Workshop For Reviewers

1. Operating the Developmental Engagements WorkshopFor Reviewers Prof. Dr. Hala Salah Prof. 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.

4. First Session

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

10. The Developmental Engagement Process • Initial analysis by peer reviewers • Preparatory meeting by review chair • Engagements (site visit) verify and/or generate additional evidence • 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. 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

13. 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

14. PreliminaryActionby Institution 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

15. PreliminaryAction by Institution 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

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

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

18. 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

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

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

21. Peer reviewers code of conduct

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

23. Conduct of Review

24. Characteristics of Review Process Consistent • All institutions are treated equally. • Respects 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

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

26. ? QUESTIONS

27. 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.

28. Tips of good peer-reviewing • Communicate through the e-mail properly. • Be sure about you conclusionsand 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.

29. GOOD LUCK