1. 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

2. IR is done by Externally
Results of the Review ?

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 145 Scope of IR Governance and Management 29
Curriculum Design and Development 15
Teaching and Learning 10
Learning Resources
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
145

6. Activities during the site visit
Documentary evidence
Stakeholder Meetings
Inspection of Facilities

7. Documentary Evidence

8. Assigning a score

9. 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

10. Activities during the site visit
Documentary evidence
Stakeholder Meetings
Inspection of Facilities

11. Stakeholder Meetings
Key priorities of the university for future developments
Strategies for achieving the goals
Verification of documentary evidences provided in the SER

12. 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

13. Activities during the site visit
Documentary evidence
Stakeholder Meetings
Inspection of Facilities

14. MIS Login Page

15. Administrator Account

16. 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

17. 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

18. Chairperson Account

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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 C D
<60
Chairperson (Uni. of A)
Documentary Evidence
Stakeholder Meetings
Inspection of Facilities
Recommendations
Final Score

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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 C D
<60
Chairperson (Uni. of A)
Documentary Evidence
Stakeholder Meetings
Inspection of Facilities
Recommendations
Final Score

33. Thank you !