Quality Assurance Council 31st May 2019 Training workshop for Institutional Reviewers Sharing experiences from institutional reviews in 2017 and 2018: tips for new reviewers Quality Assurance Council 31st May 2019
IR is done by Externally Results of the Review ?
Role of the External Reviewers Reviewers are appointed from outside the institution. Reviewers are responsible for making the necessary judgment. Reviewers are responsible for formulating the conclusions of the review for its final decision- making.
Potential Issues in Peer Reviews Social bias: Peers tend to be influenced by social aspects such as the reputation of the institution being reviewed or personal acquaintance with staff members. Intellectual bias: Specific orientations or methodologies preferred by the peers might influence the judgment of peers. Random error: Reliability and consistency of peer judgment might lead to a positive/negative outcome which implies that the outcome is a matter of chance rather than a reliable result of peer review. As of the 15 state universities in an small island all are connected.
145 Scope of IR Governance and Management 29 Curriculum Design and Development 15 Teaching and Learning 10 Learning Resources 14 Student Assessment and Awards 15 Strength and Quality of Staff 11 Postgraduate Studies, Research, Innovation & Commercialization 25 Community Engagement 06 Distance Education 13 Quality Assurance 07 145
Activities during the site visit Documentary evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities
Documentary Evidence
Assigning a score
Scores for criteria 1 Governance and Management 180 29 6.2 2.1 2 Curriculum Design and Development 120 15 8.0 2.6 3 Teaching and Learning 100 10 10.0 3.3 4 Learning Resources 80 14 5.7 1.9 5 Student Assessment and Awards 6.7 2.2 6 Strength and Quality of Staff 11 9.1 3.0 7 Postgraduate Studies, Research, Innovation & Commercialization 25 4.0 1.3 8 Community Engagement 60 06 9 Distance Education 40 13 3.1 1.0 Quality Assurance 07 17.1 Total 1000 145
Activities during the site visit Documentary evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities
Stakeholder Meetings Key priorities of the university for future developments Strategies for achieving the goals Verification of documentary evidences provided in the SER
Relevant Standards for Meetings Meeting Standard 1 Meeting with the Vice-Chancellor 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.10 1.23 1.24 2 Meeting with Members of the Council 1.17 1.25 3 Meeting with the Administrative Staff 1.4 1.16 1.27 4 Meeting with Bursar, SABs, Abs 1.8 1.9 5 Meeting with Internal Audits Branch 1.11 1.12 6 Meeting with the Internal Quality Assurance Unit 1.19 1.21 1.22 2.8 2.9 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 2.15 7 Meeting with the Librarian and staff 4.7 4.10
Activities during the site visit Documentary evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities
MIS Login Page http://fgs.ruh.ac.lk/iqauir/
Administrator Account
Step 1 At the beginning, the Admin is required to allocate teams for the each university. Management Information System (MIS) Allocation of Review Teams by Admin 1
Step 2 The Chairperson of the each University Review Team allocate duties to the team members Allocation of Review Teams by Admin Chairperson allocate duties to the reviewers 2
Chairperson Account
Allocation of Tasks to the Reviewers Name Status Criterion Other 1 X Chair 4 Introduction 2 Y Member 3 9 Z 5 6 P 7 8 Q 10
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Name X Criterion 1 Standard Evidence Remarks Score 1.1 1.2 Criterion 4 4.1 4.2 Name Y Y 3 9 Criterion 3 3.1 Criterion 9 Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Name X Meeting with the VC Relevant Standard Remarks 1.1 1.5 Meeting with Deans Relevanet Standard 4.1 4.2 Name Y Y 3 9 Criterion 3 Standard Evidence 3.1 Criterion 9 Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Name X Teaching Learning Facilities Lecture theaters Remarks 1 2 Laboratories 3 Name Y Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Name X Commendations Recommendations Name Y Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Criterion Raw criterion-wise score Max raw score Weightage on a 1000 scale Actual criterion-wise score Weighted min score 1 56 87 180 115.86 90 Yes 29 2 27 45 120 72.00 60 15 3 22 30 100 73.33 50 10 4 25 42 80 47.62 40 14 5 31 68.89 6 24 33 72.73 11 7 61 75 81.33 8 16 18 53.33 9 23 39 23.59 20 13 17 21 97.14 1000 705.83 A > 80 % 70.58 B 70 - 79 C 60 - 69 D <60 Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Reviewer Y (Uni. of A) Text to be added Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Reviewer Y (Uni. of A) No Name Status Criterion Other 2 Y Member 3 9 Introduction Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Reviewer Y (Uni. of A) Name X Criterion 1 Standard Evidence Remarks Score 1.1 1.2 Criterion 4 4.1 4.2 Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Chairperson (Uni. of A) Name X Meeting with the VC Relevant Standard Remarks 1.1 1.5 Meeting with Deans Relevanet Standard 4.1 4.2 Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Chairperson (Uni. of A) Name X Teaching Learning Facilities Lecture theaters Remarks 1 2 Laboratories 3 Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Chairperson (Uni. of A) Name X Commendations Recommendations Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Quality Assurance Council University Grants Commission Institutional Review Criterion Raw criterion-wise score Max raw score Weightage on a 1000 scale Actual criterion-wise score Weighted min score 1 56 87 180 115.86 90 Yes 29 4 25 42 80 47.62 40 14 A > 80 B 70 - 79 C 60 - 69 D <60 Chairperson (Uni. of A) Documentary Evidence Stakeholder Meetings Inspection of Facilities Recommendations Final Score
Thank you !