ROADSHOW MQA 2008 : KOD AMALAN AKREDITASI PROGRAM(CODE OF PRACTICE FOR PROGRMME ACCREDITATION, COPPA)
16 OKTOBER 2008 – 13 NOVEMBER 2008
SESI 3 : KERTAS 3
PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION
PROGRAMME ACCERITATION
Introduction
Programme Self Review
External Programme Evaluation
Accreditation Timeline
Evaluation Report
INTRODUCTION
Programme Accreditation
i) Provision AccreditationDocument MQA-01Part A : General Information on HEPPart B : Program DescriptionPart C : Program Standard
ii) Full AccreditationDocument MQA-02Part A : General Information on HEPPart B : Program DescriptionPart C : Program StandardPart D : Self Review Report
FULL ACCERITATION
Internal Quality Audit
Audit by HEP (Self Review)
External Quality Audit
Audit by external agency (MQA)
PROGRAMME SELF REVIEW(Internal Quality Audit)
Purpose:-
Full Accreditation
Maintenance Audit (one in once – three years)
Continual Quality Improvement
PROGRAMME REVIEW TASK FORCE(Internal Reviewers)
HEP forms a task force
ChairpersonMembersHeads of departmentsProgramme coordinatorsExternal examinersSenior or junior academicsAdministrative staffStudentsAlumniOther stakeholders
Responsibilities of Internal Reviewers
i. Plan and carry out assigned responsibilities effectively and efficiently
ii. Comply with the applicable audit requirements;
iii. Communicate and clarity audit requirements;
iv. Document the observations;
v. Retain and safeguard documents pertaining to the audit;
vi. Ensure such documents remain confidential;
vii. Treat privileged information with discretion; and
viii.Cooperate with, support, the chairperson
Specific Questions on Each of the Nine Area of Evaluation
i. What actions are we taking in relation to this areas?
ii. Why were these actions chosen?
iii. How do we check their effectiveness? What performance indicators do w have?
iv. Are the indicators effective?
v. What do we do as a result of the review?
vi. Can we measure the degree of achievements? What are the actual outcomes?
vii. Can we improve on the existing actions, even on those that are already effective?
DATA REVIEW
i. Work within the audit scope;
ii. Exercise objectivity;
iii. Analyse evidence that is relevant and sufficient to draw conclusion regarding the internal quality system;
iv. Remain alert to any indications of evidence that can influence that audit result that may require further inquiry;
v. Act in an ethical manner at all times;
vi. Constantly evaluate the observations and the personal interactions during the audit;
vii. Be able to answer such questions as:a) Are all document and other information
adequate to achieve quality objectives?b) Are the procedures and documents understood
and utilised by the department
viii. Analyse strengths, weakness and opportunities
ix. Arrive at objective conclusions based on the audit observations; and
x. Remain true to the conclusions irrespective of internal and external pressures to change them without objective basic
REPORTING
Focus on policies, processes, documentation, issues, strength, areas of concern and improvement;
Conclusions through interpretation of evidences and observed facts;
Outlines findingsCommendationsAffirmationsrecommendations
SELF REVIEW REPORT
Strength of programmes in meeting its goals;
Areas of concern that need to be addrvessed;
Strategies for maintaining an enhancing the strengths of the programme;
Steps that have been taken to address the problem areas; and
Conclusions and recommendations for improvement
THE EXTENAL PROGRAMME EVALUATION
Independent external evaluation by MQA for full accreditation of programme;
Evaluation is done by panel of assessors;
Assessment is bases on nine areas of evaluation for quality assurance;
The focus is on the achievement of the programme objectives and learning outcomes;
Judgement is based on evidences provided by HEP and panels own investigations
THE ROLE PLAYERS
a) The Liaison Officer
– Assist in making arrangements for appointment;
– Arrange accommodation and transportation of panel members;
– Assist in arranging agenda of visit;
– Assist in providing facilities for panel members
b) Representatives of the HEP
The Chief Executive Officer;
Key person in HEP responsible for the policy management and operation of quality system
The Head of department
The programme leader
Members of internal review committee
Members of board of department
Student leaders
Academic staff and cross-section of student of the programme
A selection of graduates, where appropriate
Leaders from industry and government relevant to the programme
c) The Chairperson of panel team
– responsible for the overall conduct of the external programme evaluation exercise
d) The Chairperson of panel team
– Assess the programme for compliance with the MQF, discipline standards and nine areas of evaluation as well as against the educational goals of the HEP and the programme
Week Activities and Responsibilities
1 HEP submit a complete application to MQAMQA
- records the application- assigns the application to the relevant officer- check whether the information submitted is complete- notifies the HEP that the evaluation process will commence
2 MQA- appoints members of panel of assessors (POA)- forwards the application to the POA
3 – 6 POA prepares the evaluation report(MQA, HEP and the POA agree on a date coordination meeting, if necessary)POA sends the evaluation report to MQA
PROVISIONAL ACCREDITATION TIMELINEA typical timeline for Provisional Accreditation
Week Activities and Responsibilities
7 – 8 (If a site visit is necessary, the visit will be carried out at this points)(Coordination meeting of HEP, MQA and the POA, if necessary)Chairman of the POA:
-collates the report of the panel members-sends the evaluation report to MQA
HEP submit a complete application to MQA9 – 10 HEP sends feedback on the evaluation report to MQA
11 – 14 MQA sends the feedback to Panel ChairmanChairman verifies the feedbackMQA Special Committee review the report for purpose of submission to the Accreditation CommitteeMQA table the report and the recommendation to the Accreditation Committee MeetingMQA grants Provisional Accreditation
Week Before Activities and Responsibilities
8 HEP submit a complete Full Accreditation application to MQAMQA
- records the application- assigns the application to the relevant officer- check whether the information submitted is complete- notifies the HEP that the evaluation process will commence
7 MQA submits the list of proposed assessors to the HEP
6 HEP sends response be MQA on the list proposed assessors MQA
- appoints the members of the POA- forwards the application to the POA
5 – 1 POA prepares the preliminary evaluation report(MQA, HEP and the POA agree on a date for evaluation visit to the HEPPOA preparatory meeting (refer to Section 4.5)POA sends the preliminary evaluation report to MQA
Full Accreditation TimelineThe Full Accreditation process can be divided into three main components: before, during and after
Before the Evaluation VisitA typical timeline prior to evaluation visit
Day Time Activity Persons Involver
1 0900-0930 POA Coordination Meeting
POA and HEP Liaison Officer
0930-1100 Meeting of Key Players Briefing by HEP
POA and HEP Senior Management and Programme Staff
1100-1130 POA Meeting POA
1130-1230 Campus Tour POA and Student Guide
1230-1400 Lunch and Document Review
POA
1400-1600 Meeting with Key Programme Staff
POA and Programme Staff
1600-1700 Review of Document POA
During the Evaluation VisitA typical schedule for an evaluation visit
Day Time Activity Persons Involver
2 0900-0930 POA Review Meeting POA and Liaison Officer0930-1100 Meeting with Programme
Team, Counsellors and Other Support Staff
POA Counsellors and Support Staff, Programme Team
1100-1230 Class Observation POA
1230-1430 Meeting with Students POA and Student
1430-1530 POA Review Meeting POA
1530-1600 Additional Meeting with the HEP Staff, if required. Review of Additional Document
POA and Relevant HEP Staff
1600-1630 POA Finalises Finding POA
1630-1700 Exit Meeting POA and HEP Representatives
The MQA acts the secretariat to the POA. An MQA officer will be involved in all above activities in that capacity as a resource person
Week After Activities and Responsibilities
1 – 2 Chairman of the POA :- collates the report of the panel members- sends the final report to MQA
3 – 4 MQA verifies the final report and sends it to the HEP5 – 6 HEP sends feedback on the evaluation report to MQA
7 – 10 MQA sends the feedback to Panel ChairmanChairman verifies the feedbackMQA Special Committee review the report for purpose of submission to the Accreditation CommitteeMQA table the report and the recommendation to the Accreditation Committee Meeting
11 – 12 MQA :- notifies the HEP- grand Accreditation
After the Evaluation VisitA typical schedule for an evaluation visit
THE PANEL OF ASSESSORSPREPARATORY MEETING
share each other’s view of the HEP’ssubmission in MQA-02;
determine the main issues for evaluation;
identify any further information, clarification or documentation required from the HEP; and
draft a timetable for the programmeevaluation visit
THE PANEL OF ASSESSORSPREPARATORY MEETING
The purpose of the visit:-
to test the statements, descriptions, conclusion and proposed improvement activities as presented in the Self Review Report;
to acquire further insight into the programme’soperations through first-hand investigation and personal interaction;
to allow a qualitative assessment of factors that cannot be easily documented in written from;
to inspect facilities related to programme
THE ORAL EXIT REPORT
The report is presented by the Chairperson at the end of the visit – Exit Meeting- Programme areas of strengths;- Areas of Concern- Opportunities for improvement
THE ORAL EVALUATION REPORT
Draft Report prepared by chairperson with help of panel members
Draft report is sent to HEP for correction of facts and emphasis
THE PANEL EVALUATION REPORT
Commendations (aspect of provision of the programame that are considered worthy of praise)
Affirmations (proposed improvements by the department on aspects of the programme, which panel believes significant and with it welcomes);
Recommendations to improve the programme
THE RESULT OF EVALUATION
The panel may propose:-
Grant accreditation without Condition
Grant Accreditation with :- Requirements- Conditions
Denial- Accreditation is not granted. Reasons for the denial
will be provided
MQA Accreditation Committee will make decision base on proposal by the panel assessors
All accreditation programmes will be registered in the Malaysia Qualification Register (MQR)
APPEALAll appeals can be made in relation to :
a) factual contests of the reports;
b) substantive errors within the report; or
c) any substantive inconsistency between the oral exit report, the final evaluation report and the decision of the MQA
Follow UPThe department will inform MQA as to the progress arising from the Evaluation Report. The purpose of the ongoing interaction is :
To get feedback on the Evaluation Report and the evaluation process, and on the extent to which the department considers the Report to be authoritative, rigorous, fair and perceptive;
To ensure corrective actions are taken if so required; and
To have a dialogue with those responsible for follow up action as to how the recommendations will be integrated into the HEP and department’s continual quality improvement plan