1. Workshop For Reviewers Operating the Developmental Engagements Prof. Dr. Hala SalahProf. Dr. Hoda ELTalawy

2. Objectives Recognize the first developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members are familiar with the process and confident about their roles

3. Reviewers will be able to Refresh their knowledge. Identify the minimum requirements for a sound evidence base evaluations. Consider at operational level the part they play in the preparations required for an effective site-visit. Develop appropriate report-writing techniques.

5. Refreshing the method Key elements. Use of Handbook. Any questions

6. Faculty Mission FACULTY MISSION Faculty decides on programmes to be offered Annual faculty report against mission Programme specification curriculum Programme report Course specification, contents, teaching assessment reduces Course report Course runs

7. The purposes of DE Transitional phase to accreditation Enhancement agenda Builds upon the annual self-studies and the development projects Evaluation of the effectiveness of Quality Assurance system and processes Evaluation of the robustness of evidence base (internal reporting)

8. The Evaluation Framework Academic Standards  Intended learning outcomes  Curriculum  Student assessment  Student achievement Quality of Learning opportunities  Teaching and learning  Student support  Learning resources Research and other scholarly activity Community Involvement Effectiveness of Quality Management and Enhancement  Governance and leadership  Quality assurance system  Self-evaluation, plans and impact

9. The Developmental Engagement Process o The evidence base starts with the products of internal reviews Annual faculty report (+) Strategic review report (self-study) Supporting documentation o Planning of developmental engagement By NQAAC By review chair By institution and facilitator By peer reviewers

10. The Developmental Engagement Process o Initial analysis by peer reviewers o Preparatory meeting by review chair o Engagements (site visit) verify and/or generate additional evidence o Conclusions, feedback and report-writing

11. Preliminary Action by NQAAA In sequence 1- Identification of subject sectors to be reviewed within a given time slot and institutions to be reviewed. 2- Notification to Institution of intention to Review 3- Institution informs NQAAA of subject specialisms within the provision

12. 4- Selection of peer reviewers and acceptance by ' institution 5- Institution sends agreed documentation to NQAAA 6-8 weeks prior to first day of review. 6- QAAA makes documentation available to Chairman

13. Preparation of documentation for review, including * Initial submission to NQAAA * Documentation (B) to be sent to review team in advance of the review * Documentation to be made available to review team during review * Preparation of academic staff to respond to review * Allocation of responsibility for aspects of the review Preliminary Action by Institution

14. Peer reviewers essential specifications: - Sufficient status and academic reputation. - Evaluative skills. - At least 5 yr. projects within the last 10 yr. - Proven abilities in communication. -Analysis of data, verification and reconciliation tech.

15. Discipline expert Team work skills Credibility with subject area No conflict of interest

16. Peer reviewers desirable specifications - IT skills. - Recent experience in external examining. - Effective practice in curricula development. - Acknowledged track record in research - Recognized contribution to the community

17. What are the key criteria for the team composition?

18.  Meet personal specification. Consultation Reviewer  Balance of interests.  Potential conflicts. Professional practice Relevant perceptives Final allocation  Team no. & leader.

19. Peer reviewers code of conduct

20. - Assignment on time with high professional standard. - Respect the confidentiality of the review process. - Offering constructive comments on their experiences as reviewers. - Courtesy to all colleagues’ views and opinions. - Respects the institution mission.

21. Conduct of Review

22. Characteristics of Review Process Consistent All institutions are treated equally. Respect the institution’s mission and chosen aims Conforms with protocols outlined in handbook Carried out by peers Is collegial in nature and constructive Is open and transparent Good preparation by all parties is absolutely essential

23. Benefits Testing the developing systems and processes Dialogue with peers Receiving external structured comments Agenda for further improvement

24. ? QUESTIONS

25. Tips of good peer-reviewing Work with the spirit of a team work. Have a consensuses. We are not inspectors. We help the Faculty to have successful DE phase that will end in accreditation. Respect the Faculty’s pride. Do not suggest any solutions for the Faculty.

26. Tips of good peer-reviewing Communicate through the e-mail properly. Be sure about you conclusions and have an evidence for each. Be sure that the report is correct, clear, fair, and balanced. Editing. Be ready to do the correction needed to release the second,third,and final report.