1. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEWS 2019 PRE-REVIEW WORKSHOP
5 July 2019

2. Time
Activity
8.30 – 9.30 am
Registration
9.30  am
Introduction: objectives of workshop, programme review process and role of reviewers
10.00 – am
Documentation: distribution of SERs, Declaration of Interests form, Letter of Appointment and Agreement with UGC
10.30 – am
Tea
10.45 – am
Desk evaluation
11.15 am – pm
Site visit schedule and effective use of meetings
12.00 – pm
Scoring standards and calculation of final grade
12.30 – 1.30 pm
Lunch
1.30 – 2.00 pm
Tentative dates for site visits
2.00 – 2.30 pm
Preliminary report, draft report and final report formats, deadlines for submission
2.30 – 3.00 pm
General discussion
3.00 pm
Tea and close

3. SESSION 1. INTRODUCTION

4. Objectives of workshop
Formal aspects
Hand over SERs to assigned review panels + letters of appointment
Signatures on Agreement with UGC
Agree on dates for site visits
Training aspects
Ensure that all reviewers know what is required of them in the EQA process conducted by the QA

5. Background
Third year of Institutional Reviews using current manual 2017 – Colombo, Sri Jayewardenepura, Visual & Performing Arts, Uva Wellassa 2018 – Jaffna and Wayamba 2019 – Moratuwa, Sabaragamuwa, OUSL, South Eastern 2020 – Ruhuna, Kelaniya

6. Role of reviewers in EQA
Reviewers are absolutely essential for the effectiveness and success of EQA
Need to work as a team, with Review Chair as the team leader
Tasks need to be divided up between team members before, during and after site visit
Only the initial desk evaluation is to be done individually

7. Reviewer profile – key characteristics
High degree of professional integrity and objectivity
An enquiring disposition
Ability to readily assimilate a large amounts of disparate information
Ability to make appropriate judgments in the context of complex institutions different from their own
Personal authority and presence
Ability to act as an effective team member
Good time management skills
Ability to give effective oral feedback

8. Reviewer profile, ctd.
Experience in organization and management, particularly in relation to teaching and learning matters
High standard of oral and written communication, preferably with experience in writing formal reports
Knowledge and understanding of the review topics, principles, and concepts
Knowledge of the special characteristics and conditions of the educational provision to be reviewed
Knowledge of quality assurance and quality enhancement procedures

9. Composition of review panels
Tried to include:
6 Members with expertise in broad fields of study relevant to HEI
Balance of
Review Experience,
Universities
& Gender
Took into account:
University affiliation of each reviewer
Concerns expressed by HEI under review

10. Institutional Review Process
Desk Evaluation of SER by reviewers
SITE VISIT TO VALIDATE CLAIMS IN SER
Preliminary report
Draft report
Comments from HEI on draft report
FINAL REPORT
FR edited and published by QAC
University’s Action Plan for implementation of recommendations

11. Deliverables required of reviewers
Individually:
Desk evaluation report
As a team:
2. Preliminary report (key findings)
3. Draft report
4. Final report

12. SESSION 2. DOCUMENTATION

13. SESSION 3. DESK EVALUATION OF SER

14. Deliverable 1.
Each reviewer is expected to assess the SER using a pre-formatted Excel file provided for this purpose
Assign scores for each standard, by comparing what is given in the SER and the best practice listed in the Manual
Make notes on any items that you would like clarified during the site visit
Not necessary to complete final summary sheet (i.e. award final grade)

15. Pre-formatted Excel file for IR scores
Save file with abbreviated name of university with your initials added at end
E.g. OUSL_NRdeS.xls, MRT_NRdeS
Excel file to QAC with copy to before pre-site visit meeting on 2 August
Bring copy to pre-site visit meeting, for discussion with rest of review panel

16. Questions?

17. SITE VISIT SCHEDULE AND EFFECTIVE USE OF MEETINGS

18. Role of Review Chair
Contact VC / Director IQAU ahead of site visit and agree on schedule for site visit
Decide on allocation of tasks in consultation with team members
Chairing and participating in meetings
Going through supporting documents for specific criteria / standards
Inspecting infrastructure and facilities
Writing up sections of draft report
Take the lead in initial and wrap-up meetings with VC
Compile and edit draft report
Submit final report as soft copies + one hard copy

19. Site visit schedule Duration – 5.5 days
Programme should be broadly agreed upon prior to site visit
Generic format of site visit schedule provided by QAC should be modified to suit requirements of University, and any contingencies that emerge during site visit

20. Effective use of meetings: ‘DO’s
Use meetings as an opportunity to triangulate evidence presented in documentary form
Go prepared with list of questions that need to be answered by participants in each meeting
Make a note of specific questions in relation to the criteria and standards assigned to him /her
Use open-ended questions to start with, and specific questions when clarity is needed
Be punctual and stay with the agreed program for meetings
Keep attendance records and written notes of all discussions

21. Effective use of meetings: DON’T s
Don’t allow one or two persons to dominate a meeting with a group
Don’t get distracted into discussions that are irrelevant to the IR
Don’t go beyond the time allocated for the meeting, and get late for the next one, and the next…

22. Questions?

23. SCORING EACH STANDARD AND CALCULATION OF FINAL GRADE

24. = = = 145 Standards Programme Review Quality Framework Criterion 1 2 36 7 8 9 10
Number of
Standards 29 15 10 14 11 25 6 13 7
Programme Review Quality Framework = = =
145
Standards

25. Assigning Scores for Standards

26. Guidance for decision-making
Question 1. What is the recommended best practice for this standard as stated in the Institutional Review Manual? Question 2. What is the claim made by the University regarding their own practice(s) as stated in SER? Question 3. What evidence does the University provide to support this claim, as stated in the SER? Question 4. Do the Panel’s observations during the site visit support the claim?

27. 1. Degree of internalization of best practices and level of achievement of Standards
2. Degree to which the claims are supported by documented evidence
3. Accuracy of the data and statements made in the SER

28. Claim of internalization of best practice Meets standard
Evidence sufficient to support claim
3 marks
Evidence not sufficient to support claim
1 or 2 marks
Below standard
1 mark
No claim of achievement
0 marks

29. Calculation of final grade
Raw scores will be automatically converted to weighted actual scores on Excel file (Worksheet entitled ‘Summary scores’) For each criterion, check if the weighted actual score is above the weighted minimum score Check on total actual score Use table provided in worksheet entitled ‘Summary scores’ to determine final grade

30. Award of final grade Criterion-wise actual score
Total actual score (%)
Grade
Equal to or more than the minimum weighted score for all ten criteria A B C
<60 D
Equal to or more than the minimum weighted score for nine of the ten criteria
Equal to or more than the minimum weighted score for eight of the ten criteria
Irrespective of minimum weighted criterion scores

31. Final grade Grade descriptors A Very good B Good C Satisfactory D
Review panel must decide on final scores and grade together during last session on Day 6
Convey main findings (criterion by criterion) during final wrap-up meeting
First talk about observed strengths (commendations)
Then talk about observed weaknesses and recommendations for improvement
Grade descriptors A
Very good B
Good C
Satisfactory D
Unsatisfactory

32. Questions?

33. SESSION 4. DATES FOR SITE VISIT

34. SESSION 5. TEAM REPORTS

35. DELIVERABLE 2. PRELIMINARY REPORT
Completed Excel file + Word document with brief details of programme under review
Review Chair to submit to DQAC by , within 2 weeks of completing the site visit

36. Format of preliminary report: title page
Institutional Reviews 2019
conducted by the
Quality Assurance Council
University Grants Commission, Sri Lanka
 PRELIMINARY REPORT
University:
Review Panel:
Site Visit Dates:

37. Format of preliminary report: contents
Section 1. Background (half to one page)
When the university was started:
Number of Students in university at present - breakdown by Faculty and year of study:
Maximum number of students enrolled in the last five years:
Numbers graduated from the university over the past five years
Section 2. Criterion-wise strengths and weaknesses
Criterion 1: Governance and Management
Strengths:
Weaknesses:
Criterion 2: Curriculum design & development
Criterion 3 etc

38. Format of preliminary report: contents, ctd.
Section 3. Final evaluation No
Criterion
Weighted minimum score*
Actual criterion-wise score 1
Governance and Management 90 2
Curriculum Design and Development 60 3
Teaching and Learning 50 4
Learning Resources, Student Support and Progression 40 5
Student Assessment and Awards 6
Strength and Quality of Staff 7
Postgraduate studies, Research, Innovation and Commercialization 8
Community Engagement, Consultancy and Outreach 30 9
Distance Education 20 10
Quality Assurance
Total score (out of 1000)
Total score (out of 100)
Final grade:

39. DELIVERABLE 3. DRAFT REPORT
Format set out in Institutional Review Manual (p 103–106)
Section 1: Introduction to university
Section 2: Observations on SER
Section 3: Description of review process
Section 4: University’s approach to quality and standards
Section 5: Judgment on each of the 10 criteria
Section 6: Grading of overall performance
Section 7: Commendations and recommendations
Section 8: Summary
Annexures

40. Format of Draft Report: cover page
University logo on left
UGC logo on right
Details of the IR on top with the year and dates of review
Photograph of University
Names of reviewers below photo
Name-UGC and QAC bottom of page

41. Format of draft report: signature page
Scanned copy of page with signatures to be inserted after cover page
University:
Review Panel:
Name Signature
Date:

42. Format of draft report
List of Contents should include relevant pages of each Section and Criterion (1-10/1-8)
Each main Section (1-8) to be started on a new page, with heading aligned centre and subheadings left aligned
Font and size
Calibri font 14 (bold) for main Section headings
Calibri font 13 (bold) for sub-headings
Calibri font 12 for text in paragraphs
Text colour: black
Line Spacing
Main Section headings and text – 3.0
Subheadings and content – 2.0
Paragraphs – 1.5
Sentences in paragraphs – 1.15

43. Annexures Annexures must include: final schedule for site visit
all attendance sheets from meetings
Optional: additional photographs taken during site visit (reduce file size)

44. Format of draft report ctd
Numbering of tables and figures: Have the number of the section and relevant number of the section: e.g.1.1, 2.3 
Capitalization in text: use only for abbreviations and as recommended for names of people, departments, universities, etc.
Word limit: 12,000 words

45. Submission of Draft Report to QAC
Deadline for submission to QAC (by , as Word document): within 6 weeks of completing site visit
Draft report will be ed by DQAC to VC, for corrections / comments (together with Excel file in Preliminary Report), to be sent back within 3 weeks

46. DELIVERABLE 4. FINAL REPORT
Comments from VC will be sent to Review Chair, for consideration in finalizing the report in consultation with the Panel
Final Report may be the same as the draft report, if no amendments are requested
If the Review Panel considers it appropriate, comments from the VC should be incorporated as changes to the draft
Review Chair is required to submit the Final Report in soft copy (Word and pdf formats) and a single hard copy

47. Publication of Final Report
Final Report will be sent back to VC prior to publication
Minor factual errors may require correction; but no major changes
Final Report is sent to one of a panel of editors prior to publication
Edited Final Report will be uploaded to QAC website and sent to VC
University is required to prepare an Action Plan for implementation of recommendations in report

48. Access to document formats etc

49. Questions?