, cross credits, appeals, withdraws, refunds etc
should have been properly documented in the provider’s policies and procedures rather than in the
students’ hand book.
The criterion was not fully met, the forum thought.
Criterion 6:
Overall, the forum made a number of comments on this criterion that did not confirm it being met.
Some of these include:
•
No stock list of resources in the submission or a budget allocated for the procurement of
these resources
•
The number of teaching staff and their qualifications delivering the course was not clear
•
Teacher student ratio of 1:30 was probably too crowded for practical activities
15
Criterion 7:
Again from the forum point of view, this criterion was not fully met. Their decision was based on a
few shortcomings:
•
Review of program is only internal, no information on external or independent review party
•
No clear mechanism for obtaining feedback from appropriate stakeholders for review
Session 6:
Communication, Reporting and Summing up
In this session, the facilitator provided the actual report to the provider of the initial analysis of the
course approval application for the training and the participants were able to compare their own
analysis with it. In this report, the assessor found three of the criteria (criteria2, 3, and 6) not met
compared to the forum’s analysis of only criteria 4 met. However, there were a number of other
information the participants did not have access to that would have provided sufficient information
to make a difference in the forum’s analysis.
For each of the three criteria not met, the report clearly outlines the shortcomings of the provider’s
submission regarding this specific criterion and then suggests to the provider what needs to be
resubmitted for further analysis and reassessment. The suggested date for resubmission of the
requested information from the provider was also stated in the letter from the NZQA.
Furthermore, the resubmission of the requested information from the provider was also made
available for the training purpose. In this document, the provider specifically responded to the areas
of concern raised in the first report and the required information was clearly evident from the
provider’s resubmission.
Finally, a letter to the provider informing them of the NZQA favourable decision on their application
was shared to the participants.
How successful was the activity in meeting the expectations of the participants?
The continuous sharing of real life experience by the facilitator in her involvement with course
approval and accreditation at NZQA plus the sharing from the participants was again overwhelming.
Although this was a mock exercise but working with real materials makes the activity realistic and
rewarding; participants certainly learn a lot from it (see analysis of feedback appendix 8.5).
The process, the procedures and the assessment criteria are clear and their application to the
approval and accreditation process was easily followed and hence understanding was secured. The
letters of communications between the provider and NZQA and the format of the report were
transparent and reader friendly that participants considered contextualising these for their purpose
or fine tuning their own materials and processes accordingly. (see feedback analysis).
Quality Audit
Day 3: Wednesday 16th November
Session 7:
What is Quality Audit? How NZQA does Quality Audit
Mr. Ewen Holstein facilitated all sessions on Quality Audit.
Ewen introduced the session by getting the participants’ views on what quality audit is, what exactly
is/are to be audited, why do audit, who does it, how it is done, before he took the participants
through the NZQA standards for auditing providers.
16
Some of the points raised in this discussion include:
The audit is to seek evidences on effectiveness of achieving goals. The evidences on
•
Vision / Mission / goals and objectives
•
QMS – self assessment
•
Financial information
•
Teaching and Learning
•
Record of Management system
•
Student records / results /enrolment / personal information
•
Assessment materials
•
Resources for teaching and learning
•
Student folder
•
In the already submitted information, is it happening as stated? If not why not?
Specialist representing a team e.g. from industry for visits to TVET typed provider
Who to talk to in the audit; Director / manager / HOD / Faculty heads / Tutor, Teachers /
Stakeholders / Parents / Industry
•
•
What is to be audited?
•
Performance
•
Against a standard? Yes
•
If deficiencies, who’s responsible? CEO?
•
Which requirements are met? RM; Not met, RNM; not apply, NA any recommendations; any
requirement;
The brainstorming discussion led to the discussion of the NZQA standards for quality audit of
institutions in the next session
Session 8:
NZQA Quality Assurance Standard One
The standard for quality audit by NZQA is known as ‘Quality Assurance Standard One”. The standard
covers
•
Registration of providers
•
Site approval and
•
Quality audit
The quality standard one include
1.1
Goals and objectives of the provider
1.2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Systems to achieve goals and objectives. These include
Governance and Management
Personnel
Physical and Learning Resources
Learner information, entry and support
Development, delivery and review of programs
Assessment and moderation
Notification and reporting of learner and achievement
17
• Research – mainly for university and degree awarding institutions
1.3
Achievement of Goals and Objectives.
Ewen went on to discuss in brief the procedures of quality audit process. This is summarised below
• Audit is conducted against the elements detailed in Quality Assurance Standard One; it is
important that all elements of the standards must be met by the provider
• The initial visit comes six months following the registration
• Identification of good practise and/or compliance issues
• Action plan is drawn up
• Decision making process at the completion of the audit (audit cycle)
• On-going registration confirmed
In the external review and evaluation process, the key questions to consider are
(i)
How well do learners achieve?
(ii)
What is the value of the outcomes for key stakeholders including learners?
(iii)
How well do programs and activities match the needs of learners and other stakeholders?
(iv)
How effective is the teaching?
(v)
How well are learners guided and supported?
(vi)
How effective are governance and management in supporting educational achievement?
It is important that the auditors revolve their thinking on getting information on these key questions
to help them make sound judgement on the quality of activities of a provider as a result of the
effectiveness of the quality assurance mechanism and internal quality management system operated
by a provider.
Furthermore, Ewen discussed outcome indicators or evidence to support quality of a tertiary
provider; evidences that there is value of graduates that come out from such providers.
•
Graduates gain employment / or engaged in further studies and/or contribute to their local
and wider communities
•
Learners complete qualifications
•
Learners usefulness /meaningful skills and knowledge and develop cognitive abilities
•
Learners improve well being and enhance abilities and attributes
At the end of this session which again was filled in with numerous sharing of experiences from both
the facilitators and the participants, Ewen introduced the next session which was another exciting
practical activity on quality audit.
Session 9:
Practical on a Simulated Quality Audit
The objective of the activity is to provide an opportunity for the participants to actually involve
themselves in a quality audit.
The activity involves the audit of one of the providers3. Documents required were given to the
participants; Quality audit evidence and the Quality Assurance Standards for Private Training
Establishments (PTEs), Government Training Establishments (GTE) and Wananga. Other supporting
documents used by audit assessors were also provided. Furthermore, the letter to inform the
provider of the proposed date for the quality audit visit, the agenda and the program detailing the
3
The Association of Cook Islands Tertiary Institutes was the provider used in this activity
18
objectives and scope, the process involved, information on reporting, the provider’s responsibility,
the NZQA’s responsibility and cost involved was also provided. The participants were required to
assess the evidence in the quality audit report against the quality standard one in the Quality
Assurance Standards for PTEs, GTEs and Wananga document and make judgement if the
requirements based on the report for each element are met (RM), not met (RNM), requirement not
applied (RNA) or if some recommendation or further requirement are still needed to meet the
requirement.
This activity took the rest of day 3 and half of day 4. Live and interesting discussions and interactions
filled the activity prolonging it as it was anticipated. During discussion, the actual quality audit report
with detailed findings, comments on each of the element of the quality audit standard one and
recommendations to be considered to fully meet the requirement was provided. Participants were
able to compare their own assessment with the quality audit assessors’ judgments in this report. It
was exciting to see that a number of participants were in line with the decisions and
recommendations made by the auditors in a number of elements. This and the wealth of the
discussions was certainly self rewarding to the participants as the enthusiasm to learn in the forum
rose.
What was therefore learnt from this exercise?
•
The experience of being involved as a quality auditor in judging if the requirements of an
element are actually met in relation to the audit visit evidence provided. Some participants
were so keen that they wished they had been involved in a real quality audit visit in this
training (see appendix)
•
The documentation involved in the administration of the quality audit visit. The
communication with the provider from the first advise of the visit to advise on the findings
and inviting them to check for the correctness of findings and to make any correction should
there be any, communication on recommendations to be adhered to, audit cycle and
confirmation of on-going registration.
•
The quality audit report template provided gave the participants clues of what the
components of the report are; let alone writing an audit report
•
The timelines for the individual process and procedure in the quality audit
•
The learning from the wealth of interaction from participants and facilitators
•
This was echoed in the feedback with participants saying that the learning from this
workshop will be used to re-evaluate their own quality assurance system and to fill any gaps
and that some of the NZQA documents will be customised to suit their own context (see
analysis of the feedback – appendix 8.5)
Session 9:
Self Assessment
Ewen spoke of the key features of effective self assessment. These include
i.
Outcomes
ii.
Needs assessment
iii.
Processes and practices
iv.
Learner achievement
v.
Using what is learned
vi.
Actual improvement
He went on to mention four main components of self assessment across an organisation. Ewen
stressed that a systematic process of data-driven self reflections has
19
•
•
•
•
Systematic data gathering
Robust data analysis
Reflective processes that involve all people in the organisation and
Decision making for on-going improvement connected to the outcomes of the self-reflective
process
In fact, self assessment enables a tertiary education organisation to find out:
•
What outcomes learners are achieving and how well
•
The value of the outcome to the stakeholders including the learners
•
Effectiveness of processes in contributing to the outcomes
The findings of the self assessment must be verified by an external assessment which is a healthy
procedure of any quality audit process.
Mr Ewen Holstein then posed the question of “Where to from now?” to the participants. What is
the way forward for improving quality assurance system from this training workshop?
A number of responses from the country participants are penned here.
Papua New Guinea
Reflect on changes of legislations
On line submission of materials for course approval and may be quality audit
Fiji
Need for providers to work on internal quality management system
Development of quality audit framework, may be start quality audit on a smaller scale
Tonga
Accreditation and registration procedure are similar to NZQA
Quality audit learning need to be relooked at for our Tongan context, particularly the two
year validity period of registration. It may be short given the intensity of the audit process
Vanuatu
Reinforce the importance of self assessment
Quality audit would be helpful in our system
Samoa
Registration and accreditation of providers and programs similar to New Zealand
Policies and procedures for quality audit are being developed for implementation in 2012
20
8.5
Feedback Analysis
The evaluation form had ten questions. The first six questions require participants to rate the extent
of the success of each aspect of the workshop and then to comment on how they arrive at their
choices. The last four require subjective responses which mainly ask for commendations,
recommendations and applications of knowledge gained to the participants’ works.
Fourteen evaluation forms were collected and analysed. The analysis is given below
Question 1:
How successful was the workshop in enhancing your understanding of course approval and
accreditation?
11 of 14 thought that it was very successful, one ticked both ‘very successful’ and ‘successful’ and
two rated the course approval and accreditation part of the workshop successful. So basically, the
workshop was successful in enhancing the understanding of the participants of course approval and
accreditation.
6 participants centered their comments on the workshop improving their understanding of course
approval and accreditation and would certainly be able to apply the learning to their national
context. The session has helped them understand the what, how, why, whom questions with regards
to program accreditation. A number in this category admitted that they had already carried out
course approval and accreditation but the workshop has given more insights to re-evaluate to
enhance their processes and systems.
3 participants acknowledged the practical part of the session with hand-on activities and interactions
between the facilitator and the forum. They claimed that this brought success to the workshop.
2 said that the workshop confirmed their being on track with NZQA system in terms of course
approval. “Most processes NZQA have are also being adopted by our NQA for its program
accreditation, however we need to see through what is appropriate and apply it over” one
participant assured.
1 participant stressed the importance of going through the criteria one by one and exploring issues
and challenges arising from the application of the criteria – the pace in which the facilitator
explained things. The lone provider participant commented this session as an eye-opener to see how
quality system benefits not only the learner but the provider.
One participant did not comment on questions one to eight.
Question 2:
How successful was the workshop in enhancing your understanding of quality audit?
Like question 2, 11 of 14 thought that it was very successful, the same person in question 1 ticked
both ‘very successful’ and ‘successful’. Two rated the quality audit part of the workshop successful.
7 participants commented that either workshop had improved their knowledge and understanding of
quality audit process and its relevancy and had enabled them customise important aspects of the
NZQA system to improve and fine-tune their national system. Questions on quality audit had been
answered during the workshop. The workshop clarifies what specifically to look for in the audit
process.
21
2 saw the use of realistic examples and the clear articulation of discussions contributing to the ‘very
successful’ aspect of the quality audit part of the workshop. Another 2 commented highly on the
practical part of the quality audit sessions as a reason for its being very successful.
One participant who said that the quality audit sessions were ‘successful’ suggested that it would
have been good if the group was to do a real audit exercise. Yet, from the provider’s point of view,
often they would be deeply involved with quantity that they miss out on the quality.
Question 3:
How successful was the workshop in terms of group activities?
11 rated this aspect of the workshop ‘very successful’ while 3 thought it was ‘successful’.
6 commented on the wealth of experience and knowledge gained from sharing amongst the different
Pacific countries representatives during the group discussions. It enlightens the participants of issues
and challenges faced by different Pacific countries and acknowledged the learning from each other in
these group discussions.
2 sighted that group discussions helped them to do an audit visit and an accreditation. Another two
said that group activities provided more interactions and free expression of ideas and also
commended the facilitators for their brilliance in guiding discussions to encourage people to
contribute. One participant wanted to see more group activities in the future.
3 did not comment.
Question 4:
How successful was the workshop in terms of the training materials/handouts?
Like in 3 above, 11 thought that this was ‘very successful’ while 3 did not agree and said it was only
‘successful’.
9 participants commented that presentations and handouts were useful, sufficient, relevant,
informative, fitting, and helpful to bring out issues and challenges that we may face while
undertaking course accreditation and quality audit. They are also helpful to guide them devise
materials for these two processes in their national context. Documents and presentations supported
each other and the approach taken by breaking presentations with forum and group discussions kept
participants awoke and excited. The mock exercises on course accreditation and quality audit related
well to the training, the participants thought.
2 thought that participants could have been given more time to read the documents for valuable
discussions. One of these rated this area of the workshop ‘successful’.
Question 5:
How successful was the workshop in providing a forum for professional discussion?
11 rated this aspect of the workshop ‘very successful’ while 3 thought it was ‘successful’.
7 commented positively about the value of open discussion by the forum, sharing ideas on individual
NQAs experiences; what had been done successfully and what not further enhancing the
understanding of the participants.
22
One participant echoed the confidence of country representatives for successful professional
discussion while another participant commented on the informative nature of the discussions.
The skills of the facilitators in engaging different strategies to draw responses from the forum was
noted and admired by one participant and another commented favourably on the wider
representation of Pacific countries in the forum.
Three participants left the comment space empty.
Question 6:
Has the workshop given you greater confidence in your ability to carry out course approval and
accreditation and quality audits?
50% said that the workshop had given them ‘greater confidence’ and the rest thought that they had
‘much greater confidence’ to carry out course approval and accreditation and quality audit at the
completion of the workshop.
Of the 50 % that claimed having ‘much greater confidence,’ one commented having immense
amount of knowledge and understanding for gaps / deficiencies to be addressed to improve and
conduct the work. Another commented positively about his/her ability to write standards and trial
them out in providers after the workshop. Still another participant boasted high about the good link
of the course approval and accreditation part of the workshop with his/her work at their national
agency while another claimed the use of making relevant recommendations in audit reports as a plus
in his/her confidence for quality audit work. The lone provider representative penned her much
greater confidence in not only assisting her institution prepared for course approval and quality audit
processes but would raise the awareness of the importance of quality assurance principles in the
institution level.
Two participants in this category and three from those who thought that the workshop had given
them ‘greater confidence’ did not comment.
Comments in this category focussed mainly on experience and confidence builds up with more
involvement with actual course accreditation and quality audit, being better equipped with
challenges put up by providers and the challenge of developing a quality management system for the
organisation.
Question 7:
What other aspects of course approval and accreditation and quality audits would you have liked to
include in the workshop?
10 of 14 responded to the question.
There was a feeling of wanting to have more of how providers address and draw up their action
plans for any deficiency identified by the audit or course approval. One aspect raised was the
inclusion of some success stories regarding quality audit, I guess because most scenario discussed
were those with weaknesses. One participant thought that he/she would have liked to include more
case studies in the quality audit discussions to be able to see varieties of feedbacks to the providers.
Inclusion of registration as one of the topics would have completed the workshop was echoed by
another participant.
23
There was also a wish for the inclusion in the workshop program of a case study on self assessment –
how it is developed. This same person highlighted the need to include assessment criteria for RPL and
RCC as part of the training program.
Question 8:
Commendations: What do you think worked well in the four day workshop?
All participants responded to this question
The following were commended by the participants:
•
Good organisation of the workshop
•
Clear presentation and professional exciting discussions and exercises
•
The use of case studies in the discussions, sharing of ideas from different country reps
•
Good guidance of discussions by the facilitators
•
Flexibility in the program and presentation skills of the facilitators
Accessibility to NZQA materials used for these two quality processes and learning how to do
them
Question 9:
Recommendations: What could have been done better?
8 answered this question
The following are the recommendations from the participants:
i.
There should be a follow up workshop after 10 months
ii.
That participants be involved in a real quality audit in another workshop
iii.
Participants certificates of participation co-awarded by SPBEA and NZQA
iv.
More case studies and exercises needed
v.
Materials be available in soft copies through CDs (this actually provided on the last day but
participants were advised on the third day.
Question 10:
What action points/plans have you identified for yourself in regards to your responsibilities for
course approval and accreditation and quality audit?
12 responses received on this question
Most of the responses centered on the following:
a.
Develop QA processes using the new knowledge and skills from the training and share with
stakeholders information gained
b.
Improving the quality assurance system by developing relevant policies and defining clear
procedures of processes involved
c.
Refine program and provider accreditation – relook at ways to further improve them
d.
Review policies to see development of QMS at the institutional level a must
e.
A challenge of continuing to push for improvement of quality standard and despite of the
challenge, it is achievable though it may be slow taking baby steps
f.
Contextualising the NZQA quality audit materials to reflect in our own national documents
(manuals and guidelines)
24
8.6
Workshop Reflections on the Senior Secondary School Qualifications Quality
Assurance
How Can QA Workshops Improve SSSQ QA Processes?
Some points for internal consideration and discussion
The two weeks workshop provided useful insights and information on Quality Assurance
Principles, Concepts, Processes and Practice. Given the presentations and discussions during
the workshops, it becomes more evident that there are gaps in the current SSSQ Quality
Assurance Practice; such gaps appear not only in the quality assurance process itself but also
in depth at various stages of the process.
Week 1: Principles of Quality Assurance
1.
SPBEA is the main regional Quality Assurance agent and at the same time a provider
of regional qualifications. Conflict of interest.
2.
Missing Link in the process. Instructor/teacher/lecturer is not treated as one of the
main components of the Quality Assurance document. It is only referred to as aspect
of the provider’s requirements.
The ultimate purpose of the Quality Assurance process is to ensure that the end product i.e.
students/ learners are well equipped with appropriate skills/knowledge etc. Instructors/
Teachers/ Lecturers are in this regard the most important component/ element in the pacific
context. Teachers are the most important classroom resource.
There are detailed processes for Quality Assurance of (i) Agencies and (ii) providers in the
document, however (iii) instructors/teachers/lecturers are just a component or element of
the providers Quality Assurance document.
3.
Can SPBEA adopt a system where SSSQ become a Main Provider of Regional
Qualifications where/and countries/schools become affiliates?
A national school can apply to become a registered SSSQ provider and be accredited to offer
SSSQ programmes. SSSQ confers regional qualifications credential/ certificates through
national providers.
This can be an alternative/option to or follow on from the Nationalization of PSSC which is
currently underway.
Week 2: Practice of Quality Assurance
1.
In light of the workshop discussion SSSQ’s current Quality Assurance practice needs
to be improved/ updated to reflect the current internationally accepted good
practice. This current internationally accepted practice should be blended with
Pacific regional flavour (contextualized). The following must do are considerably
important discussion points:
25
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
Well defined, rationally and structured Quality Assurance processes and procedures
to be established/ developed and practiced. (SSSQ do have a procedure as outlined
in the SPBEA manual/documents, but such procedure and process lack specifics and
at times not strictly followed such as. Formal Application, registration, pre
assessment, analysis, site visit etc.)
A dedicated database integrated to ATLAS, for SSSQ Quality Assurance purposes.
This should include tables/fields for provider requirements etc. (SSSQ do have but
scattered information/list on providers. However, details and history are not
structurally captured, documented and stored.)
Formal systematic registration and deregistration of providers. (Currently there is no
formal registration of providers and programmes other then official approval of
schools to offer SSSQ courses)
More detailed and well defined accreditation and approval requirements, processes
and procedures of schools and courses/ subjects.
Standard application forms for school registration as well as course accreditation
(SSSQ do not currently have an application form, only lists of requirements)
Establish Quality Audit tools and conduct Quality Auditing. (SSSQ do not currently
conduct such good practice)
Specialization (if possible); person/ panel/ peer to be established at SPBEA to
conduct accreditation, approval, assessment, audit etc. (Currently there is no formal
defined composition of person(s) or panel to conduct these tasks activities)
Adopted/Develop well defined assessment Criteria and to be used by assessment
panel in assessing providers and programmes. (SSSQ do have assessment criteria but
limited in scope)
All Quality Assurance matters including reports on providers’ quality audit to be
made public on SPBEA website. (Accountability and transparency call for such
practice)
This will all start from developing/refining Quality Assurance Policy documents for
SSSQ processes.
Link SSSQ process and procedure to PRQS system ?????
Siaosi Pohiva
Education Assessment Officer
SSSQ
26
8.7
Workshop Program
Quality assurance: Programme accreditation and quality audit
Purpose, objectives and outcomes:
1) Understand the quality assurance processes involved in programme accreditation and
quality audit
2) Discuss and apply criteria against evidence in real and simulated situations
3) Explore what has been learned and how it can be applied in the Pacific
14 November
9.00-10.00
Activity
Who
Resources /
activities
Welcome/Introductions-
Su’a Molia Mata’u
Official Opening
Ana Raivoce
Participants to introduce themselves and their
title/role
What is quality assurance?
Why do we do it?
How do we all do it?
How does NZQA as an organisation do it?
Outline Agenda and objectives for the 4 days
Morning tea
All
Ewen
Reshmi
All
Whiteboard
PPT
11.00-12.30
Programme accreditation- processes involved.
How has NZQA done this?
12.30-1.30 Lunch break
Reshmi
PPT
Handouts
1.30-2.00
Continue
Programme accreditation- processes involved.
How has NZQA done this?
The gazetted criteria and types of evidence
required- CRITERIA 1-3
• Competency based (possible for Fiji and
Vanuatu) and non competency based
programmes
Reshmi
PPT
Handouts- criteria
Reshmi
PPT
Handouts- criteria
Reshmi and Ewen
to facilitate
Large Poster
Sheets and pens
10.00-10.45
10.45-11.00
2.00-3.00
3.00-5.00
Afternoon Tea
Group activity:
Example application- carry out an analysis of the
application against the three criteria and decide
whether the requirements are MET or NOT MET
15 November
8.30-10.00
Activity
Who
CRITERIA 4-7
• Competency based (Fiji and Vanuatu) and
non competency based programmes
Reshmi
27
Resources /
activities
Handouts
10.00-12.30
1.30-2.30
2.30-3.30
3.30-4.30
16 November
9-10.30am
10.30-11
11-12.30pm
12.30-1.30
1.30-3.00
3.00-3.30
3.30-5.00
17 November
Morning Tea
Example application- carry out an analysis of the
application against criteria 4-7 and decide
whether the requirement is MET or NOT MET
12.30-1.30 Lunch break
Complete exercise
Compare results- identify consistency issues
Report writing
Afternoon Tea
Applications to use other organisations’
programmes
Programme change
What is quality audit? What should be audited?
Why? By whom? How?
How has NZQA done it?
Morning tea
A simulated quality audit to determine which
requirements have been met and not met, and
recommendations for an on-site report
Handouts
Reshmi
Ewen
Ewen and Reshmi
to facilitate
Lunch
Complete the simulation and draft a report or part Ewen and Reshmi
of one
to facilitate
Afternoon tea
Review, identify, discuss and resolve issues as
Ewen
much as possible, Q & A
Activity
Who
10.30-11.00
11.00-12.30
Morning tea
Consequences of audit outcomes and how to
determine them
4.00-5.00
Reshmi and Ewen
to facilitate
Reshmi
Who
The report from a reader’s perspective
2.00-4.00
Large Poster
Sheets and pens
Activity
9.00-10.30
12.30-1.30
1.30-2.00
Reshmi and Ewen
to facilitate
Lunch
A glimpse of the future? An evaluative approach
to quality assurance.
Reflection and brainstorm- accreditation and
quality audit processes for the Pacific the way
ahead
Feedback
Close
28
Ewen and Reshmi
to facilitate
Ewen
Handouts
PPT
Resources /
activities
White board
PPT, Handouts
Whiteboard
PPT, Handouts
Large poster
sheets and pens
As above
As above
Whiteboard
Resources /
activities
Our own reports
compared with
the report(s)
provided
Ewen and Reshmi
to facilitate
Discussion
PPT, Handouts
Work some
example(s)
All
White board
Su’a Molia
All
8.8
List of Participants
Participants of the Program Approval and Accreditation and Quality Audit Workshop
No.
Country
Name
1
2
Fiji
Fiji
FHEC – Rajendra Prasad
FHEC – Sereseini Vuki
3
4
5
6
7
Fiji
Niue
PNG
Samoa
Tonga
FHEC – Parneet Singh
Janet Tasmania – Min Ed
Joe Lokes – PNG NTC
Merina Litara Gae’e - SQA
Opeti Pulotu – TNQAB
David Lambukly
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Vanuatu
Vanuatu
Fiji
Fiji
Fiji
NZ
NZ
SPBEA
SPBEA
SPBEA
SPBEA
SPBEA
20
SPBEA
Sam Samuel – VNTC
Tito Isala (Day 1 only)
Dr. Steve Currow (Day 1 only)
Nellie Manuca
Ewen Holstein (Facilitator)
Reshmi Prasad (Facilitator)
Ana Raivoce
Lemalu Lafi Sanerivi
Selai Qereqeretabua
Siaosi Pohiva
Molia T. Mata’u
Titilia Rabuka
Designation
Addresses
Principal Project Officer
Senior Quality Assurance Officer
Senior Standards/Qualifications
Development Officer
CEO Ministry of Education
Director National Training Center
Senior Quality Assurance Officer
Principal Qualifications Officer
CEO Vanuatu National Training
Center
Quality Assurance Officer
Registrar University of Fiji
Principal Fulton College
Registrar Fulton College
Lead Evaluator NZQA
Lead Analyst NZQA
Director SPBEA
SEAS – PRQS/SSSQ
EAS – PRQS
EAS – SSSQ
EAS – PRQS
rajendra.prasad@govnet.gov.fj
sereseini.vuki@govnet.gov.fj
parneet.singh@govnet.gov.fj
Administrative Assistant
29
Joelokes11251@gmail.com
l.merina.gaee@sqa.gov.ws
opeti26@gmail.com
dlambukly@vanuatu.gov.vu
ssamuel@vanuatu.gov.vu
TitoI@unifiji.ac.fj
scurrow@fulton.ac.fj
nmanuca@fulton.ac.fj
Ewen.holstein@nzqa.govt.nz
shiddu@hotmail.com
araivoce@spbea.org.fj
lsanerivi@spbea.org.fj
sqereqeretabua@spbea.org.fj
spohiva@spbea.org.fj
mmatau@spbea.org.fj
trabuka@spbea.org.fj