standards and guidelines for quality audits

DRAFT

QUALITY ASSURANCE AUTHORITY

STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR

QUALITY AUDITS

2

Publishing details

3

Foreword

4

Abbreviations

EQA: External Quality Assurance

HAQAA: Harmonisation of African Higher Education Quality Assurance and Accreditation

HEI: Higher Education Institution

IQA: Internal Quality Assurance

MIS: Management of Information

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

NQF: National Qualifications Framework

ODL: Open Distance Learning

QA: Quality Assurance

QAA: Quality Assurance Authority

5

Table of Contents Foreword 3

Abbreviations 4

1. INTRODUCTION 9

2. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE 11

2.0 Introduction 11

2.1 Standard 1: Quality Assurance Policy 11

2.2 Standard 2: Strategic Intent 12

2.3 Standard 3: Governance and Management 12

2.4 Standard 4: Management of Financial Resources 13

2.5 Standard 5: Human Resources 14

2.6 Standard 6: Infrastructure and Facilities 15

2.7 Standard 7: Student Services 15

2.8 Standard 8: Programme Development, Monitoring and Review 17

2.9 Standard 9: Teaching, Learning and Assessment 19

2.9.1 Teaching and Learning 19

2.9.2 Assessment 20

2.10 Standard 10: Research and Innovation 20

Standard 10.1 Institutional Commitment to Research 21

Standard 10.2 Innovative Research for Community Development and Industry 21

Standard 10.3 Programme Level Research 22

2.11 Standard 11: Management of Information 22

2.12 Standard 12: Public Communication 23

2.13 Standard 13: Community Engagement and Outreach 24

2.14 Standard 14: Collaborations 24

3. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR EXTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE 26

3.0 Introduction 26

3.1 Standard 1: Objectives of External Quality Assurance and Consideration for Internal Quality

Assurance 26

3.2 Standard 2: Designing External Quality Assurance Mechanisms Fit for Purpose 27

3.3 Standard 3: Implementation Processes of External Quality Assurance 27

3.4 Standard 4: Independence of Evaluation 28

3.5 Standard 5: Decision and Reporting of External Quality Assurance Outcomes 28

3.6 Standard 6: Periodic Review of Institutions 29

3.7 Standard 7: Complaints and Appeals 30

4. INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE QUALITY ASSURANCE AUTHORITY 31

6

4.0 Introduction 31

4.1 Standard 1: Legal Status 31

4.2 Standard 2: Strategic Planning 31

4.3 Standard 3: Governance and Management 32

4.4 Standard 4: Independence of QAA 32

4.5 Standard 5: Policies, processes and activities 33

4.6 Standard 6: Internal Quality Assurance 33

4.7 Standard 7: Financial and Human Resources 34

4.8 Standard 8: Benchmarking, Networking and Collaboration 35

4.9 Standard 9: Periodic Review of QAA 35

5. THE AUDIT PROCESS 36

5.0 Introduction 36

5.1 Preparation 36

5.1.1 Self-Evaluation by the HEI 36

5.1.2 Panel selection 37

5.1.3 Finalise Audit Date 37

5.2 Preliminary phase 38

5.2.1 Preliminary analysis 38

5.2.2 Logistics 38

5.2.3 Pre-Audit Visit 38

5.2.4 Audit Portfolio Meeting 39

5.3 The Audit Visit 39

5.3.1 Interviews 40

5.3.2 Open Sessions 41

5.3.3 Panel deliberations 41

5.3.4 Exit meeting 41

5.4 Reporting the outcome 42

5.4.1 Fairness, accuracy and balance 42

5.4.2 Mounting of Report 43

5.4.3 Approval of QAA Board 43

5.4.4 Public disclosure of outcome 43

5.4.5 Feedback from HEI and Panel 43

5.4.6 Complaints and Appeal 43

5.5 Follow-up 44

5.6 Audit Time-line 44

6. INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION 47

7

6.0 Introduction 47

6.1 Attitudinal approach to institutional self-evaluation 47

6.2 Managing the institutional self-evaluation exercise 47

6.3 Identification and Collection of Data and Evidences 48

6.4 The Self-Evaluation Report 48

6.5 Submission of the SER 49

6.6 Content of the SER 49

6.6 1 Part A of the SER 50

6.6 2 Part B of the SER 51

6.7 Mock Audit 52

6.8 Continuous Quality Enhancement 53

7. AUDIT SCOPE 54

7.0 Introduction 54

7.1 Audit Principles 54

7.2 Audit Scope 54

7.3 Content and Heading of the Self-Evaluation Report: 55

7.3.1 Quality Assurance Policy 55

7.3.2 Strategic Intent 56

7.3.3 Governance and Management 57

7.3.5 Human Resources 58

7.3.6 Infrastructure and Facilities 59

7.3.7 Student Services 60

7.3.8 Programme Development, Management and Review 61

7.3.9 Teaching, Learning and Assessment 62

7.3.10 Research and Innovation 63

7.3.11 Management of Information 64

7.3.12 Public Communication 65

7.3.13 Community Engagement and Outreach 65

7.3.14 Collaborations 66

8. GUIDELINES FOR REPORT WRITING 67

8.0 Introduction 67

8.1 Structure of the Report 67

8.2 Report Writing - Stages and Time-Frame 70

8.3 Report Writing Style 71

8.4 Responsibility: The Writer and the Contributors 71

8.5 Copyright 71

8

9. FOLLOW-UP ON THE AUDIT REPORT 72

9.0 Introduction 72

9.1. Action Plan (3 months after the Audit) 72

9.2 Progress Reports (Every 6 months after the submission of the Action Plan) 72

9.3 Mid-Cycle Review (2 years after the release of the Audit Report) 73

9.3.1 Mid-Cycle Portfolio 73

9.3.2 Mid-Cycle Review Visit (not later than 2 months after the submission of the Mid-Cycle

Portfolio) 73

9.3.3 Mid-Cycle Report (1 month after the Mid-Cycle Review Visit) 74

9.4 Outcome of the Mid-Cycle Review 75

APPENDICES 76

Appendix 1: Conflict of Interest Disclosure 76

Appendix 2: Template for Preliminary Analysis 77

Appendix 3: Model Audit Programme 79

Appendix 4: Terms of Reference 82

Participation of Observers in Audit Panels 82

Terms of Reference for Chairperson of the Audit Panel 83

Terms of Reference for Panel Members 84

Terms of Reference for the Audit Secretary 84

Appendix 5: Template to Advertise Open Session 86

Appendix 6: Feedback Forms 87

Audit Respondent Feedback Questionnaire 87

Panel Member Feedback Form 89

Appendix 7: Template Progress Report 98

Appendix 8: ADRI Model 100

Appendix 9: Appeal Policy 102

Appendix 10: Policy on Confidentiality 103

9

1. INTRODUCTION

The Quality Assurance Authority (QAA) is a statutory body, established under The Higher

Education Act 2017 (Act No. 23 of 2017) in the Republic of Mauritius, to promote, maintain

and enhance high quality assurance standards of Higher Education, through appropriate

mechanisms. By virtue of the Higher Education Act, the QAA is mandated inter alia to carry

out quality audits of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs).

In Higher Education, a quality audit aims to determine whether the HEI has effective systems

in place to achieve improved outcomes. A quality audit is an instrument used by quality

agencies to evaluate the extent to which HEIs are meeting their intended objectives. Agencies

use a quality audit as a quality assurance method to evaluate the performance of HEIs through

an established process of dialogue between the agency and the HEI. The quality audit uses the

fitness-for-purpose approach to evaluate institutional processes and outcomes and to identify

best practices.

A quality audit has been widely implemented internationally and is considered an effective

instrument which balances both accountability and improvement. A quality audit uses a self-

evaluative methodology which promotes institutional capacity for self-regulation, hence

enabling HEIs to develop and consolidate their internal quality assurance structures and

processes. Flexibility and adaptability are two prominent features of this method which enable

its use in diverse institutional settings and contexts.

The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Audits is a comprehensive document which sets out

to guide HEIs as well as the Audit Panel on how to approach the quality audit, the processes

and procedures to follow and the intended outcomes for each stage of the quality audit process.

This document contains several sets of guidelines and a detailed write-up about the audit

process, audit time-lines, the mid-cycle review and follow-up on quality audit reports. The use

of quality audits, as detailed in these guidelines, provides for a comprehensive approach for

external quality assurance (EQA), by means of which HEIs will be guided throughout their

quality audit cycle, about the essential requirements and best practices to set up and maintain

their internal quality assurance (IQA).

The objective of the QAA is to use quality audits to build capacity for internal self-regulation

within HEIs and for continuous internal quality monitoring and enhancement. The Quality

Audit Report of the QAA will relate to the specific context of each HEI and make

commendations and recommendations about quality assurance of the institutions. After the

publication of a Quality Audit Report, HEIs are expected to continue with quality

improvements and implement the recommendations contained in their respective Audit Report.

The follow-up on the Audit Report involves a multi-stage reporting process which includes the

preparation of an Action Plan by the HEI, submission of progress reports on implementation

of the Action Plan and a Mid-Cycle Review, which will close the loop on all the

recommendations contained in the Quality Audit Report.

10

A Mid-Cycle Review is carried out two years after the Quality Audit to allow the institution

enough time to consolidate its IQA mechanisms and address the recommendations of the audit.

The Mid-Cycle Review will determine if the HEI has successfully achieved the requirements

of the QAA on the recommendations made. Hence, the Mid-Cycle Review is a platform

through which HEIs will be required to demonstrate their fitness for purpose to ascertain

sustainable continuity of operations within the quality assurance framework of the QAA.

The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Audits and QAA approach to quality audit was

developed on the model of the African Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance of the

African Union as well as international best practices of other quality assurance agencies such

as the Oman Accreditation Council; the Council for Higher Education, South Africa; the Hong

Kong Quality Assurance Agency and the European Network for Quality Assurance. The

approach of the QAA, as contained in this document, aims at aligning itself with the

Harmonisation of African Higher Education Quality Assurance and Accreditation (HAQAA)

initiative of the African Union.(HAQAA-Initiative, 2008, QAC, 2010, ENQA, 2015, CHE,

2007)

So as to remain committed to continuous quality improvement, the QAA requires that all HEIs

structure, equip and maintain their IQA system in accordance with the Standards and

Guidelines for Internal Quality Assurance and develop a sound institutional culture for quality.

The Standards and Guidelines for External Quality Assurance of HEIs are prescribed for

auditors of the QAA and aim at harmonizing the QAA’s approach with Quality Audits.

Accordingly, HEIs and Audit Panels are required to be guided by the Standards and Guidelines

for Quality Audits, throughout their quality audit journey.

11

2. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR

INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE

2.0 Introduction

This section presents the standards and guidelines for IQA which are considered essential for

HEIs to provide quality Higher Education. The aim of the IQA is to help HEIs to ultimately

become self-reliant in order to ensure the quality of their provisions and continuous institutional

enhancement. The QAA will work closely and regularly with the HEIs to enable them, through

the IQA, to effectively meet the standards set out in this document in line with their institutional

strategy. The IQA will also be the basic instrument which will help QAA panel members to

carry out Quality Audits effectively.

2.1 Standard 1: Quality Assurance Policy

Standard

The HEI shall have an institutional Quality Assurance Policy, which shall be made public,

to guide a culture of quality by engaging internal and external stakeholders through

appropriate structures and processes.

Guidelines

A Quality Assurance Policy guides the internal quality assurance system and is aligned with

the HEI strategic plan. It contributes to the accountability of the HEI in ensuring continuous

improvement at all levels through policies and processes, and by engaging internal stakeholders

who will take ownership of Quality Assurance.

The HEI shall ensure that:

● An internal quality assurance system is institutionalised, equipped with an appropriate

structure and a multiplicity of internal processes;

● Internal stakeholders are committed to, and engaged in, upholding the standards, as

prescribed by the internal quality assurance system;

● The policy covers elements of the institution’s activities which are outsourced to, or

carried out by, other parties;

● The policy supports academic integrity and freedom and is cautious about academic

fraud;

● The policy protects students and staff against any kind of discrimination;

● The policy is updated and remains relevant;

● There are continuous monitoring and periodic reviews of programmes to ensure they

respond to the needs of students and society;

12

● The internal quality assurance system drives quality enhancement, and the same is

reflected in the outcomes of quality audits and mid-cycle reviews.

2.2 Standard 2: Strategic Intent

Standard

The HEI shall demonstrate its commitment to continuous quality enhancement through

appropriate strategic planning.

Guidelines

The institutional strategic plan:

● Must be published and accessible to the public;

● Must reflect the needs and aspirations of all stakeholders and clearly indicate

strategic and operational development plans.

The institution shall ensure that it has in place a robust and well-functioning QA system for its

entire activities, facilitating the coordination of the approval of policies, procedures and

mechanisms and finding ways to improve performance. The institution shall, therefore, ensure

that:

● Its Vision and Mission statements and strategic objectives reflect commitment

to quality enhancement;

● Core functions (e.g. strategic, institutional, academic and financial) of the

institution are coordinated through effective planning to ensure the quality of

academic outcomes;

● Medium and long-term plans reflect the programmes being offered, as well as the

institutional research focus to ensure sustainability and continuous improvement;

● Plans are formulated collegially and promote a high degree of institutional integrity

and responsiveness to change, and are known to stakeholders;

● Provide for self-assessment of core functions for continuous improvement.

2.3 Standard 3: Governance and Management

Standard

The HEI shall have clearly-stated governance and management structures to ensure

rigorous and ethical management of its activities.

Guidelines


● A culture of quality is in place, supported and managed by qualified and competent

leadership, appointed in key positions;

13

● The mandate, duties, responsibilities, powers, privileges and tenure of the governance

and management bodies are clearly defined in the Charter of the institution, and their

performance is regularly assessed for efficiency, effectiveness and quality;

● Policies and procedures for the delegation of authority are in place, as required;

● Students participate actively in decision-making in the relevant governance bodies;

● There are regular consultations with stakeholders, reports and follow-up actions on key

issues of policy and operations to promote quality, cohesion, harmony and identity

within the institution;

● Ethics, transparency and academic integrity are emphasized in all governing instances

and decision-making processes;

● There is a high degree of institutional integrity and responsiveness by advocating and

demonstrating honesty and non-discrimination in the institution’s treatment of staff,

students and members of the public and in the management of institutional affairs;

● Information (qualitative and quantitative) is impartial, objective and disseminated on a

regular basis;

● Effective regulations and internal mechanisms are in place for deterring, detecting and

dealing with misconduct by students or staff;

● Conflict of interest is managed through institutional policies and ethical practices;

● Mechanisms are in place to investigate complaints, grievances and appeals made by

students, staff and other stakeholders.

2.4 Standard 4: Management of Financial Resources

Standard

The HEI shall have adequate financial resources and prudent financial management that

are aligned to its mission, objectives and mandate to ensure quality education.

Guidelines

Financial sustainability is the backbone of any institution, and adequate financial resources and

prudent financial management should be managed within an approved framework of

institutional strategies, policies and procedures, which enable the institution to meet its

financial needs so as to ensure quality academic outcomes.

The HEI shall have:

● Adequate financial resources to carry out its mandate and objectives effectively and

efficiently;

● A diversified financial and sustainable resource base, and the institution shall ensure

a balanced allocation of resources and funds to core functions of teaching and

learning, research, and community engagement;

● A prudent financial management system, which includes strategies, policies and

procedures for budgeting, resource allocation, repairs and maintenance of

infrastructure, asset management, debt management and financial reporting;

14

● A system to address the risks, gaps and challenges identified for continuous

improvement; and

● Monitoring, evaluation and benchmarking processes for the financial management

system, using international best practices and an accounting basis appropriate for

the institution in line with the Mauritian legal requirements.

2.5 Standard 5: Human Resources

Standard

The HEI’s Human Resources Policies shall support the achievement of its strategic

objectives, ensure a healthy work environment for its staff and prioritise high quality

higher education.

Guidelines


● It has clear policies and procedures that ensure equal opportunities for recruitment and

retention of staff based on qualifications, competence and skills;

● There are employment agreements with staff in place, and these conform to

the legislative requirements in Mauritius;

● It conducts periodic HR needs analysis to ensure that staff are qualified and competent

in line with the capability requirements in the strategic plan;

● It employs a core of full-time staff (academic and non-academic) and there are

mechanisms in place to monitor staff planning, staffing pattern and qualifications

requirements as well as turnover rates;

● Professional development of staff (both full-time and part-time) is well supported to

ensure the upgrading of qualifications and expertise in line with the requirements of the

HEI;

● There are clearly-defined policies and processes in place for performance appraisal,

promotion, motivation and reward of staff;

● Staff evolve in a conducive work environment which promotes well-being;

● It has a Framework for dealing with staff harassment;

● The qualifications of academic staff and their experience are commensurate with their

teaching assignments.

15

2.6 Standard 6: Infrastructure and Facilities

Standard:

The HEI shall have a physical and academic environment that is conducive to teaching

and learning with the appropriate infrastructure, facilities and resources supporting

research and other scholarly activities.

Guidelines


● A range of resources to assist students’ learning for an apt higher education

experience, with adequately maintained physical environment, is provided for

at all times;

● The infrastructural set-up and facilities are in line with the aims and objectives

of the institution, including practical and experiential learning facilities, in line

with Industrial Revolution 4.0 and beyond;

● Ancillary and spatial facilities are available for all its core and support

functions;

● Equipment is adequate, up-to-date, readily available and used optimally;

● Facilities, including specialist facilities, are in compliance with Health and

Safety laws and standards so that health hazards are minimised at all times.

● The facilities are accessible for persons with disabilities;

● If engaged in open, distance and blended learning, an appropriate virtual

learning environment is available.

2.7 Standard 7: Student Services

Standard:

The HEI shall put in place policies, structures and mechanisms to support and monitor

the students’ lifecycle (academic and non-academic) through optimum, up-to-date,

efficient resources and processes.

Guidelines:

The HEI shall ensure the following:

1. Student Recruitment & Admission

● Provision is made for the communication of reliable information and advisory

services to potential students during the recruitment phase;

● Admission requirements are in line with applicable government policies and fit for

the programme it is intended for;

16

● Student recruitment is made exclusively on merit and no capitation fee or donation

shall be made to the HEI, its governing body or its owners for the granting of

admission to a programme;

● Policies regarding recruitment of international students should be published;

● All fees, as applicable, charged by the institution, shall be published in a transparent

manner and the HEI shall issue a receipt against all payments received, including

electronic payment;

● Fees for foreign students charged by any HEI or its agent shall be clearly

communicated on the website of the institution, student contract and student

handbook;

● Admission to professional programmes takes into consideration the eligibility

requirements of the professional councils in Mauritius and in the country of origin

of foreign students;

● Provision is made for the recognition of prior learning and access to mature

students;

● There are mechanisms in place for admitting students with alternative

qualifications, and their equivalence is determined by the competent authority;

● There is an induction programme in place for new students to become acquainted

with the institution.

2. Student Progression

● Quality enhancement processes are developed to continuously and effectively

collect, compile, analyse data on students’ admission, progression, performance and

success;

● The institution has a system of tracking students in order to identify those in need

of help. Timely support is provided to students who need help to minimise drop-

outs and maximise student progression and graduation rates;

● Appropriate feedback mechanisms are institutionalised to monitor and improve

student progression.

3. Certification

● The governing bodies of the HEIs or awarding institutions shall have direct

oversight on the security aspects of certification and shall ensure that mechanisms

are in place for verification and counter-verification of information prior to

certification;

● Rigorous and secured processes and mechanisms are in place to ensure the safety

of awards;

● There are mechanisms in place to counter-verify the handling of students’ marks

and the award of certificates;

● A code of ethics is in place and officers, handling students’ marks, maintain

confidentiality and integrity in the performance of their duties;

● Rigorous processes are in place for the storage of students’ records and the issuing

of certificates;

17

● At the end of their studies, students are provided with the documentation and

transcripts explaining the qualification obtained, the level, content and grades

obtained;

● Certificates/awards of the HEI shall contain a hologram/digital chip or any other

means to discourage counterfeit practices.

4. Student Support

● Students are provided with the core higher educational resources and a wide range

of ancillary resources and services to support and assist them throughout their

student life-cycle. Such support shall inter alia include:

● Academic support services;

● Curricular choice and career guidance;

● Assistance for placements;

● Assistance to students with special needs;

● Scholarships and financial support;

● Health and personal counselling services;

● Grievance procedures;

● Framework for dealing with student harassment;

● Social and recreational services;

● International student services (if applicable).

2.8 Standard 8: Programme Development, Monitoring and

Review

Standard

The HEI shall have policies and processes in place for the development, monitoring,

approval and review of outcome-based programmes in line with the National

Qualifications Framework and international standards.

Guidelines:


● Programme development is informed by market research;

● It has clearly defined policies, procedures and processes to develop new

programmes which address the needs of relevant stakeholders;

● The programme objectives and outcomes are clearly defined and reflected in the

content and assessment of modules;

● The outcomes, content, teaching and learning strategies and assessment methods in

the programme are aligned with, and appropriate for, the level and purpose of the

programme;

● Programmes are systematically monitored and evaluated for their relevance and

demand to ensure that they are aligned with local and international standards and

needs;

18

● Mechanisms and procedures for programme development, monitoring and review

are consistent across the institution and include the active participation and

contributions of students, staff, industry-professionals, professional bodies, alumni

and any other relevant stakeholders (these may include staff from other HEIs);

● Systematic and rigorous processes are in place for the monitoring and approval of

programmes by the governing instances;

● The programme structure, curriculum design and credit-load allocation are based

on national, regional and international standards;

● The programme content (depth, breath, scope and values) are aligned with the

National Qualifications Framework and the National Credit Value and Transfer

System;

● The roles and responsibilities of each of the parties involved in the programme

design and review processes are clearly defined and are communicated to all

concerned parties;

● In the case of professional programmes, work-based learning should form an

integral part of the curriculum, and, where appropriate, placement in a work-based

environment is an essential component of the programme;

● Programmes are approved/accredited by the competent accrediting organisations

and Professional Bodies, where applicable (professional programmes);

● Legal agreements are in place to formalise inter-institutional programmes and

articulation arrangements, the responsibilities of all parties are clearly defined with

respect to teaching and learning, academic standards, quality assurance and the

award of the programmes;

● Competent and experienced individuals are involved in programme development,

monitoring and review;

● Human Resources planning is an integral part of programme development;

● There are processes in place to periodically evaluate and improve the policies,

processes and procedures for programme development, monitoring and review;

● There are mechanisms in place for the benchmarking of programmes with

comparable HEIs overseas;

● There are appropriate mechanisms for pre-testing or piloting the learning resources

in order to ascertain appropriateness in terms of contents, level of the programmes

and user-friendliness.

19

2.9 Standard 9: Teaching, Learning and Assessment

Standard

The HEI shall have policies and procedures that promote high standards of learner-

centred teaching practices and transparent outcome-based assessments for all its

programmes, irrespective of the modes of delivery.

HEIs, offering ODL or mixed-mode programmes, shall have in place appropriate

mechanisms, resources, technology and internal quality assurance procedures for their

effective delivery.

Guidelines

2.9.1 Teaching and Learning

To ascertain a student-centred the HEI shall ensure that:

● Mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship is encouraged;

● The institution uses student-centred teaching methods in order to promote

deep learning;

● The institution reviews its teaching methods on a regular basis;

● A system of outcome-based learning is in place and has been aligned with the

requirements of the National Qualifications Framework;

● It has appropriate teaching and learning strategies to effectively achieve the

learning outcomes by engaging students through critical thinking, independent

and autonomous learning, among others;

● Different modes of delivery are used, where appropriate, and regular evaluation

and adjustments are made;

● Provision is made for the periodic evaluation and monitoring of teaching for

quality improvement through peer mechanisms and appropriate feedback

mechanisms by students on their learning experience;

● Students are supported in their learning through tutorials, as required;

● Students’ progress and success are closely and continuously monitored through

an appropriate Student Information System;

● Exposure to industry, employability standards and the world of work is

integrated in the learning activities through appropriate mechanisms, such as

work-based placement, industrial visits, seminars, etc.;

● Teaching strategies are flexible and respect the varying needs, abilities and

learning pace of students;

● Teaching methods and learning experiences are up to date and aligned with the

specificities of the programme;

20

2.9.2 Assessment


● There are regulations, procedures and guidelines regarding the standard of

assessment and for mitigating circumstances;

● An examination unit is dedicated to the processing and handling of examination

papers and scripts;

● Assessment practices are consistent across the institution;

● Staff and students are conversant with the requirements of outcome-based

assessment practices;

● Staff are trained on outcome-based assessment strategies;

● The assessment practices match the learning outcomes of the programmes;

● The criteria and methods of assessment are communicated to students in

advance;

● Examination papers and scripts are moderated by competent and qualified

resource persons (internal and external);

● Appeal procedures and processes are in place for grievances and remarking of

examination scripts;

● The security and integrity of examinations are preserved at all times;

● Qualified external examiners are appointed by the institution through a

transparent and ethical process;

● External examiners are rotated periodically and their reports are used for

improvements;

● Where possible, assessment is carried out by more than one examiner.

In the case of on-line assessment for ODL programmes, the HEI shall, in addition to the above,

ensure that:

● It has in place all the relevant resources in terms of technology, software and

internet connection to carry out on-line assessments;

● Students and staff are trained to use the on-line assessment platform;

● On-line assessments are rigorous, secure, tamper-free and hack-proof.

2.10 Standard 10: Research and Innovation

Higher education institutions are considered as the principal engine of society, driving the

creation and development of knowledge at national, regional and international level. For this

purpose, it is of crucial importance that HEIs are appropriately resourced with policies,

structures and resources which facilitate high-level quality research and foster innovation for

sustainable development while, at the same time, maintaining academic integrity.

21

Standard 10.1 Institutional Commitment to Research

Standard

The HEI shall put in place institutional policies and governing structures to promote,

facilitate, consolidate and reward high quality innovative and ethical research practices.

Guidelines


● A Research Development Plan is in place to foster shared understanding and

vision for innovative research across the institution;

● There is a Research Committee established at the senior level of the institution

to drive the research and innovation agenda;

● Institutional as well as programme-led policies and regulations are in place to

promote high-quality research;

● Research is managed effectively to ensure that adequate facilities, resources and

funding schemes are available for a conducive and productive research

environment;

● Ethics and integrity practices are embedded in all research functions of the HEI;

● The HEI’s staff are encouraged to undertake collaborative research with

academics and researchers in other institutions;

● The HEI shall maintain a record/database of all research publications.

Standard 10.2 Innovative Research for Community Development and

Industry

Standard

Community-and Industry-focused research is conducted at national, regional and

international level for the development of knowledge-based societies through appropriate

institutional structures and processes.

Guidelines


● There are policies and committees in place to promote industry-and community-

oriented research;

● The expertise of faculty and postgraduate students are tapped for consultancy

and industry-focused research;

● Intellectual property policies and procedures are well-defined to protect the

ownership and define the commercialisation of research outputs by staff and

students;

22

● Funds allocated for research, as well as income derived from research, are

managed through transparent research management schemes.

Standard 10.3 Programme Level Research

Standard

Student’s research is regulated, resourced and supported through enabling processes and

a conducive environment to ensure successful exit of students in a timely manner.

Guidelines


● Research-led programmes are regulated through appropriate academic and

research committees, and are developed, approved and reviewed through

effectively;

● There are well-defined criteria and guidelines for the appointment of

supervisors and examiners;

● Students’ progression is monitored through established reporting processes for

transparency;

● There are appropriate structures to support students on their research journey to

ensure effective completion of the programme and publication of research

output;

● Well-defined regulations and procedures are in place for the evaluation of

thesis and conduct of viva voce examinations, if applicable.

2.11 Standard 11: Management of Information

Standard

The institution shall capture and analyse data to make use of relevant information in-

synchronisation for continuous improvement and management of its programmes of

study and to monitor the seamless implementation of its processes.

Guidelines

The HEI shall:

● Use analytical data to address institutional weaknesses as well as sectoral issues;

● Conduct appropriate statistical analysis of data collected for informed decision-

making in all core activities of the HEI;

● Involve students and staff in the interpretation of data and make

recommendations for improvement;

23

● Put in place a robust/automated Management Information System to support

decision-making;

● Provide training to staff in the management of information, using modern tools;

● Ensure effective dissemination of information to relevant stakeholders.

2.12 Standard 12: Public Communication

Standard:

Information on the activities of an institution and its programmes is published in a clear

and objective manner to ensure accuracy, relevance and accessibility.

Marketing of programmes is aligned with best practices and is conducted in a fair

and ethical manner, to ensure compliance with applicable internal and external

regulations.

Guidelines


● There are internal and external communication channels which favour public

accountability and transparency;

● Factual and precise information on the activities of the institution and its

programmes is published and archived. These shall inter alia include information

about:

● Programmes offered and qualifications awarded;

● The intended learning outcomes;

● The NQF level of each programme;

● Detailed fee structure;

● Conditions for withdrawal and refund policy;

● Accreditation and recognition status by competent authorities;

● The entry requirements (general and programme specific);

● Content of programmes and module outlines;

● Number of credits per module/unit;

● Duration of programmes for all modes of delivery;

● Mode of delivery;

● Location of delivery;

● Industrial placement;

● Assessment procedures and regulations;

● Grading structure;

● Graduate completion rate;

● Student employability and job prospects;

● Pathways for further studies.

24

2.13 Standard 13: Community Engagement and Outreach

Standard

The HEI, whilst upholding the reputation of the Higher Education Sector, shall align its

engagement with the community initiatives, with the institutional Mission and objectives

in such a manner that it is of mutual benefit, respectful and constructive to both society

and the HEI.

Guidelines

The relationships between HEIs and the larger society (national, regional and international

bodies) are vital to the development of a harmonious and progressive society. HEIs have at

their disposal greater academic and professional knowledge, resources and competencies so as

to engage in mutually constructive relationships with the community. It is expected that active

community engagement will foster citizenship and social responsibility. Such engagement and

outreach shall be for the mutual benefit of all key stakeholders.

In line with the above, HEIs shall ensure that:

● Community engagement and outreach policies are aligned with the institutional

Mission and objectives;

● Institutional commitment to community engagement and outreach is reflected in

decision-making processes of the HEI;

● Mechanisms are in place to drive, monitor and improve community engagement

and outreach;

● Projects and outreach programmes draw from the expertise and knowledge of

academic staff, for the collective advancement of the community through

scholarship, research and creativity;

● The effectiveness of community engagement and outreach programmes are

benchmarked, quantified and monitored continuously;

● The reputation of the Higher Education Sector is upheld at all times, through

responsible citizenship and sustainable value addition to community;

● The relationships with other key stakeholders (including other HEIs) are

constructive and enabling for the mutual benefit of all stakeholders.

2.14 Standard 14: Collaborations

Standard:

The HEI shall have formal mechanisms in place to promote and manage its collaboration

with other institutions; such collaborations shall clearly stipulate the responsibilities of

all signatories and shall, at all times, protect the interest of the students, in the case of

cross-border provisions or franchise arrangements.

25

Guidelines


● It has legal capacity to enter into a formal collaboration with another organisation

and to fulfil and maintain all the arrangements under the collaboration at the

required level;

● Its collaborative arrangements (with other degree-awarding institutions, higher

education providers, research institutions, industry, professional bodies and online

services providers) are securely and effectively governed and managed by formal

agreements between the concerned parties;

● The collaborative arrangements clearly spell out the responsibilities of each party,

including measures to be taken in the event of any breach, infringement or force

majeure;

● In case of cross-border or franchise provision, students enrolled through such

agreements shall at all times be bona fide students of the awarding body;

● It has as part of the arrangements, provisions that safeguard against financial

impropriety, conflicts of interest, Intellectual Property issues, compromise of

academic standards, and teaching and learning opportunities, including risk

assessment of such collaboration;

● The arrangement includes facilitating students’, staff’s and researchers’ mobility,

including consultancy services, where applicable, through well-defined policies and

plans that are not limited to staff-development;

● It takes full responsibility to implement and maintain academic standards and

quality of deliverables, other learning opportunities and requirements, as laid down

in the collaborative arrangement;

● All its students, irrespective of where and under which mode of study they are

enrolled, receive the same quality of learning opportunities and resources as the

regular students of the degree-awarding institution;

● It maintains a record of all programmes on offer, list of students enrolled by year,

level; a list of drop-outs and a list of academic and non-academic staff involved in

the maintenance of each collaborative arrangement;

● It takes the responsibility for the recruitment of external examiners in the event that

it is a degree-awarding institution;

● Programmes on offer, as part of the collaborative arrangements are of the same

standard, quality and rigour as those of the degree-awarding institution;

● It takes full responsibility for the protection of students’ interests in the event that

either the provider or the degree-awarding institution ceases operation or at the

termination of any collaborative arrangements;

● The agreements make provision for students, who are already admitted on a

programme, to complete the programme in the event that the collaborative

arrangement is not renewed.

26

3. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES FOR EXTERNAL

QUALITY ASSURANCE

3.0 Introduction

This section describes the standards to be followed by all Audit Panels for the EQA of HEIs.

It takes into account the standards and guidelines of the IQA and ensures consistency in the

internal quality assurance undertaken by the HEIs and the external quality assurance

framework. This section covers the objectives of EQA, designing mechanisms that are fit for

purpose through independent decision-making and reporting processes, periodic reviews of

core processes and procedures for complaints and appeals, following a quality audit. QAA will

use the standards and guidelines for EQA, when conducting quality audits at HEIs.

3.1 Standard 1: Objectives of External Quality Assurance

and Consideration for Internal Quality Assurance

Standard

External Quality Assurance shall ensure that the Higher Education Institution has clearly

articulated its vision and mission statements, and it shall be used as an instrument to

evaluate the effectiveness of internal quality assurance mechanisms implemented by the

HEI.

Guidelines

EQA ensures that:

● The institution has clearly articulated objectives which are aligned with its vision and

mission statements and disseminated to both internal and external stakeholders.

EQA assists the Higher Education Institution to:

● Value and support the bond between IQA and EQA;

● Comply with established QA principles, standards and guidelines in the Higher

Education Sector;

● Inculcate and entrench an institutional quality culture by developing mechanisms for

continuous quality enhancement;

● Provide the basis to benchmark inputs, processes and outputs with other HEIs

nationally, regionally and internationally;

● Determine the institution’s capacity to offer academic programmes and research where

applicable;

● Assess the institutional compliance with legal and other requirements;

● Provide evidence-based information to its stakeholders, the general public and the

international community, that it is offering quality higher education.

27

3.2 Standard 2: Designing External Quality Assurance

Mechanisms Fit for Purpose

Standard

The audit methodology shall aim to be fit for purpose, so defined as to achieve the

intended aims and objectives of EQA, thus reinforcing IQA systems at institutions.

Guidelines

It is necessary that standards, guidelines, and processes, developed and implemented by QAA

and the institutions, are created in consultation with stakeholders in order to address all

academic activities of the Higher Education System and in such a way as to be universally

acceptable..

3.3 Standard 3: Implementation Processes of External

Quality Assurance

Standard

The standards, processes, and procedures for EQA shall be pre-defined, reliable,

published, and consistently implemented for the purpose of accountability and quality

enhancement.

Guidelines

External quality assurance is carried out professionally, consistently and transparently to ensure

that it is acceptable to the Higher Education Institution. EQA is carried out on the basis of the

self-assessment prepared by the institution. The processes for EQA include the following

activities:

● Self-assessment by the institution and the production of the SER;

● External assessment of the institution through the SER, site visits to the institution,

interviews with stakeholders of the institution, and documentary evidence to support

institutional claims;

● Oral reports to the Management of the institution before the review panel leaves the

institution;

● Preliminary reports provided to the institution for a review of their accuracy before the

final report is produced;

● A final report of the external review; and

● Follow-up activities to ensure that the recommendations raised in the final report are

addressed.

28

3.4 Standard 4: Independence of Evaluation

Standard

EQA shall be carried out by panels of eminent and experienced professionals from

Mauritius and overseas who have shown leadership in their disciplines, Higher Education

Management, professions and industries that engage with Higher Education Institutions.

Guidelines

Desirable attributes and characteristics of External Reviewers are as follows:

● Experts are drawn from among academics, employers or professional practitioners and

students;

● To ensure professionalism, consistency and transparency of output of experts, it is

necessary that they:

Are carefully selected on the basis of transparent criteria;

Have appropriate skills and are competent to perform tasks assigned to them;

Are adequately briefed about EQA principles and procedures before undertaking

the external review;

Are independent in their judgements about the quality of the institutions;

Have no conflict of interest with the institution which they are evaluating, and

Sign a Declaration of Independence and No Conflict of Interest Form.

● In the event of possible conflicts of interest, the institution is given the opportunity to

object to any member(s) of the proposed review panel prior to the constitution of the

review panel.

3.5 Standard 5: Decision and Reporting of External Quality

Assurance Outcomes

Standard

EQA exercise shall produce clear reports and decisions in keeping with published

standards, processes and procedures, and made public for the purpose of accountability.

Guidelines

The decisions of External Quality Assurance have a significant impact on institutions and

programmes that are evaluated, assessed or judged. It is important that:

● External quality assessment decisions are published without undermining the

integrity of the review process;

● The EQA reports are the basis for follow-up actions; hence they should be clear,

precise and include:

Purpose of the review;

Context description (of Higher Education Institution);

Description of procedures, including experts involved;

29

Evidence, analysis and findings;

Commendations/examples of good practice of the institution;

Conclusions;

Recommendations for follow-up actions.

● The institution is given an opportunity to point out factual errors to ensure the

accuracy of the report;

● The institution is the first to receive the EQA report in the interest of transparency

and fairness, prior to distribution to other parties;

● The decisions taken by the responsible body are not subject to external influences;

and

● The decisions are in a format that has been made known to the institution concerned

(for example, commendations, recommendations, and formal decisions).

3.6 Standard 6: Periodic Review of Institutions

Standard

External Quality Assurance of institutions shall be undertaken on a cyclical basis.

Guidelines

● The duration of an audit cycle shall be for a period of 5 years, during which the HEI

must ensure that its IQA is operational and aligned with the requirements of the QAA;

● Following the finalisation and publication of the audit report, institutions must submit

an action plan within 3 months on how they will address the recommendations made

by the audit panel. The action plan shall be duly approved by the institution’s council

or management team, as applicable and include a financial plan;

● The HEI shall be subject to a mid-cycle review after a period of 2 years following the

audit, whereby the HEI shall demonstrate that it has effectively attended to the

recommendations in its audit report;

● The HEI is committed to quality enhancement and the same is reflected in the outcomes

of quality audits and mid-cycle reviews;

● The procedures for, and preparation of, the subsequent audit/review are in accordance

with the QAA Framework.

30

3.7 Standard 7: Complaints and Appeals

Standard

There shall be published procedures to lodge complaints and appeals.

Guidelines

In order to safeguard the rights of the institution and ensure fairness in the decision-making

process, the institution can make an appeal in line with the provision made in the Higher

Education Act 2017. Likewise, the audit panel will have access to clear procedures to complain

about an institution in case the latter’s behaviour is hindering the quality audit process.

● There is an established appeals system;

● The institution is allowed to raise issues of concern consistent with the appeals

system;

● Appeals and complaints are handled professionally, within an agreed period of

time.

31

4. INTERNAL QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR THE


4.0 Introduction

This section describes the guidelines for the Internal Quality Assurance of the QAA through

the self-assessment of its policies, practices, procedures and activities for external assessment

by another body or peer organisation. It covers policies, processes and activities of the QAA,

legal status, vision and mission, financial and human resources, independence, standards and

processes used by the QAA.

4.1 Standard 1: Legal Status

Standard: The QAA shall be an autonomous legal entity with clearly-defined mandate,

scope and powers. It will be recognised as a quality assurance agency at national and

international level.

Guidelines

When external quality assurance is carried out for regulatory purposes, institutions have the

security of knowing that the outcomes of the process are accepted within the Higher Education

System, the stakeholders and the public. The QAA is established by a competent authority.

The QAA’s legal mandate specifies, among others, its:

● Establishment by an appropriate legal instrument such as an Act or Statutes;

● Functions and responsibilities, including the scope of quality assurance activities.

4.2 Standard 2: Strategic Planning

Standard: The QAA shall publish its strategic plan, clearly indicating its vision, mission

statements and objectives, taking the Higher Education context into account.

Guidelines

The vision, mission and objectives show that:

● Quality Assurance is a major activity of the agency, which includes an overview of

the quality of Higher Education activities in the country and capacity-building of

institutions in implementing quality assurance processes;

● There is a systematic approach to achieving the vision, mission and objectives of the

QAA;

● The objectives are implemented in line with a practical management plan that is linked

to the agency’s resources; and

● The custodianship and overview of vision and mission are appropriate to the mandate

and objectives of the agency.

32


Standard: The QAA shall have clearly-defined structures that ensure sound and ethical

governance and management, including good practices of quality assurance that support

its mission and legal mandate.

Guidelines

The QAA:

● Has qualified and experienced leadership to oversee the development and management

of best practices in quality assurance in Higher Education;

● Has relevant governance bodies, such as a Governing Board and various committees,

each with a clear mandate, powers, responsibilities and tenure; these are well-

coordinated to ensure efficiency and effectiveness of its vision, mission and strategic

objectives;

● Has procedures for the appointment of the Governing Board and the Chief Executive;

● Has policies and procedures for financial and management decisions;

● Has a clear communication system for its activities to disseminate information for the

sake of public accountability;

● Ensures regular consultation with stakeholders, and follow-up actions on key issues of

policy and operations;

● Promotes a high degree of institutional integrity and responsiveness in the management

of institutional affairs by advocating and demonstrating honesty and non-discrimination

in the treatment of its staff and members of the public;

● Has effective processes for deterring, detecting and dealing with misconduct by staff;

and

● Has effective, systematic, timely and fair processes for the investigation of complaints,

grievances and appeals by staff.

4.4 Standard 4: Independence of QAA

Standard: The QAA shall be independent in its operations, outcomes, judgements and

decisions.

Guidelines

The QAA takes independent decisions and makes judgements that are not subject to change by

third parties. Independence of an agency includes the following:

● Organisational independence demonstrated by official documentation, such as

legislative acts or statutes and instruments of governance that stipulate the

independence of the agency’s work from third parties (e.g. HEIs, governments, other

stakeholders);

● Operational independence: The definitions and operations of the agency’s procedures

and methods, nomination and appointment of qualified external experts (including the

provision of no objection); and

33

● Independence of formal outcomes: The final decision of quality assurance activities

remains the responsibility of the QAA.

4.5 Standard 5: Policies, processes and activities

Standard: The QAA shall undertake its quality assurance activities in accordance with

the standards and guidelines articulated in EQA

Guidelines It is important that HEIs trust QAA; the Authority is transparent, describes and

publishes its objectives and activities, scope of work, expertise, and interacts with HEIs and

other stakeholders.

The External Quality Assurance standards and processes are appropriate for the core activities

of an institution. These include inter alia:

● Teaching and learning, research and community work/engagement;

● Resources such as finances, staff, and learning resources’ and

● Specific areas such as levels of achievement, relative benchmarking and types of

measures, and general guidelines.

In order to carry out its core function of External Quality Assurance, the QAA conducts

institutional audits, standards development and reviews on a regular basis, providing in

advance the framework to the concerned institution. To ensure transparency, the QAA’s

processes include:

● Validation of the institution’s self-assessment against the QAA standards and

processes;

● Appointment of an external peer review panel comprising subject-matter specialists and

experts in Higher Education QA matters;

● Site visits by the review panel and interviews with various staff members and

stakeholders of the institution;

● An oral report before the review panel leaves the institution;

● A preliminary report presented to the institution for factual corrections;

● A final report of external review to the institution; and

● Follow-up activities of recommendations raised in the final report.

4.6 Standard 6: Internal Quality Assurance

Standard: The QAA shall have in place policies and processes for its own Internal Quality

Assurance related to defining, assuring and enhancing the quality and integrity of its

activities.

Guidelines

The QAA is accountable to its stakeholders and observes high professional standards and

integrity by adhering to its guiding and ethical principles, and makes available internal quality

assurance policies, standards, processes and procedures on its website. The QAA’s decisions

34

are impartial, rigorous, thorough, fair and consistent, even if the judgements are made by

different panels. The policies, therefore, should ensure:

● Objectivity and fairness in the QAA’s judgements, decisions and conclusions;

● Standards and guidelines for External Quality Assurance for HEIs are of a general

nature, not prescriptive and do not interfere with institutions’ autonomy but help to

guarantee all stakeholders and the international community of the overall

professionalism, visibility, transparency, credibility, integrity, and public

accountability in the Higher Education sub-sector;

● Contribution to established national, regional, continental and international

mechanisms for integrity, transparency and public accountability; and

● Professionalism and public acceptance:

● All persons involved in its activities are competent and act professionally and

ethically;

● Timely internal and external feedback mechanisms lead to continuous

improvement within the agency;

● Safeguards against intolerance of any kind or discrimination;

● Outlines the appropriate communication with relevant authorities, and

● Any activity carried out and materials produced by consultants are in line with

QAA’s standards and guidelines and those of the QAA Framework.

The QAA should ensure that standards and processes used for External Quality Assurance are

pre-determined, pre-defined, published and made available to institutions ahead of External

Quality Assurance procedures. The QAA should ensure that:

● The standards and processes used to make certain the quality and relevance of HEIs, such

as institutional self-assessment and quality assurance procedures, have appropriate

follow-up mechanisms in line with recommendations and actions for further

improvement;

● There is thematic analysis (production of a summary of reports) carried out from time to

time, which describes and examines the general trends in the findings of external reviews,

assessments as well as evaluations of institutions for possible policy direction.

4.7 Standard 7: Financial and Human Resources

Standard: The QAA shall have adequate and appropriate human, financial and material

resources to carry out its QA mandate effectively and efficiently.

Guidelines

The QAA is adequately funded to realise its vision, mission and objectives to:

● Ensure that it has adequate facilities which are commensurate with its QA activities;

● Recruit adequate and qualified human resources to carry out its QA activities in line with

existing legislations;

● Carry out its external QA mandate professionally, effectively and efficiently;

● Ensure the improvement of its practices and its development; and

35

● Inform the public about its activities and the outcomes.

4.8 Standard 8: Benchmarking, Networking and

Collaboration

Standard: The QAA shall promote and participate in international initiatives, workshops

and conferences, and collaborate with relevant bodies on QA to exchange and share

experiences and best practices.

Guidelines It is important that the QAA remains relevant in its activities. The QAA shall:

● Collaborate with all relevant bodies, such as professional bodies, for QA;

● Share accurate, reliable and easily accessible information about standards and other

core activities of Higher Education for all modes of delivery;

● Contribute to the development and/or updating of the appropriate regional, continental

and other international conventions on the recognition of courses and qualifications,

and serve as national or regional information centres as appropriate;

● Participate in bilateral or multilateral agreements regarding qualifications listed in its

register and facilitate, as appropriate, of the mutual recognition of these qualifications;

● Contribute to regional, continental and international efforts to improve the accessibility

of up-to-date, accurate and comprehensive information about recognised HEIs or

providers.

4.9 Standard 9: Periodic Review of QAA

Standard: The QAA shall undergo periodic internal and external reviews for the sake of

continuous improvement.

Guidelines The QAA has a system for continuous QA of its own practices and activities that

emphasises flexibility in response to the changing nature of Higher Education, the effectiveness

of its operations, and its contribution to the achievement of its objectives. The QAA, therefore

shall:

● Conduct a comprehensive internal self-assessment of its processes, practices and

activities periodically, including data analysis;

● Subject itself to periodic external review on the basis of self-assessment by regional,

continental or international QA bodies; and

● Ensure that required recommendations are disclosed and implemented for

improvement;

● Depending on the context of the QA system, the cyclical review is carried out preferably

every five years.

36

5. THE AUDIT PROCESS

5.0 Introduction

This section explains the different stages of the quality audit process which starts more than

one year prior to an audit visit. Any HEI undergoing a quality audit will follow the five main

stages of the Quality Audit, namely: (1) Preparation, (2) Preliminary Phase, (3) the Audit Visit,

(4) Reporting and (5) Follow-up on the audit exercise. Apart from these five stages mentioned

above, the QAA also carries out logistic arrangements for the Audit Panel. For ease of

reference, this section provides a summarised Audit Time-line, provided in Section 5.6. All

HEIs are expected to adhere to the prescribed time-frame for each stage of the audit.

Each of the 5 stages of the Quality Audit is described in detail below.

5.1 Preparation

The preparation for the audit starts approximately 14 months earlier to allow enough time for

the HEI and the QAA to prepare for the different stages of the audit process. The QAA and the

HEI, together, will agree on the tentative date of the audit and also determine the scope of the

audit in line with the IQA standards. During this phase, the HEI will inform the QAA if it

wishes to put forward additional focus areas or themes which should be clearly outside the IQA

standards. The QAA will accept or reject these additional focus areas after discussion with the

HEI about the rationale for setting forth the same.

QAA will appoint an Audit Officer, an Audit Secretary and an Administrative Officer to ensure

the proper conduct of the audit. At this stage, the HEI will also designate an institutional contact

person, usually the Quality Assurance Officer/ Director.

5.1.1 Self-Evaluation by the HEI

At least 12 months prior to the audit, the institution initiates a self-evaluation process

culminating in the writing of the SER which provides basic data and information regarding

each standard of the IQA. It is evaluated to determine the extent to which the standards are

actually being met. An outline of the SER is submitted to the QAA for feedback seven months

before the audit to ensure that the HEI’s submission is structured according to the format

prescribed by the QAA. The final version will then be submitted four months prior to the audit.

It is important that the HEI adheres to the agreed time-line for the submission of its SER. While

conducting the self-evaluation exercise, the HEI should consult the IQA standards (Section 2)

and the Guidelines on writing the Self-Evaluation Report (Section 6) and the Audit Scope

(Chapter 7) published by the QAA.

37

5.1.2 Panel Selection

Around 9 months prior to the audit, the QAA will select the members of the Audit Panel. Five

members make up the Audit Panel, but this may vary depending on the size of the institution

to be audited. The Audit Panel comprises a mix of international and local experts and a member

from QAA. A designated Officer of the QAA will act as Audit Secretary to the Panel. In

addition to its internal database of auditors, the QAA may access databases of

regional/international networks of which it is a member. The QAA may also contact

universities or related organisations to ask them to nominate professionals who match the

profile description given by QAA.

The profile of the panel members to be selected are given below:

● An international/local Chairperson with extensive experience in quality audits of

Higher Education Institutions;

● International panel members who are academics, at least at Associate Professor level

with demonstrated experience in a particular field of study or area of research, and

preferably with experience in quality audits of HEIs

● International panel members from other Quality Assurance Agencies;

● Local panel members who are academics, at least at Associate Professor level, with

demonstrated experience in a particular field of study or area of research, and preferably

with experience in Higher Education quality assurance exercises;

● Local panel members with extensive industry experience in a specific area;

● Local panel members with extensive experience in quality assurance of Higher

Education Institutions;

● A professional staff of the QAA;

● The QAA may designate an alternate panel member, in case a member cannot show up

on the day of the audit.

Both the HEI and the panel members will sign a ‘No Conflict of Interest Form’ (Appendix 1)

prior to the approval of the audit panel by the QAA Board. Once the HEI has indicated that it

has no conflict of interest with the proposed audit panel, the QAA Board will be requested to

approve the composition of the Panel.

5.1.3 Finalise Audit Date

Around seven months prior to the audit, QAA finalises the audit date in consultation with the

Panel and the HEI. The QAA requires that HEIs remain committed to the finalised audit dates;

hence, in order to ensure the smooth running of Audit Visit, the timing for this audit visit should

not coincide with other important institutional activities such as examinations, student council

elections, stakeholder meetings, international conferences, etc.

In case of force majeure, the audit will take place at a date agreed by the parties concerned.

38

5.2 Preliminary phase

The second phase of the audit process comprises mainly the logistics and arrangements for the

visit. Hence, prior to initiating such arrangements, the HEI will be required to enter into an

agreement with the QAA on the financial aspects of the quality audit exercise.

5.2.1 Preliminary analysis

Upon receipt of the SER, the Audit Panel has one month (that is 12 weeks before the scheduled

visit) to submit a preliminary analysis to the Chairperson and the Audit Officer. At this stage,

the panel members will make a list of any additional evidence/information to be requested from

the HEI and, also, start noting their observations and potential questions for the interview

sessions. These observations will be recorded in a template provided by the QAA (Appendix

2), which may be adapted according to the Panel’s preferences. The Panel is encouraged to

have virtual meetings at its convenience to discuss its early findings and other related business.

Subsequently, based on the observations of the Audit Panel, the Audit Secretary may request

the HEI to submit additional documentary evidence and information. The HEI is expected to

submit the required documentation to the QAA within two weeks following the request. All

documentary evidence should be clearly referenced and submitted on USB keys.

5.2.2 Logistics

Eight weeks before the audit, the Audit Officer and the Audit Secretary, in consultation with

the Chairperson, shall work on the audit programme, taking into account the length of the

audit, the number of interview sessions and campus/ site tours, the length of each meeting and

the persons to be interviewed. A model of an audit programme is at Appendix 3. Interviewees

are generally selected according to their roles and positions in the institution. In some cases,

the Panel may be flexible and request the institution to choose interviewees who meet specific

criteria, e.g. a sample of students in a particular programme, a sample of academic staff

supervising PhD students, and so on.

Travel and accommodation arrangements for international panel members are initiated at least

12 weeks before the visit by the Audit Secretary and the Administrative Officer. Letters of

Offer to all members involved in the Audit are issued accordingly.

5.2.3 Pre-Audit Visit

The Pre-Audit Visit is carried out at the HEI six weeks before the audit by the Audit Officer,

the local member(s) of the Panel and the Audit Secretary. The aim of the meeting is to discuss

with the liaison person and the Senior Management of the HEI, about the audit programme, the

logistics for the audit and the preparations required. In the same line, it is important that the

HEI ensures the availability of its staff and students selected to meet with the Audit Panel on

the days and at the time agreed during the audit programme.

39

The agenda of the meeting is as follows (although it may not necessarily be limited to the

following):

a) The audit programme;

b) Advertising the open sessions for the audit;

c) Campus tour/ site visits;

d) The list of interviewees;

e) The setting of the audit room;

f) Provision for lunch and tea breaks for the Panel;

g) Facilities such as internet connection, printing, photocopying and stationary;

h) Rules of the audit, e.g. no cameras, nor recorders in the audit room, no note-taking by

interviewees, confidentiality, non-attribution rule by the Panel;

i) Labels/ signs mentioning ‘Audit in process by Quality Assurance Authority from date

to date’ to be placed in several areas of the HEI.

5.2.4 Audit Portfolio Meeting

The Audit Portfolio meeting is an important part of the preliminary phase which takes place

virtually a month before the audit visit. This first meeting sets the tone for the audit and panel

members discuss major issues identified in the SER and the documentary evidence submitted,

and they prepare questions for the interview sessions.

5.3 The Audit Visit

The purpose of the visit is for the Panel to examine, interpret, and seek clarifications, on the

SER submitted by the HEI. The visit allows the Panel sufficient time to pursue documentary

audit trails and to form valid, evidence-based judgements about the HEI’s processes and

outcomes, in line with the IQA standards through a triangulation approach.

QAA sets the appropriate procedures and informs the HEI of the requirements for the Audit

Visit. The Audit Panel is provided with the Terms of Reference (Appendix 4), stipulating its

responsibilities and obligations regarding the work. The Panel is also informed that it must

adhere to the EQA Standards & Guidelines and policy on ‘Confidentiality and disclosure of

information’ of the QAA.

The Panel communicates to QAA the evidence which they want to verify and the people whom

they want to meet. During the Audit Visit, the Panel:

● interviews staff, students and other stakeholders;

● scrutinizes documents requested at the Pre-Audit Visit or during the Audit Visit

to verify claims made in the SER;

● progressively reflects on, and discusses, the SER thus far presented;

● progressively refines findings and draft recommendations;

40

● gives a brief oral presentation of its findings during an exit meeting with the

Head of the HEI, QA Director and other Senior Officials.

The Audit Visit lasts for 2 to 4 days, depending on the size and complexity of the HEI.

5.3.1 Interviews

The purpose of conducting interviews is to seek clarifications on the SER, to gain further

perspectives of different stakeholders, to verify that policies and procedures are carried out in

practice, and to seek evidence of outcomes.

To gain a wide variety of inputs, interviews are usually conducted with groups of interviewees

(normally no more than eight at a time). Confidentiality is maintained during the interview

sessions. Typical interviewees are as follows:

● The Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the institution;

● Quality Assurance Director/Officer;

● Chairperson and selected members of the Council, including lay members

(persons responsible for setting and monitoring the HEI’s strategic directions

and desired outcomes);

● Senior Staff responsible for developing teaching and learning policies and

overseeing their implementation, including members of key committees and

those with responsibility for staff development and educational development;

● Staff responsible for managing individual programmes (e.g. Programme and

Subject Coordinators);

● Heads of Academic Departments with responsibility for resource allocation and

staff supervision;

● Heads of Non-Academic Departments;

● Teaching Staff at various levels and with various degrees of experience,

including recently appointed staff;

● Managers of Student Support Services, and others who contribute to the student

learning experience;

● Members of student representative bodies and student members of relevant

committees;

● Students in a variety of programmes, both undergraduate and postgraduate;

● External stakeholders, such as employers and representatives of professional

bodies;

● Alumni;

● Academic and Non-Academic Staff Unions.

Interviews are normally scheduled in sessions of about 45 minutes. Some meetings may be

longer, depending on the participants involved and the topics to be covered. A draft schedule

is agreed by the Panel during the preliminary analysis and communicated to the HEI during the

41

Pre-Audit Visit. In each session, the Panel will have a set of particular issues and questions it

wishes to address, and the Chair will direct the session so as to achieve the Panel’s aims. In

some cases, the Panel may decide to split so as to reach a higher number of interviewees in a

restricted time period. The Panel uses the triangulation method to design interview questions

and corroborate information received from interviewees.

5.3.2 Open Sessions

As indicated above, the Panel schedules meetings with a wide variety of people who are

identified either by the Panel or by the HEI. The Panel also reserves time to meet any

individuals or groups who have not been identified in this way but who may wish to meet the

Panel. This ensures that all interested parties are able to put their point of view to the Panel,

even if not formally selected for an interview.

Prior to the Audit Visit, the institution is required to advertise for the open sessions, among all

its staff and students. The availability of such sessions are solely ‘on request’. Those who wish

to take advantage of the Open Sessions, will e-mail the Audit Secretary directly. A template to

advertise the Open Sessions is in Appendix 5. To ensure that all requests are met, the length of

a session ‘on request’ may be limited and the Panel may need to conduct some sessions in

parallel by splitting into smaller teams. For scheduling and planning purposes, it is

recommended that persons requesting such sessions provide in confidence a brief written

summary of their intended topic of discussion before the start of the Audit Visit, to the Audit

Secretary.

As with interviews, the proceedings of sessions ‘on request’ are confidential.

5.3.3 Panel deliberations

The Audit programme includes sessions for panel discussions and reflection. During these

sessions, the Panel progressively refines its findings. Findings are evidence-based, drawing on

information in the SER, additional documentary evidence, information obtained in interviews

and other interactions.

5.3.4 Exit meeting

The Audit Visit is concluded by an exit meeting by the Panel together with the ED QAA, the

Head of the HEI, QA Director and other Senior Officials. The purpose is to give immediate

feedback to the institution, as well as providing appropriate closure to the visit. The Panel Chair

gives an overview of the Panel’s draft findings and an indication of areas where the Panel may

make commendations and recommendations. The Panel Chair does not present any

42

justifications, and the oral presentation does not prejudice or constrain the content of the final

written report. The presentation is an opportunity for the institution to hear the Panel’s

preliminary views, but it is not a platform for rebuttal or debate.

5.4 Reporting the outcome

The Quality Audit Report presents the Panel’s findings, supported by detailed analysis and

commentary. The HEI’s compliance to the IQA Standards and Guidelines, as prescribed by

the QAA, is presented in the report. Where appropriate, the findings are expressed as

commendations of good practice and recommendations for improvement. The final Quality

Audit Report also contains an executive summary and is published on the QAA website for

public accountability.

The Quality Audit Report is mounted as per the QAA’s guidelines for report writing at Section

8. Each panel member contributes to the report writing, as determined by the Panel Chair. The

Audit Secretary, as nominated by the QAA, collects and collates all the different write-ups

from each panel member in order to come up with a definitive draft. The final draft is sent to

the HEI for comments on the factual, typographical errors and omissions. The Audit Report is

finalised and endorsed by the Panel and subsequently approved by the QAA Board.

5.4.1 Fairness, accuracy and balance

While the report expresses the findings of the Audit Panel, it is owned by the QAA which is

accountable to the HEI and the public for the integrity of the audit system. The QAA is

responsible for the report’s fairness, accuracy and balance, by adhering to and implementing

the following:

● EQA Standards & Guidelines for QAA;

● IQA Standards & Guidelines for HEIs;

● Interaction with the HEI during the preparation for the audit;

● Coordination among panel members throughout the report writing process

within the stipulated time-frame;

● Draft Audit Report sent to HEI for factual, typographical errors and omissions;

● Finalisation and endorsement of the report by the Panel;

● Approval of final Report by the QAA Board;

● Public disclosure of the Report;

● Appeal Policy.

43

5.4.2 Mounting of Report

The Audit Secretary incorporates the Panel’s feedback into a succession of drafts. Within 8

weeks of the Audit Visit, the Audit Secretary gets the Panel’s approval for a definitive draft to

be sent to the HEI for any factual, typographical errors and omissions. The HEI’s feedback is

received within 2 weeks and is considered by the QAA in consultation with the Panel. The

QAA reserves the right to accept or reject the suggestions made by the HEI. Finalisation and

endorsement of the Report has to be completed by the Panel within 2 weeks of the receipt of

comments from the HEI. The Audit Secretary aims to complete the Report within 13 weeks of

the Audit Visit.

5.4.3 Approval of QAA Board

The Approval of the QAA Board is sought within 4 weeks from the finalisation and

endorsement of the Quality Audit Report by the Panel. The final Quality Audit Report, as

approved by the QAA Board, is deemed to be the official Audit Report of the QAA.

5.4.4 Public disclosure of outcome

The final Report is published on the QAA website. The Audit Report is submitted to the HEI

and a copy to the parent Ministry. Publication of the Report is a common international practice

reflecting transparency, fairness and accountability. Confidential information, which may have

been disclosed during the audit process, is protected through the QAA’s policy on

confidentiality and disclosure of information.

5.4.5 Feedback from HEI and Panel

Approximately 1 month after release of the Audit Report, QAA seeks feedback on the

effectiveness of the audit process from the HEI and Panel. The Feedback Forms are at

Appendix 6

5.4.6 Complaints and Appeal

In order to safeguard the rights of the HEI and ensure fairness in the decision-making process,

upon receipt of the Audit Report, the HEI can make an appeal in line with the provision made

in the Higher Education Act 2017 and the Appeal Policy of QAA, respectively. The QAA

handles appeals through an established appeal system within an agreed period of time.

44

5.5 Follow-up

Following the disclosure of the Quality Audit Report, the HEI is expected to take whatever

actions are necessary in relation to the recommendations or issues noted in the review,

notwithstanding the professional commitment of the HEI that leads to actions and

improvement.

Since one of the principal aims of the audit exercise is quality enhancement, QAA expects that

the HEI will act on the findings in the Audit Report. The QAA requires that the HEI should

implement all the audit recommendations unless there are valid reasons not to do so; such as a

significant change in the circumstances of the HEI.

The follow-up on an Audit Report is an important sequential process, which is discussed in

detail in Section 9.

5.6 Audit Time-line

Date Task No QAA HEI Panel

A- 14 months 1

Negotiate Audit Date.

Determine scope of Audit

A-13 months 2

Audit Officer, Audit

Secretary and

Administrative Officer

are assigned

Appointment of

institutional contact

person

A-12 months 3

Conduct self-review

based on audit criteria

A- 9 months 4

Select Panel. Confirm

any conflict of interest

with the HEI

A- 9 months 5

Seek approval of

composition of panel

from QAA Board

A-8 months 6

Communicate the

composition of Panel

to HEI

Confirm any conflict of

interest with Panel to

QAA

A-7 months 7

Finalise audit date

with Panel and HEI

Submit outline of the

SER to QAA for

feedback

45

A-6 months 8

Provide feedback to

HEI on draft SER

A- 4 months 9 Submit final SER

A- 4 months 10

Distribute SER to

Panel members for

consideration

A-12 weeks 11

Make travel and

accommodation

arrangements for

Panel

Panel provides

preliminary comments to

QAA's Audit Officer

along with a list of

evidences to be

submitted by HEI

A- 12 weeks 12

Audit Officer requests

list of evidences from

HEI

A- 10 weeks 13

Submit list of evidences

to QAA Audit Officer

Panel receives and

considers list of

evidences

A-8 weeks 14

Chair consulted on Audit

programme

A- 6 weeks 15

Pre-Audit visit: Discuss and finalise Audit programme, list of interviewees,

arrangements for the Audit and site visits

A-4 weeks 16

Audit Portfolio meeting:

Identify major issues and

prepare questions for the

Audit

A 17 Audit

A + 8 weeks 18

Submits first draft of

Audit Report to QAA

A +9 weeks 19

ED gives greenlight to

forward first draft to

HEI for factual

corrections and

grammatical errors

A +11 weeks 20

Return comments on

draft Audit Report to

QAA

46

A + 13 weeks 21

Finalise Report with

consultation of Audit

Panel

A +14 to 17

weeks 22

QAA Board approves

final Audit Report for

release and

publication on QAA

website

AR 23 Release and publication of Audit Report

24

Provision for appeal for both HEI and Panel as per Higher Education Act

2017 and Appeal Policy of QAA respectively

AR + 1

month 25

Seek feedback on

effectiveness of Audit

process from HEI and

Panel

AR + 3

months 26

Submit Action Plan to

QAA

AR+ 9

months 27

Submit Progress Report

1

AR+ 15

months 28


2

AR+ 21

months 29


3

AR + 2 years 30 Mid-Cycle Review

AR + 3.5

years 31

Start preparing for next

Audit Cycle

47

6. INSTITUTIONAL SELF-EVALUATION

6.0 Introduction

Institutional self-evaluation, also commonly referred to as institutional self-assessment or self-

review, is a systematic appraisal of all the core processes of an HEI. The institutional self-

evaluation is an in-depth exercise through which the HEI analyses and reflects on its

procedures, standards and processes to ensure that it is operating in line with its strategic

objectives. For this purpose, an institutional self-evaluation is one of the most important

components of a Quality Audit and involves significant mobilisation of institutional resources

and time. The findings of the institutional self-evaluation culminate in the publication of an

SER, which is submitted to the QAA for consideration by the Audit Panel.

6.1 Attitudinal approach to institutional self-evaluation

In a Quality Audit, the attitudinal approach through which the HEI conducts the institutional

self-assessment, is of significant importance and determines, to a large extent, the outcome of

the audit. To this end, the QAA anticipates that the HEI upholds the following guiding

principles as given below:

● The institutional self-evaluation benefits from the support of high-level institutional

leadership;

● The institutional self-evaluation is conducted through a participatory approach,

involving a broad range of internal and external stakeholders and promotes inclusivity;

● The self-evaluation process uses an evaluative approach and privileges a balance of

quantitative and qualitative information;

● The information and empirical data generated through the institutional self-assessment

is handled ethically with high levels of honesty and accountability;

● The information and empirical data generated are checked for reliability and validity

before inclusion in the SER.

6.2 Managing the institutional self-evaluation exercise

Although there is no prescriptive approach to managing an institutional self-evaluation

exercise, the points listed below may serve as guidance to HEIs:

● There is an overarching Steering Committee in place at institutional level providing

high-level leadership and ensuring that the self-evaluation is systematic, transparent

and timely.

● The HEI mobilises adequate resources to ensure that the institutional self-assessment is

prioritised.

● The Steering Committee is supported by several working groups covering all the core

activities of the HEI;

48

● The Quality Assurance Director/Officer of the HEI coordinates the institutional self-

evaluation with efficiency and resourcefulness;

● The purpose of the institutional self-evaluation is communicated to all internal and

external stakeholders in a transparent manner;

● There is clear and formal delegation of associated tasks, with unambiguous reporting

structures to the Steering Committee;

● The working groups are trained and conversant with the ADRI model of quality

assurance;

● The information and empirical data collected is reflective of the HEI’s performance

over the last five years and is analysed for quality improvement;

● The institutional self-evaluation exercise is managed and completed in compliance with

the Audit time-line, as agreed between the HEI and the QAA.

6.3 Identification and Collection of Data and Evidences

The QAA expects that the HEI will continuously collect quantitative as well as qualitative data

to self-evaluate its core functions. Quantitative data pertains to the use of appropriate statistical

methods to check on important components of the HEI, such as student enrolment, number of

research publications, pass rates, etc. Similarly, significant qualitative data is generated, in the

form of students’ feedback, external reviews, interviews, assessment of policies, etc. The QAA

requires that all quantitative and qualitative data, generated during the self-evaluation, be

verified, analysed and interpreted by the HEI, before their inclusion into the SER.

The QAA emphasises the use of analytical data in all the quality assurance functions of the

HEI. Analytical data are important sources of empirical evidence which may be used to inform

the SER. For this reason, the QAA recommends that data collection and analysis should be an

ongoing activity embedded in all the core processes of the HEI. In addition to these, the

institution may substantiate its claims with other physical evidence, which the Audit Panel

would verify during the audit exercise.

During the institutional self-evaluation exercise, the Steering Committee has the responsibility

to ensure that there is a balance of quantitative and qualitative analytical data generated to guide

the drafting of the SER. The data presented in the SER will be critically examined by the Audit

Panel. Hence, the HEI is encouraged to adopt a critical approach, whilst interpreting data, and

should resist the tendency of painting an all-positive picture.

6.4 The Self-Evaluation Report

The SER is a major source of written information which the HEI submits to the QAA for

consideration by the Audit Panel. The SER provides the HEI with an opportunity to reflect

empirically on its performance and includes a balance of descriptive and analytical information.

In the SER, the HEI is expected to demonstrate the ‘fitness for purpose’ of all its core processes,

49

identify their strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement, on the basis of the

empirical findings obtained through the institutional self-evaluation.

Whilst drafting the SER, the HEI must ensure that information and empirical data generated

through the institutional self-evaluation are measured against the provisions of its Strategic

Plan, institutional performance indicators and other operational standards. It is also expected

that the HEI will benchmark its operations and performance in accordance with national

objectives and standards, as set out by the QAA and demonstrate its ‘fitness of purpose’ in the

Mauritian Higher Education landscape.

The responsibility to draft the SER is vested with the Quality Assurance Director/Officer, under

the supervision of the Steering Committee. The Quality Assurance Director/Officer should

ensure that the content is presented in line with the scope of the audit and guidelines of the

QAA.

Before its submission to the QAA, the SER must obtain the approval of the Steering Committee

and that of the highest governing body of the HEI. Accordingly, the QAA requires that the HEI

takes into consideration the time-lines for various internal validation and approval processes in

the planning stages of the SER.

6.5 Submission of the SER

The QAA requires that the SER is written in English, has been professionally typed, proofread

and copyedited. The HEI must submit eight (8) hard copies of the SER and an equal number

of pen drives containing soft copies. Concurrently, the HEI must also take into consideration

its internal requirements and make provisions for additional copies. It is to be noted that, at the

time of the Quality Audit, the Audit Panel will expect that the stakeholders of the HEI are

familiar with the content of the SER and are able to engage constructively with the Audit Panel.

The SER must be submitted to the QAA along with a covering letter from the Head of the HEI,

within the stipulated time-frame set out for the audit exercise. The covering letter must confirm

that the contents of the SER have been approved by the Head of the HEI and its governing

body.

6.6 Content of the SER

The SER must be drafted in 2 parts, Part A constitutes a write-up based on the findings of the

institutional self-evaluation, taking into consideration the points highlighted above; Part B

comprises additional supporting documents to complement Part A of the document. The

document, including tables, figures and appendices, should not usually exceed 30,000 words.

50

6.6 1 Part A of the SER

6.6 1.1 Introduction from the Head of the HEI

This section is a succinct introduction from the Head of the HEI, confirming the

institution’s commitment to quality higher education and continuous quality enhancement.

The introduction must be signed by the Head of the HEI.

6.6 1.2 Overview of the HEI

This section sets the scene for the Audit Panel to enable it to understand the historical

background of the HEI, the institution’s settings and campus locations, the context and

specificities of the HEI with respect to the Higher Education landscape in Mauritius. This

section should aim at describing the general organisational structure, as well as the

academic structure in place, the academic programmes on offer, their

recognition/accreditation status and the general student count. Statistical and other detailed

information regarding the overview must be included in the appendices in Part B of the

SER.

6.6 1.3 The Institutional Self-Evaluation Approach

This section summarises the methods used by the HEI to conduct the institutional self-

evaluation and how the information and empirical data collected were processed to inform

the SER. The HEI should demonstrate the rigour and comprehensiveness of the self-

evaluation process and also communicate to the Audit Panel, shortcomings, if any, to be

addressed for enhanced feedback as well as the strengths of its internal quality assurance

mechanisms.

6.6 1.4 The Self-Evaluation Findings

This section is the core of the SER and provides detailed findings for each standard of the

IQA. The HEI is required to address each of the IQA standards, using the ADRI model

and explicitly identifying the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement for

all the sections, as listed below. A detailed list of requirements for each section of the IQA

is provided in Section 7. The headings, as defined in the Audit Scope, are as follows:

a) Quality Assurance Policy

b) Strategic Intent

c) Governance and Management

d) Management of Financial Resources

e) Human Resources

f) Infrastructure and Facilities

g) Student Services

h) Programme Development, Monitoring and Review

i) Teaching, Learning and Assessment

j) Research and Innovation

k) Management of Information

l) Public Communication

m) Community Engagement and Outreach

n) Collaborations

51

In line with their mission and institutional specificities, the HEIs may choose to highlight areas

which they consider more relevant to them. However, the QAA requires that all the core

common functions of Higher Education are addressed systematically and accurately.

6.6 1.5 Way Forward

This section is a review of the main findings in a concise form, with greater attention to

opportunities for improvement identified during the institutional self-assessment and the

writing of the Quality Audit Portfolio. At this stage, the QAA does not require the HEI to

commit to any action on the way forward, but to take cognisance of these opportunities for

improvement and suggest future actions, in line with their strategic objectives, fitness for

purpose and fitness of purpose. To this end, the QAA expects that the HEI will keep the ADRI

cycles of its processes ongoing.

6.6 2 Part B of the SER

There are a number of supporting documents which are essential and relevant to the Quality

Audit. These documents are required to support Part A of the SER and to assist the Audit Panel

in forming an enhanced understanding of the HEI. All the supporting documents must be

consistently indexed and systematically collated for ease of reference. The QAA requires that

the HEI analyses all primary data collected during the institutional self-evaluation, before

including them in the SER. The Audit Panel should not be overburdened with unproductive

information. At any time during the audit process, the Audit Panel may, through the QAA,

request the HEI to submit additional supporting documents. For this purpose, the Director

Quality Assurance/Officer shall be the designated liaison officer on behalf of the HEI.

The list of supporting documents to be included in Part B of the SER is given hereunder; the

indexing of the supporting documents will vary depending on the flow of the SER. The SER

may contain other supporting documents which the HEI deems necessary as per its findings

during the institutional self-evaluation.

Below is an example of the list of supporting documents to be submitted:

SD 001 Copy of the Legislation under which the HEI is established (applicable to

public HEIs, private HEIs with awarding powers).

SD 002 Registration Certificate with the Higher Education Commission

(Applicable to all private HEIs).

SD 003 Evidence of Accreditation, as applicable.

52

SD 004 HEI’s Strategic Plan.

(In case the audit period covered pertains to 2 Strategic Plans, both must be

submitted).

SD005 HEI’s most recent annual Report.

SD 006 List of all programmes on offer, classified by level, Faculty and mode of

delivery.

SM007 A list of staff by cadre, names, position and highest qualifications (Please

mention full-time or part-time appointment).

SM008 Composition of all governing instances (academic and non-academic).

SM007 List of all internal reviews conducted over the last 5 years (programme

reviews, quality assurance reviews and list of reviews should be included).

SM008 A campus plan, with details about institutional capacity.

SM009 Student enrolment by programme/year and gender for last 3 years.

SM010 Output rates by programme and by year for the last 3 years.

6.7 Mock Audit

The Mock Audit is an internal Quality Audit organised by the HEI prior to finalising the SER.

It is an optional internal quality assurance process which provides the HEI with an opportunity

to test the content of the SER before submitting the same to the QAA. The Mock Audit is part

of the institutional self-evaluation and is conducted for the sole purpose of testing the reliability

of the SER. It is also an opportunity for the HEI to become acquainted with the audit process

and to improve on logistical aspects of the QAA Quality Audit. The choice and responsibility

to appoint the Audit Panel for the Mock Audit rests with the HEI.

Further to a Mock Audit, the HEI may choose to amend its SER, prior to its submission, to the

QAA. The QAA advises that the amendments should be carefully considered to ensure

consistency of content and to ascertain ownership by the HEI. It is to be noted that, for

pragmatic reasons, the audit trail of the Mock Audit may not be similar to that of the QAA

Quality Audit. For this purpose, the HEI must not anticipate questions and answers, based on

the Mock Audit.

53

6.8 Continuous Quality Enhancement

In view of the quantum of resource mobilisation and efforts which goes into the preparation of

an institutional self-evaluation and the mounting of the SER, the QAA is of the view that the

SER is an important tool for Quality Assurance. Hence, the QAA recommends that the HEI

continuously maintains the SER with updated empirical and analytical data for the purpose of

the ongoing monitoring of internal quality assurance and the HEI’s performance.

54

7. AUDIT SCOPE

7.0 Introduction

This section defines the scope of the self-evaluation exercise and the Quality Audit, in line with

the audit principles and IQA Standards. It describes the approach which HEIs need to adopt to

conduct their self-evaluation and structure their SER. The section also provides guidance to

HEIs on the submission of documentary evidence in the SER.

7.1 Audit Principles

The goal of a Quality Audit is to enhance the internal quality assurance systems of HEIs so that

they comply with IQA standards. The standards guiding the Audit have been defined in the

EQA. One of the main characteristics of the framework of the QAA is to ensure the autonomy

of the HEIs in developing their own quality systems based on their needs and goals, vision &

mission. The comprehensiveness, functioning and effectiveness of the systems are then

evaluated in the audits.

The audit approach corresponds to the principle of enhancement-led evaluation to help HEIs

identify the strengths, good practices and areas in need of development in their operations. The

purpose is to help HEIs achieve their strategic objectives and steer future development

activities in order to create a framework for the institution’s continuous development. The

autonomy and strategic development of HEIs are thus being supported by the Quality Audit.

The Audit will aim to enhance the systematic development of quality systems and operating

methods.

7.2 Audit Scope

The scope of the Quality Audit encompasses all the core activities and elements within the

HEI, which are necessary for a ‘fit for purpose’ organisation. The standards and guidelines for

IQA (Section 2) as prescribed in this document, serve to inform HEIs of the requirements for

quality assurance. Prior to initiating the audit process, HEIs will be supported through capacity-

building exercises, to set up and develop their internal quality assurance systems.

Subsequently, as per the Audit Process (Section 5), the QAA will, on the basis of the Standards

and Guidelines for EQA, evaluate the effectiveness of its internal quality assurance system as

well as the extent to which the HEI is meeting its objectives. The EQA Standards and

Guidelines are detailed in Section 3.

55

Although the scope of the audit provides for a harmonised approach to quality audits across

the Higher Education Sector, the breadth and depth of each audit may vary according to the

context and specificity of each HEI. Hence, it is advisable that, while preparing for the quality

audit, HEIs are well acquainted with all their operational requirements and performance.

This section provides a description of the essential parameters on the basis of which an HEI is

expected to evaluate its performance so as to cover the scope of the Audit. These have been

developed on the basis of IQA requirements and have been elaborated for each standard, as

given below. For each standard, HEIs are thus expected to use the ADRI Model for internal

quality assurance, to ensure that all the sections are addressed by providing relevant and reliable

information. The contents for the SER must take into account the requirements of Section 7.3,

as given below.

7.3 Content and Heading of the Self-Evaluation Report:

The SER must be structured according to the headings listed below. On the other hand, the

institution is free to decide on the use of any sub-headings and provide any additional relevant

information in relation to the audit criteria. The SER is expected to be a reflective self-

evaluation, with the identification of strengths, weaknesses, and areas in need of development.

Although it has to include a concrete description of its practical measures, it should, however,

focus on evaluation done in an objective manner rather than on description. Under each heading

of the criteria, HEIs are expected to provide the required documents. They are, however, free

to provide any other additional, but relevant, documentary evidence, quantitative and

qualitative data to illustrate and support their claims.

7.3.1 Quality Assurance Policy

a) Description

HEIs are required to give a full description of their Quality Assurance Policy, explaining how

it has been developed and disseminated throughout the organization with a view to fostering a

quality culture. The key objectives of the Quality Assurance Policy, and how they have been

set, must be provided as well as an explanation of the structures and processes in place. The

HEIs can also describe the functioning and responsibilities of the Quality Assurance

System/Department/Unit. The HEIs should also explain the extent to which it relates to internal

and external stakeholders, students, staff and the society, in general. The mechanism in place

to regularly review the policy has to be explained.

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to assess their Internal Quality Policy against their own objectives and the

standards of the QAA. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine

the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are to be

summarized in Table format, as given below:

56

Strengths Weaknesses Areas in need of improvement

c) Documentary Evidence to be submitted

● Quality Assurance Policy;

● Feedback Questionnaires;

● Evidence of collection and analysis of data from feedback questionnaires;

● Evidence of how the HEI closes the loop and the improvements made (if

applicable);

● Table on the recommendations of the previous Audit setting out the progress

made in implementing them;

● Quality Assurance Handbook.

7.3.2 Strategic Intent

a) Description

The HEI should describe the implementation of its strategic plan and the progress made

towards the fulfilment of its strategic goals and objectives. The description should include the

means by which the strategic planning is communicated internally and externally. The

development of the operational planning system and the linkages between the strategic

planning and the QA system have to be explained.

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to evaluate their mechanisms to develop and implement their strategic plan.

In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine the strengths,

weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are to be summarized in Table

format, as given below:



● Strategic Plan;

● Operational Plan;

● Annual Reports;

● Key Performance Indicators;

● Practices/evidence demonstrating that the institution implements its policy and

strategic objectives;

57

● Practices demonstrating that quality management is integrated with strategic

management.

7.3.3 Governance and Management

a) Description

The HEI should describe its Governance System which may include, amongst others, the Board

of Directors, Board of Trustees or Council, as applicable. The mandate, duties, responsibilities,

and powers of the governing bodies must be explained. The Management System within the

organization has to be described. This includes inter alia committee structures, Academic

Departments, position description of Senior Staff, delegation of authority from governing

bodies and any other decision-making mechanism. In line with its description, the institution

shall submit its policies on Ethics, Transparency, Academic Integrity and misconduct of

students and staff, amongst others.

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to evaluate their Governance Structures and Management Systems in place.

The evaluation can include an assessment of the current Performance Review Mechanism. In

line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine the strengths,

weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are to be summarized in Table

format, as given below:



● Organisation Structure and Organisation Charts;

● Charter of institution;

● Process Management and flows;

● Committee structures and membership;

● Sample of Minutes of different meetings;

● Conflict of interest forms;

● Complaint Mechanism;

● Appeals procedures.

58

7.3.4 Management of Financial Resources

a) Description

The HEI should describe its Financial Management System with a view to demonstrating

alignment with its strategic objectives and the provision of quality education. This can include

financial planning and budgeting, accounts and management, reporting, financial risk

management, fees-setting, financial auditing, amongst others. The development and

implementation of financial strategies and procedures have to be explained.

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to evaluate their Financial Management structures and procedures against

their own objectives. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine

the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are be




● Auditors’ Report for the past three years;

● Budgets;

● Cash-flow Statements (Actual and projection for five years).

7.3.5 Human Resources

a) Description

The HEI should describe its Human Resources strategies, policies and practices and show how

these are aligned with the strategic objectives of the institution. The objectives of the Human

Resources policies have to be explained and should aim to show how they support quality

Higher Education through a healthy work environment.

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to evaluate their Human Resources strategies, policies and practices against

their own objectives and the standards of the QAA. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation

59

should be done to determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The

key findings are to be summarized in Table format, as given below:



● Human Resources Plan;

● Recruitment and selection processes;

● Recruitment policies;

● Promotion policies;

● Performance-evaluation questionnaires for Staff;

● An example of an advertisement for a post;

● Institutional organigram and organigram for all Departments/Units;

● Staff list department-wise with highest qualifications;

● Staff to student ratio;

● Staff Turnover over past three years;

● Professional development policy.

7.3.6 Infrastructure and Facilities

a) Description

The HEI should describe its policies and practices governing its infrastructure and facilities

and show how they relate to the institution’s strategic objectives. The write-up should explain

how the infrastructure and facilities are meant to support teaching and learning and provide the

required resources to support research and other scholarly activities. The description can cover

the full range of infrastructure and general facilities at the institution and may include, for

example, campus management planning and implementation, adherence to health and safety

laws and standards, facilities for persons with disabilities, availability of an appropriate virtual

learning environment for distance and blended learning, analysis of utilization rates, capital

asset registers, management and replacement of assets, cleaning, car parking, among others.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to assess its policies and practices governing its infrastructure and facilities

against its own objectives and the standards of the QAA. In line with the ADRI model, the

evaluation should be done to determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of

improvement. The key findings are to be summarized in Table format, as given below:

60



● Campus Planning and Facilities Management Policy;

● Physical Assets Register;

● List of available learning resources and equipment (e.g. classrooms, library, IT,

laboratories) at the institution;

● Students’ access to the partners’/awarding body’s learning resources (e.g. Online

learning platform, library), MOUs, if any;

● Health & Safety Policy;

● Fire Certificate;

● Insurance Cover (third party liability insurance);

● Lease Agreement (if any);

● Facilities / arrangements for Special Educational Needs and physically-challenged

students;

● List of facilities for distance and blended learning;

● Arrangements to ensure continuity of courses during force majeure.

7.3.7 Student Services

a) Description

The HEIs should describe the system for setting, implementing and reviewing its policies,

structures and mechanisms to support and monitor the students’ lifecycle. The description

should cover the following four stages of the students’ lifecycle (Four different sub-headings

can be created for each title):

i. Students’ Recruitment & Admission;

ii. Students’ Progression;

iii. Certification;

iv. Students’ Support (academic and non-academic).

b) Evaluation

HEIs are required to objectively evaluate their system governing Student Services in respect of

the four areas identified above. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to

determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are

be summarized in Table format, as given below:

61



● Policies and written procedures for students’ recruitment and admission,

students’ progression, certification and students’ support;

● General entry requirements for different programme levels;

● Information on RPL and other different entry routes;

● Mechanism for mapping alternative qualifications;

● Students’ application form;

● An extract of the tool developed to compile students’ information and track

students’ progression;

● Sample of transcripts and certificates;

● Student Handbook;

● Grievance Procedures;

● Student charter;

● Student welfare services;

● Policy for students’ placement;

● Policies regarding scholarships and financial assistance.

7.3.8 Programme Development, Management and Review

a) Description

The HEI is required to describe the policies and processes which it has in place to develop,

approve, monitor and review its programmes. The description has to explain how the institution

develops outcome-based programmes and the mechanism which it employs to ensure that the

programme levels are in line with the NQF and meet the requirements of professional bodies,

where applicable.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to assess its policies and practices in relation to programme design,

development, management and review. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be

done to determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key

findings are to be summarized in Table format, as given below:


62


● Policies and processes in place for programme development, monitoring and

review;

● Procedures to conduct research for new programmes;

● Samples of programme handbooks;

● Evidence of monitoring programmes (sample) in terms of relevance and

demand;

● Documents about the credit system and the rationale of credits allocation

(National Credit Value and Transfer System);

● Evidence of alignment of programmes with respective NQF level;

● Terms of Reference of the Programme Development Committee;

● Accreditation of programmes by professional bodies, where applicable;

● Procedures for the pre-testing and piloting of all learning resources.

7.3.9 Teaching, Learning and Assessment

a) Description

The HEI should describe its policies and practices with regard to Teaching, Learning and

Assessment. The description should explain the extent to which the policies and practices in

place foster learner-centred teaching practices and aim to develop assessments which are

transparent and outcome-based.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate its policies and practices pertaining to Teaching, Learning and

Assessment. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine the

strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are to be




7.3.9.1 Teaching and Learning

● Teaching and Learning Policy;

● Evidence of outcome-based learning;

● Teaching and Learning strategies;

63

● Arrangements for different modes of delivery;

● Teaching and Learning evaluation mechanisms;

● Mechanisms for the benchmarking of Teaching and Learning effectiveness;

● Student Information System to monitor students’ progress;

● Evidence of collaboration with Industry (where applicable);

● Sample Module Map.

7.3.9.2 Assessment

● Regulations, procedures and guidelines regarding the standard of

assessment and criteria for mitigating circumstances;

● Structure of Examination Unit;

● Evidence of outcome-based assessments;

● Moderation procedures and processes in place;

● Appeal procedures and processes in place for grievances and remarking of

examination scripts;

● The security and integrity of examinations;

● Procedures and criteria for selection of external examiners;

● Ethics Policy and Integrity Policy.

Moreover, in the case of on-line assessment for ODL programmes, the HEI shall, in addition

to the above ascertain that:

● There is a list of relevant resources in terms of technology, software and

internet connection, to carry out on-line assessments;

● Ensure that students and staff are trained in the use of the on-line assessment

platform;

● Ensure that on-line assessments are secure, tamper-free and hack-proof.

7.3.10 Research and Innovation

a) Description

The HEI should describe the structures and policies which are in place to promote, facilitate

and reward research activities. It should explain the measures being undertaken to promote

innovative and ethical research practices. The institution should describe how its structures and

processes aim to promote community-and industry-focused research at national and

international levels. Information on the mechanisms in place to regulate and support students’

research must be provided.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate its policies and practices pertaining to research, innovation and

students’ research. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine

64



Strengths Weaknesses Areas for improvement


● Research Development Plan;

● Research Committee Structure;

● Research performance outputs (e.g. lists of patents, number of publications by Staff

and students);

● Contribution to community-based research;

● Policy and procedures for Ethical Review.

7.3.11 Management of Information

a) Description

The HEI should explain the system which it has in place to capture, process and analyse data

to be used in the management of its programmes. This can include its management of

information systems, or any other mechanism which makes use of data analysis to improve its

processes.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate its policies and practices pertaining to its management of

information systems. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be done to determine





● Institution’s Information Management Policy;

● The Management Information System used by the institution, its functions and

supported processes;

● Mechanisms ensuring security and reliability of collected data;

65

● Examples of improvements brought through the use of MIS analysis results;

● Evidence of training provided to Staff related to MIS.

7.3.12 Public Communication

a) Description

The HEI should describe its Public Communication Policy and mechanisms that it uses to

publish information on its activities and programmes. It should explain how marketing and

communication strategies are developed, implemented and reviewed, in line with internal and

external regulations. Information on the functioning and responsibilities of the public

communication processes can be provided.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate the mechanisms which it has in place to develop and implement

its public communication and marketing strategies. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation

should be done to determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The

key findings are to be summarized in Table format, as given below:



● Advertising materials;

● Course prospectuses;

● Communication policies and strategies (to all stakeholders);

● Links to websites and on-line addresses.

7.3.13 Community Engagement and Outreach

a) Description

The HEI should explain how its mission and strategic objectives allow it to engage with and

support the community with a view to contributing to society. Evidence of the policies and

procedures in place to achieve this objective should be provided.

66

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate the extent to which it is able to engage with the community in

accordance with its strategic objectives. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should be

done to determine the strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key

findings are to be summarized in Table format, as given below:

Strengths Weaknesses Areas for improvement


● Community Engagement and Outreach Policy;

● Community Engagement and Outreach Plan;

● Lists of projects with community and outcomes;

● Reputation Survey;

● Networking initiatives with other HEIs in the sector.

7.3.14 Collaborations

a) Description

The HEI should explain its policy and formal system in place to manage its collaborations with

other institutions, whether local or international, for cross-border provisions or franchise

agreements. The type of agreement signed (MOU or MOA) and the objectives of these

agreements should be described.

b) Evaluation

The HEI is required to evaluate its policies and procedures in place to manage its collaborations

with other institutions. In line with the ADRI model, the evaluation should determine the

strengths, weaknesses and areas in need of improvement. The key findings are to be




● Copies of agreements with other institutions, with which the HEI has formal

collaborations.

67

8. GUIDELINES FOR REPORT WRITING

8.0 Introduction

The findings and conclusions of the quality audit exercise are recorded in the Quality Audit

Report, an official document of the QAA, detailing the HEI’s ongoing quality improvement

and highlighting areas of good practice and the overall effectiveness of its QA system.

Commendations and recommendations are made by the Audit Panel in line with public

accountability and quality enhancement requirements. The Audit Report presents the findings

of the Audit Panel in a clear and concise manner to a targeted audience which includes internal

and external stakeholders of the HEI. As a common international practice to ensure fairness

and transparency, the Audit Report is published on the website of the QAA.

This section provides the QAA, the Audit Panel and HEIs essential information and guidance

regarding the report writing phase. In line with the terms of reference, the Audit Panel will

contribute diligently to the report writing process.

While writing its main findings, the Audit Panel is expected to refer to the Audit Scope, given

in Section 7. However, the Audit Panel is not limited to the scope of the audit and may, under

special circumstances, highlight areas of high risks or identify best practices which add value

to the Higher Education System in Mauritius.

8.1 Structure of the Report

The Quality Audit Report has a standard structure, although each HEI may be at different stages

of their quality cycle. The template provided below is indicative of the main headings about

the structure of the Audit Report. However, depending on the specificity of the HEI, this

structure may vary slightly and also include information about previous quality audits.

1. List of Abbreviations

2. Table of Contents

3. Overview of the Audit

This section provides a summary of the audit process and the methods used by the QAA

and its Audit Panel. The section will also include the objectives of the audit and its

scope, the composition of the Quality Audit Panel and the respective Terms of

Reference of the Audit Panel.

4. Executive Summary of the Audit Findings

This section presents a brief of the main findings and conclusions of the Quality Audit.

The purpose of this section is to provide a concise and balanced overview of the Audit

Report and to highlight pertinent issues, if any.

68

5. Commendations of the Quality Audit Panel

A list of all the commendations, made by the Audit Panel is presented in this section in

the same order as they appear in the Report for ease of reference, and they are not

prioritised. Commendations are statements about areas of good practices that the HEI

has to maintain.

6. Recommendations of the Quality Audit Panel

A list of all the recommendations made by the Audit Panel is presented in this section

in the same order as they appear in the Report for ease of reference, and they are not

prioritised. Recommendations are statements made by the panel, signifying areas where

the institution needs improvement.

7. Follow-up on the progress of the recommendations made by the previous Quality

Audit (Applicable to institutions undergoing subsequent quality audit cycles)

This section will present the progress made by the HEI in the implementation of the

recommendations made by the previous Audit Panel. The Audit Panel will make an

informed decision about the implementation of prior recommendations based on the

mid-cycle review of the HEI and the empirical evidence submitted by the latter to

demonstrate that the measures taken have been assessed through the ADRI cycle

(Appendix 8), and the suggested way forward.

8. Detailed Findings in line with the IQA Standards.

In this section, the Audit Panel will provide its findings (commendations,

recommendations and comments) as per the standards of the IQA. The comments

appearing after each commendation/recommendation provide some clarifications and

explain, in a very lucid manner, the basis of the same. It is essential that the findings

are based on evidence. Additionally, panel members shall bear the local context in mind

while carrying out the audit and writing the Report. The detailed findings must be

provided in the same order as the Standards and Guidelines of the IQA. The Report

shall include findings on themes for HEIs which have already completed a first cycle

Quality Audit exercise and will undergo subsequent ones. The IQA standards are as

follows:

69

S/N IQA Standards

8.1 Standard 1: Quality Assurance Policy

8.2 Standard 2: Strategic Intent


8.4 Standard 4: Management of Financial Resources

8.5 Standard 5: Human Resources

8.6 Standard 6: Infrastructure and Facilities

8.7 Standard 7: Student Services

8.8 Standard 8: Programme Development, Monitoring and Review

8.9 Standard 9: Teaching, Learning and Assessment

8.10 Standard 10: Research and Innovation

8.11 Standard 11: Management of Information

8.12 Standard 12: Public Communication

8.13 Standard 13: Community Engagement and Outreach

8.14 Standard 14: Collaborations

Themes (if applicable):

8.16 Theme 1

8.17 Theme 2

70

9. Appendices

The last part of the Report shall include Appendices A and B. Appendix A provides relevant

details about the panel members, whilst Appendix B relates to the HEI’s profile. If required,

additional Appendices may be included.

9. Appendices

9.1 Appendix A: Composition of Audit Panel

9.2 Appendix B: Institutional Profile

8.2 Report Writing - Stages and Time-Frame

The Audit Secretary incorporates the Panel’s feedback into a succession of drafts. The Audit

Panel will draft the Audit Report, as per the terms of reference and as guided by the QAA. The

Chairperson of the Audit has to ensure that the content of the drafts is in line with the findings

of the audit exercise. Panel members shall ensure that their writings are submitted in a timely

manner so as to contribute positively to the report writing process. The Audit Secretary shall

ensure coordination among panel members throughout the writing process, within the

stipulated time-frame.

8.2.1 First Draft of Quality Audit Report

Within 8 weeks of the audit visit, the Audit Secretary shall obtain the Panel’s approval on a

definitive draft to be sent to the HEI for verification of any factual, typographical errors and

omissions. The HEI’s feedback is received within 2 weeks and is considered by the QAA in

consultation with the Panel. The QAA reserves the right to accept or reject the suggestions

made by the HEI.

8.2.2 Second Draft of the Quality Audit Report

Upon receipt of views from the HEI, the QAA will finalise the Report with the Quality Audit

Panel. Finalisation and endorsement of the Report have to be completed by the Panel within 2

weeks of the receipt of factual, typographical errors and omissions from the HEI.

8.2.3 Final Quality Audit Report

The approval of the QAA Board will be sought within 4 weeks of the finalisation of the Quality

Audit Report by the Panel. The final Quality Audit Report, as approved by the QAA Board,

becomes the property of the QAA. The final Report shall be published on the QAA website.

The Report is submitted to the HEI and a copy to the parent Ministry.

71

8.3 Report Writing Style

The report writing style, clarity and quality of communication are elements that need to be also

considered with the utmost care while drafting the Report. Writers and contributors shall adhere

to the following:

(i) Using the active voice rather than the passive voice;

(ii) Using short and concise sentences, with positive connotations as far as possible;

(iii) Avoiding long words and using shorter ones;

(iv) Dealing with only one issue in each paragraph and helping the reader grasp the issues dealt

with by breaking down long passages into short paragraphs;

(v) Limiting the use of jargon and abbreviations, unless these are clearly defined;

(vi) Ensuring that ‘Commendations’ are specific and following the examples provided

hereunder as far as possible:

“The <Name of HEI> is commended for having implemented………….”

(vii) Ensuring that ‘Recommendations’ are specific and can be monitored, is a logical

development of the conclusions drawn by the Panel, feasible and clearly expressed. The

recommendations shall be as per the following examples:

“The <Name of HEI> is recommended to ………………….”

8.4 Responsibility: The Writer and the Contributors

Each panel member contributes to the report writing, as assigned by the Panel Chair. The Audit

Secretary, as nominated by the QAA, collects and collates all the different write-ups from each

panel member to come up with a definitive draft. The HEI must confirm that the final draft

does not contain factual errors and omissions. The Audit Report is finalised and endorsed by

the Panel and, subsequently, approved by the QAA Board.

8.5 Copyright

The QAA shall have copyright on the Quality Audit Report.

72

9. FOLLOW-UP ON THE AUDIT REPORT

9.0 Introduction

Further to the publication of an Audit Report, the QAA has set forth a sequential process to

ensure that HEIs remain committed to institutional quality improvement and accountable to the

QAA in implementing the standards and guidelines of the IQA and the EQA. The follow-up

on an Audit Report is a multi-stage process comprising the submission of an Action Plan on

how the HEI intends to implement the recommendations contained in its Audit Report. Further

to that, the HEI will be expected to submit regular progress reports to the QAA on the

implementation of the Action-Plan. Subsequently, 2 years after the Quality Audit, a Mid-Cycle

Review will be carried out by the QAA to assess the extent to which the recommendations have

been implemented by the HEI. Each stage following the Audit Report is explained in detail

below.

9.1. Action Plan (3 months after the Audit)

After the publication of an Audit Report, the HEI has a time period of 3 months within which

it must submit an Action Plan to the QAA about addressing the recommendations contained in

its Audit Report.

For each recommendation, the HEI is expected to use the ADRI Model, as outlined in Appendix

8 to inform the QAA of the actions identified by the institution, the resources which it is willing

to deploy, the intended results and the improvement which it is expecting to make with regard

to the quality of its performance.

Although the QAA deems that the Action Plan is a formal commitment made by the HEI with

regard to addressing the recommendations of the Audit Report, the actions identified by the

HEI are not binding. Thus, at any point in time, if the HEI is not satisfied with the results of a

particular action, it may review the actions identified in its ADRI cycle.

9.2 Progress Reports (Every 6 months after the submission

of the Action Plan)

In line with the Audit Process, the HEI is required to submit a Progress Report on the progress

made with regard to the implementation of the Action Plan. The purpose of these reports is to

ensure that the HEI remains committed to quality improvement and, hence, accountable to the

QAA in terms of Quality Assurance and standards development. At this stage, the HEI is not

expected to provide the QAA with detailed results of each ADRI cycle, but to provide factual

information about the actions taken and the monitoring processes used to ensure that the

recommendations are being addressed.

73

9.3 Mid-Cycle Review (2 years after the release of the Audit

Report)

The Mid-Cycle Review is an enhancement-led process which is conducted by the QAA, 2 years

after the release of the Audit Report, as a follow-up exercise on the Audit Report. The aim is

to ascertain that the HEI is improving on the quality of its core functions, through institutional

processes which are consistent with its intended goals and with the IQA standards and

guidelines of the QAA.

9.3.1 Mid-Cycle Portfolio

The Mid-Cycle Review is based on the principle of self-review, whereby the HEI is expected

to provide a detailed overview of all the actions taken to address the recommendations

contained in its Audit Report. The HEI is expected to use the ADRI Model and provide

evidence-based analytical information about how each recommendation has been addressed,

comment on the results obtained through the ADRI cycle and identify further areas for

improvement. It is to be noted that all the ADRI cycles, identified by the HEI, must be aligned

with the requirements of the IQA standards and guidelines of the QAA. The HEI is expected

to submit this information in a structured format to the QAA in the form of a Mid-Cycle

Portfolio.

9.3.2 Mid-Cycle Review Visit (not later than 2 months after the submission

of the Mid-Cycle Portfolio)

The Mid-Cycle Review Visit will be carried out at the HEI and may not exceed 2 days. The

purpose of the visit shall be to discuss the information provided by the HEI in its Mid-Cycle

Portfolio and verify evidence of claims made by the HEI. The purpose of the visit is to

triangulate on information obtained and ensure that the internal quality assurance mechanisms

of the HEIs are fit for purpose and as well as verify if the recommendations have been

effectively implemented. At this stage of the process, the HEI is expected to have completely

addressed all the recommendations contained in its Audit Report and to have put in place

effective mechanisms to monitor continuously and improve on its quality assurance processes.

The Mid-Cycle Review Visit will be conducted by a Review Panel comprising 2 professional

Officers from the QAA and an external panel member. The external member shall be one of

the QAA auditors who formed part of the Quality Audit Panel.

The logistical arrangements for the Mid-Cycle Review follow the same pattern as for the

Quality Audit exercise but the review is conducted on a reduced scale. The QAA and the HEI

will agree on a date for the Mid-Cycle Review Visit and a programme for the visit will be

communicated to the HEI at least one month prior to the visit.

74

9.3.3 Mid-Cycle Report (1 month after the Mid-Cycle Review Visit)

A Mid-Cycle Report is prepared by the team involved in the Mid-Cycle Review Visit and will

explain the extent to which the HEI has implemented on the recommendations of the Audit

Report.

Each recommendation contained in the Audit Report will be assessed separately, based on the

information provided in the Mid-Cycle Review Portfolio, information and evidence obtained

during the visit. The progress of the HEI on each recommendation will be assessed using of

one the 4 qualifying statements, as given below:

Sn Qualifying

Statements

Statement Description

1 Extended The HEI has successfully implemented the

recommendations to a large extent and has used an

evidence-based approach to ensure the outcome of the

ADRI cycle.

2 Achieved The HEI has implemented the recommendations

through a positive outcome in the ADRI cycle.

3 Partly achieved The HEI has developed an appropriate ADRI cycle and

there are mechanisms in place to support the ADRI

cycle. However, the outcome of the ADRI cycle is yet

to be evaluated.

4 Not Achieved The HEI is yet to initiate action on the

recommendation.

The Mid-Cycle Report is submitted to the Board of the QAA prior to its release to the HEI.

The QAA Board may make further recommendations as necessary to ensure compliance

with provisions of the Higher Education Act.

75

9.4 Outcome of the Mid-Cycle Review

The QAA requires that, at the time of the Mid-Cycle Review, i.e. 2 years after the Quality

Audit, the HEI will have implemented all the recommendations of the Audit Report and

that each recommendation will obtain a qualifying statement of ‘Achieved’ or ‘Extended.

For the QAA, any recommendation which secures a qualifying statement of ‘Achieved’ or

‘Extended’ will be considered as having met the requirements of QAA in terms of fitness

for purpose.

Any recommendation which obtains a qualifying statement of ‘Partly Achieved’ or ‘Not

Achieved’ will be brought to the attention of the HEI for immediate action. Within a period

of not more than 6 months, the HEI must demonstrate to the QAA that measures have been

taken to address the recommendation appropriately.

In the event of an institution obtaining ‘Partly Achieved’ and ‘Not Achieved’ on more

than 40% of the recommendations, the HEI will be deemed as not fit for purpose and

the appropriate provisions of the Higher Education Act will be applied.

76

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Conflict of Interest Disclosure

CONFIDENTIAL

This declaration of interests, and disclosure of conflicts of interest or potential conflicts of interest, is

required under QAA Framework. These arrangements and disclosure of interests are required as a

matter of due diligence, to ensure appropriate assurance in matters of conflict of interest, professional

integrity, independence of judgment and to protect the QAA and participants from reputational risk.

You have been invited to serve on the QAA Audit Panel because of your professional standing and

expertise. Your role in the QAA Audit Panel demands that it pays special attention to issues of

independence and potential bias in order to maintain the integrity of public confidence. It is essential

that the work of the QAA is not compromised by any conflict of interest for those who execute it. The

Panel’s opinions and actions must be, and be seen to be, impartial. In view of this, disclosure of certain

circumstances is necessary to ensure that the work of the QAA is not compromised by conflicts of

interest.

Any real or perceived conflicts of interest that might arise before undertaking assignments for the QAA

are required to be declared.

Conflicts of interest could include:

● any financial interest or financial investments;

● non-financial support and any form of gratification;

● any relatives with an interest in the HEI;

● any personal bias or inclination which would affect decisions in relation to the Audit;

● any personal obligation, allegiance or loyalty which would affect decisions in relation to the audit;

● any employment history and/or prior contracts with the HEI over the past five years;

● consulting relationships;

● intellectual property interests and research support.

Panel members are obliged to notify QAA as soon as possible if they consider that they have any matters

that need to be declared in light of the above. You must promptly inform the QAA if there is any change

in this information prior to, or during, the course of your work or meetings for the QAA. This form and

the declarations contained therein must be completed before confirming participation in the Audit.

We rely on your professionalism, common sense, and honesty.

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, I do not have any conflict of interest

with the HEI. Should there be any change to the above information and declaration, I will

promptly notify the QAA about the changes.

Name:

Signature: Date:

Appendix 2: Template for Preliminary Analysis

Audit Title

Date of submission of SER

Date of Portfolio Meeting

Audit Date

Panel member

Guiding Pointers on the way forward (To be included by the Chairperson/ QAA Audit Panel Member/ Audit Secretary)

e.g.

● The guiding documents are the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Audits published by QAA and the SER. ● Please read the SER and provide preliminary views on the standards as set out in the IQA. ● Please add comments to what additional documents you would like to have access to, whom you think it is important to speak to during

the interview sessions and jot down some questions to ask on issues that need clarity.

A. Preliminary Comments on SER

This section may be adapted according to the information provided in the SER.

e.g. A1. About the institution (Mission, Vision, Core Values)

e.g. A2. Responding to the recommendations of the previous Audit

B. Analysis based on IQA standards and selected themes

B1. Standard or Theme: e.g. Quality Assurance Policy

78

Comments (including potential areas for Commendation and

Recommendation)Please include SER page numbers and Annex

numbers where appropriate

Further information/evidence required; people to meet; questions

to be asked; matters for clarification

B2. Standard or Theme e.g. Strategic Intent

Appendix 3: Model Audit Programme

The Model Audit Programme is an indicative programme about the structure of the Audit Visit

and the time allotted for the interview sessions. The Model Audit Programme also provides an

overview of the internal and external stakeholders who will be involved in the Audit Exercise.

The final Audit Programme for each Audit Visit will be adapted according to the specificity of

the HEI being audited.

Day 1 Pre-Audit Meeting and Visit to the Institution

Day 2

09.00-09.30 Meeting with Institution’s Quality Assurance Co-ordinator followed by

Orientation

09.30-10.15 Interview with Vice-Chancellor/Director-General/Director and Executive

Management

10.15 - 10.30 Review

10.30 - 10.45 Coffee Break

10.45 - 11.45 Interview with Deans of Faculties/Heads of Schools

11.45 - 12.00 Review

12.00 - 12.45 Interview with Heads of Departments (one from each Faculty)

12.45 - 13.00 Review

13.00 - 14.00 Lunch Break

14.00 - 14.45 Interview with Lecturers (one from each Department)

14.45 -15.00 Review

15.00 - 15.15 Tea Break

15.15 - 16.00 Interview with Student Representatives

16.00 - 16.30 Review

Plan for Day 3

Wind-up

80

Day 3

09.00 - 09.45 Interview with Members of Senate/Academic Council

09.45 - 10.00 Review


10.15 - 11.00 Interview with Council/Board Members

11.00 - 11.15 Review

11.15 - 12.00 Meeting with Administrative and Support Staff

12.00 - 12.15 Review


13.15 - 14.00 Interview with members of Staff Association

14.00 - 14.30 Review

Planning for Day 4

14.30 - 16.00 Visits

16.00 - 16.30 Review

Plan for Day 4

Wind-up

Day 4

09.00 - 09.45 Interview with Quality Assurance Committee

09.45 - 10.00 Review


10.15 - 11.00 Interview with external members/collaborative partners

11.00 - 11.15 Review

11.15 - 12.00 Interview with Heads of Centres

12.00 - 12.15 Review


81

13.15 - 13.45 Interview with Masters and PhD Students

13.45 - 15.00 Meeting with Research Committee

15.00 - 15.15 Tea Break

15.15 - 16.30 Review

Plan for Day 5

Wind-up

Private Panel meeting to draft conclusions

Day 5

09.00 - 09.45 Interview with Teaching Learning Committee

09.45 - 10.00 Review


10.15 - 11.00 Interview with Library Staff

11.00 - 12.15 Review/Call back sessions


13.15 - 15.00 Open Session – Students and Staff

15.00 - 15.15 Tea Break

15.15 - 16.00 Private Panel meeting to draft conclusions

16.00 - 16.30 Closing meeting with Vice-Chancellor/Director-General/Director (and others):

brief outline of Panel’s main conclusions

82

Appendix 4: Terms of Reference

Participation of Observers in Audit Panels

Observer on Audit Panels

The QAA may, at its discretion, accede to requests from persons wishing to act as observers

on Quality Audits or Mid-Cycle Reviews. The practice of allowing observers on external audits

is a widely accepted international practice which aims at facilitating the development of quality

assurance professionals.

The number of observers on an Audit/Review is limited to one per Audit and is permissible

provided the observer acts in full conformity with the confidentiality and integrity requirements

of the QAA.

Requests to act as observers should be formally submitted to the QAA and accompanied by a

CV and motivation letter. The decision to allow an observer on an Audit/ Review will be

determined based on potential conflict of interest arising from such participation.

If an offer is made by the QAA for an individual to act as an observer, the latter is required to

disclose any conflict of interest (personal/professional), if any. Confirmation of participation

as an observer will be subject to a ‘no objection’ from the HEI being audited. The approval of

the QAA Board will be sought to finalise the participation of the observer.

Access to Audit/Review information as Observer

Once the QAA confirms the participation of an observer on an Audit/Review, the Authority

shall ensure that the latter receives adequate exposure for a conducive learning experience. The

observer shall have access to important stages of the Audit/Review as determined by the QAA

and will receive a copy of the Audit Portfolio submitted by the HEI. The Observer shall,

however, have no access to the report drafting part of the Audit/Review. The role of the

Observer shall end when the Audit Panel exits the HEI.

Responsibilities of the Observer

● The Observer is required to sign a Confidentiality Agreement with the QAA prior to

his/her involvement in the Audit/Review.

● The Observer is not part of the Audit/Review Panel and, as such, will only be allowed

to observe the proceedings of the Audit Panel.

● The Observer is not authorised to influence any member of the Audit Panel or the HEI

in any way during the Audit.

● The Observer shall remain silent during interview sessions, panel debriefs and all other

meetings with the HEI.

● The Observer is authorised to take notes about the Audit Process but is not authorised

to take notes of any proceedings and discussions of the Audit Panel.

83

● Should the Observer require any clarification about any audit process, he/she must

address the questions to the Audit Officer during appropriate breaks.

● The Observer is not authorised to liaise with the HEI in any form or manner, once his

observer status is confirmed by the QAA.

Facilities to Observers

● The Observer shall be responsible for his/her travel arrangements and accommodation

before, during and after the Audit/Review.

● The QAA shall cover the costs of meals and refreshments for the Observer during the

Audit Visit.

● The QAA shall provide the Observer with basic stationery, as applicable.

Terms of Reference for Chairperson of the Audit Panel

● To work in accordance with the requirements of the Quality Audit Framework of the

QAA.

● To demonstrate objectivity, fairness and transparency in all aspects of the Audit

process.

● To observe confidentiality and impartiality.

● To encourage a positive ambience for professional exchanges, critical discussions and

decisions whilst ensuring that the Audit /Review is not compromised.

● To lead the Audit Panel in the preparation of the Audit and the assessment of the Self-

evaluation Report as well as during the Audit Portfolio Meeting.

● To inform the Audit Officer/Audit Secretary of any specific requirements for the

Audit/Review prior to the planning visit.

● To lead the preparation of an audit trail prior to the Audit Visit.

● To chair all meetings pertaining to the Quality Audit/Review exercise.

● To lead the Audit Panel’s deliberations between interviews and guide the Panel in

summarising the notes and minutes to maintain a collective position.

● To guide the Audit Panel in such manner as to ensure completion of the Audit exercise

in line with the Audit time-line, in all fairness to the HEI and without compromising on

the outcomes of the Audit.

● To delegate the role of Chairperson in split sessions, as required, to ensure that all

sessions have an agreed agenda and, that at the end of the sessions, notes of discussion

are provided to the Panel.

● To conduct an Exit Meeting to inform the HEI about the Audit Panel’s key findings.

● To distribute, as required, the report writing tasks among the Panel Members, taking

into consideration their area of expertise.

● To ensure completeness and finalisation of the Audit Report for submission to the

QAA.

84

Terms of Reference for Panel Members

● To work in accordance with the requirements of the Quality Audit Framework of the

QAA.

● To act with fairness, objectivity and transparency at all times during the audit process.

● To observe confidentiality and impartiality.

● To commit to the role and responsibilities of Panel Members, as set out in this

document.

● To support the Chairperson and work in collaboration with other Panel Members and

the Audit Secretary at all stages of the Audit/Review.

● To form a judgement based on the Self-Evaluation Report submitted by the HEI,

additional information and evidence submitted by the HEI, findings from the Audit

Visit and interviews and the deliberations of the Audit Panel.

● To contribute to the drafting of the Audit Trail.

● To adhere to the Audit Programme.

● To work in accordance with the directives of the Chairperson until the completion of

the Audit Report.

● To contribute constructively and in a timely manner to the drafting of the Audit Report

and commit to the production of the Final Audit Report.

● To stand guided by the Audit Secretary for the smooth conduct of the Audit.

Terms of Reference for the Audit Secretary

In the performance of his/her duties the Audit Secretary shall:

● Guide the Audit Panel in the Audit Process and Audit Time-line.

● Be the liaison person between the Audit Panel and the HEI; and vice versa.

● Prepare the Audit Programme, worksheets, letters and other documentations, as

required for the Audit exercise.

● Assist the Chair in keeping to the planned programme during the visit.

● To record the attendance of all interviewees.

● Mount the Report Template and coordinate work among Panel Members to ensure the

Report Writing is as per the requirements of the QAA.

● Ensure that the Final Audit Report is edited and formatted before it is submitted to the

QAA Board.

85

ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES

In addition to their specific terms of reference, the Chairperson, members of an Audit Panel

and the Audit Secretary shall ensure the following:

● Complete and return the Conflict of Interest Form, as prescribed by the QAA.

● Confirm their agreement in writing to the Terms and Conditions mentioned in their

letter of offer.

● Read the Quality Audit Handbook thoroughly and apply the Audit process and

approach in line with the Handbook.

● Commit fully to the different stages of the Audit process and work in accordance with

the time-line, as prescribed in this document.

● Ensure that their other professional commitments do not compromise the Quality

Audit/Review in any manner.

● Read and evaluate the Audit Portfolio in line with the requirements of the QAA.

● Participate actively and constructively in the Audit Portfolio meeting, preparing the

interview questions, conduct of the Audit Visit, exit meeting and report writing stages.

● Adhere to the QAA protocols and stand guided by the Chairperson of the Audit Panel

and/or the Audit Officer and/or Audit Secretary, as applicable.

● Record their observations and share these with other Panel members.

● Contribute to the drafting of the Audit Report by adhering to the Audit time-line or the

time-frame proposed by the Chairperson of the Audit Panel, and ensure completion of

the Report.

● Provide feedback on the Quality/Audit/Review to the QAA.

● Be available to assist the QAA in the Appeal process, if any.

● Give due consideration to professional ethics and behaviour in all Panel Members’

interactions with the QAA, HEI and among the Audit Panel.

● Maintain strict confidentiality about the Audit exercise and refrain from having direct

contact with the HEI or any member of the HEI until such time as the Audit Report is

published.

● Liaise with the HEI, only through the QAA.

● Cooperate fully with the Audit Chairperson/Audit Secretary until such time as the Audit

Report is deemed finalised by the QAA.

86

Appendix 5: Template to Advertise Open Session

Title of Audit e.g. First Cycle Audit of University XYZ

Open Session

A Quality Audit is an independent external evaluation conducted by the Quality Assurance

Authority (QAA) to assess an institution's Internal Quality Management System. The Audit

will seek to assess an institution’s capacity to effectively manage its academic activities that

meet its Vision and Mission.

The Quality Audit Panel has arranged an Open Session on date from time to time for any staff/

student/ stakeholder of institution’s name who would like to meet the Audit Panel. The

meetings will be held in strict confidentiality.

To meet the Audit Panel, kindly book an appointment by contacting the Audit Secretary (Audit

Title) by email (email address of Audit Secretary) or by sending a letter addressed to the Audit

Secretary (Audit Title), QAA’s postal address.

The Management

Institution’s Name

(date)

mailto:[email protected]

87

Appendix 6: Feedback Forms

Audit Respondent Feedback Questionnaire

The QAA aims at being continuously engaged with its stakeholders and continuously

improving on its processes. Your feedback is important to us. The purpose of this questionnaire

is to seek your feedback on the QAA Audit Visit conducted at your institution. This is a

voluntary process and does not commit you, as the respondent, in any manner to the Internal

Quality Assurance mechanism of the QAA. Please note that the data provided will remain

strictly confidential with the QAA and will be used solely for the purpose given above.

Notwithstanding the above, the QAA may, if required, use the information generated in its

publications and internal reports.

Section A: Profile (Please fill in/ tick as appropriate)

1. Gender: Male Female

2. Age Group:

Less than 25 years 26 - 35 years

36 - 45 years 46 - 55 years

56 - 65 years Over 65 years

3. Position: …………………………………………………………

Staff: Full-Time Part-Time

Academic Non-Academic

Student: Full-Time Part-Time

Undergraduate Postgraduate

Other (please specify) ………………………………

4. In case you are a Staff of the organisation being audited, please specify the date on which

you joined the organisation:

…………………………

5. Interview session:

i) Date of interview session: ………………………………

88

ii) Title of interview session: ……………………………………

iii) Session attended: Full session Split Session Open Session

Section B: The Audit Visit

Please tick as appropriate and comment where applicable:

Strongly

Agree

Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

6. The Audit Visit was well-organised

7. I was welcomed at the start of the interview

session

8. The purpose of the interview session was

explained to me

9. The protocol for the interview was explained

10. The duration of the interview session was

adequate

11. I was given a fair chance/opportunity to talk

during the interview session

12. I was free to express my views during the

interview

13. The questions, asked during the interview

sessions, were relevant to my position in the

organisation

14. The interview session was conducted in a

professional manner

15. The logistical arrangements for the interview

were appropriate

16. The time allocated to the interview session was

effectively managed

89

17. The interview session was held in an appropriate

location

18. The institution briefed me on how to reply to the

Audit questions

19. The institution explained the context in which

the interviews were being conducted prior to my

attending the session

20. Any comments you would like to make on your interaction with the Audit Panel

21. Any other comments

Panel Member Feedback Form

In order to support the continuous improvement process of the QAA and its activities, Panel

Members are kindly requested to provide feedback on various aspects of the Quality Audit,

once the Quality Audit Report is published. Please note that information provided will remain

strictly confidential within the QAA.

Name of Panel Member

Name of institution audited

Date

Please tick as appropriate and comment where applicable:

The Quality Assurance Framework of the

QAA

Strongly

Agree


Disagree

1. The Quality Assurance Framework of the QAA

is clear

2. The IQA Standards are comprehensive

90

3. The EQA Standards are comprehensive

4. The Audit Process is explicit

5. The Audit Time-line is explicit

6. Comments on QAA Framework:

The Portfolio of the HEI

7. The HEI has followed the Guidelines of the

QAA in the preparation of its SER

8. The HEI has complied with the requirements of

the Audit Scope

9. The Portfolio submitted by the HEI was

comprehensive

10. Comments on the Portfolio of the HEI:

The Portfolio Meeting

11. The Portfolio Meeting was well-organised

12. The Portfolio Meeting was helpful in the

evaluation process of the SER

13. Comments on the Portfolio Meeting:

The Audit Visit

14. The Audit Visit was well-planned

91

15. The logistical arrangements of the Audit Visit

were properly made.

16. The selection of the interviewees for the Audit

was appropriate.

17. Comments on the Audit Visit:

Writing of the Quality Audit Report

18. The QAA Guidelines for Report Writing are

comprehensive.

19. The process for writing the Report is effective.

20. The format of the Final Report is appropriate.

21. Comments on the Report writing process:

The Role of the QAA Officers

22. The QAA Officers provided useful professional

guidance to the Panel.

23. The templates developed for the Audit were

useful.

24 The administrative support provided to the

Panel was adequate.

25 The QAA team was responsive to the Panel’s

requirements.

26 The Quality Audit was conducted in line with

international practice.

92

27 Comments on the Role of the QAA Officers:

The Audit Panel

28. The Panel Members worked professionally

together as a team.

29. The terms of reference for Panel Members are

comprehensive.

30. The roles and responsibilities of each Panel

Member during the Audit were clearly defined

by the Chairperson.

31. Panel Members demonstrated professionalism

throughout the Audit.

32. Comments on the Audit Panel:

33. According to you, which aspects of the Quality Audit worked particularly well?

34. According to you, which aspects of the Quality Audit can be further improved?

35. Do you have any further suggestions for the QAA?

93

STAFF MEMBER FEEDBACK FORM

To support the continuous improvement process, all staff members who have

participated in the Audit Exercise are requested to provide feedback on various aspects

of the Quality Audit Exercise. Please note that any information provided will remain

strictly confidential within the QAA.

Name of Staff Member

Role during Audit

Name of Institution audited

Date

Please tick as appropriate and comment, where applicable:

The Audit Process Strongly

Agree


Disagree

1 The Audit Process was followed as per

guidelines.

2 The Audit Timeline was clear and easy

to follow.

3 The Terms of Reference were explicit.

94

4 My role and responsibilities were clear.

5 According to you, what could be done to further enhance the Audit Process?

Audit Preparation Strongly

Agree


Disagree

6 Logistics/Administrative support

provided were adequate.

7 The templates developed for the Audit

were useful.

8 The HEI submitted the SER as per the

Guidelines of the QAA.

9 The Institution provided the required list

of evidence, as stipulated in the Audit

Scope.

10 The Portfolio Meeting was well-

structured.

11 The HEI understood the logistics

requirements for the Audit Visit.

95

12 Comments on the Audit Preparation:

The Pre-Audit Panel Meeting Strongly

Agree


Disagree

13 The Pre-Audit Meetings were well-

structured.

14 The Audit Panel prepared a

comprehensive Audit Trail.

15 The SER was thoroughly analysed, and

views submitted.

The Audit Visit Strongly

Agree


Disagree

16 The Audit Visit was carried out as

planned.

17 The logistical arrangements of the Audit

Visit were properly made.

18 The representatives of the HEI

collaborated during the visit.

96

19 Comments on the Audit Visit:

Writing the Quality Audit Report Strongly

Agree


Disagree

20 The QAA Guidelines for Report Writing

were helpful.

21 The time-line to draft the Audit Report

was adhered to.

22 The Audit Panel Members contributed

effectively to the writing of the Audit

Report.

23 Comments on the Report writing process:

The Audit Panel Strongly

Agree


Disagree

24 The Panel Members collaborated as a

team.

97

25 Panel Members demonstrated

professionalism throughout the Audit.

26 Comments on the Audit Panel:

27 According to you, which aspects of the Quality Audit worked particularly well?

28 According to you, which aspects of the Quality Audit can be further improved?

Appendix 7: Template Progress Report

Quality Assurance Authority

Template for Progress Report

Name of HEI: Date of Quality Audit Exercise:

Recommendations Implemented (Short-Term)

Approach Deployment Results Improvement Proposed completion date (end of

Month)

Sn Recommendations Actions identified to

implement

recommendation

Action to

be carried

out by

Implementation

Process

Resources

to be

Deployed

Action

Completed

Action in

Progress

Intended to

be

Achieved

List of

Evidences to be

Submitted at

the Mid-Cycle

Review

Impediments

and causes; if

any

Recommendations in Process of being Implemented (Mid-Term)


Month)


implement

recommendation

Action to

be carried

out by

Implementation

Process

Resources

to be

Deployed

Action

Completed

Action in

Progress

Intended to

be

Achieved

List of

Evidences to be

Submitted at

the Mid-Cycle

Review

Impediments

and causes; if

any

Recommendations Planned to be Implemented (Long-Term)


Month)


implement

recommendation

Action to

be carried

out by

Implementation

Process

Resources

to be

Deployed

Action

Completed

Action in

Progress

Intended to

be

Achieved

List of

Evidences to be

Submitted at

the Mid- Cycle

Review

Impediments

and causes if

any

99

1. HEIs are advised to submit their Progress Report using this format.

2. HEIs will be required to customize the ‘proposed completion date…’ Section.

Approved by: Signature: Email Address:

Date:

Appendix 8: ADRI Model

Audit Methodology – ADRI Model

The ADRI Model is used to critically analyse the effectiveness of a Quality Assurance System

internationally. It is a recommended methodology to ensure constant improvement in the

Quality Audit activities of HEIs. In the development of their Quality Audit Portfolio, HEIs are

required to address each of the IQA standards, using the ADRI model, and explicitly identify

the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement.

The ADRI methodology may be referred to as Approach-Deployment-Results-Improvement:

1. Approach: The HEI’s purpose, objectives and its basis to set the objectives;

2. Deployment: The means used by the HEI to achieve its objectives;

3. Results: Evidence showing that the HEI is achieving its objectives;

4. Improvement: The processes in place at the HEI to ensure continuous improvement.

1. Approach: The HEI’s purpose, objectives and its basis to set the objectives

The Approach phase, also referred as the planning phase, focuses on the aims and objectives

of an HEI, and how it plans to achieve the same. In relation to an Audit Exercise, one of the

purposes will be to verify the HEI’s consistency in articulating the overall learning objectives

in line with its mission statement, the plans devised to achieve these and the reasoning behind

these plans. The Audit also examines the way that the overall objectives are communicated

throughout the institution, and the extent to which they are reflected in the desired learning

outcomes.

2. Deployment: The means used by the HEI to achieve its objectives

The HEI’s plans, policies and procedures, activities and allocation of resources should be

geared to achieving its objectives. Deployment, as a mechanism, stresses how the plans at the

‘Approach’ stage are being executed. The Audit Exercise verifies the extent to which the plans

are aligned with desired objectives, and are given effect through appropriate policies and

procedures (e.g. on student recruitment, curriculum design, assessments, and so on). During

the Audit, it is also verified whether the policies and procedures are implemented widely and

consistently throughout the HEI.

3. Results: Evidence showing that the HEI is achieving its objectives

The adequacy of the processes, used by the HEI to demonstrate that it achieves its objectives

in each of the focus areas (e.g. benchmarks, students’ achievements, performance indicators)

is examined during the Audit Exercise. HEIs may use a variety of measures, reflecting different

objectives. Some objectives may be directly measurable (e.g. graduation rates), while others

can only be inferred from proxy evidence (e.g. certain graduate attributes being inferred from

101

employer satisfaction). There is no prescription of specific measures; however, there are

verifications to see to it that the measures are appropriate to the objectives and are set at an

appropriate level. The Audit examines the HEI’s performance against its own measures, and

checks that the HEI methodically collects and analyses evidence of its performance. It is

important that the HEI should demonstrate the causal relation between approach, deployment

and results. Another important element is establishing whether the steps in the deployment

phase are adding value or not.

4. Improvement: The processes in place at the HEI to ensure continuous improvement

The Audit examines whether the HEI reviews its performance to ensure continuous

improvement. If the evidence, collected under 3 above, suggests that objectives are not being

achieved up to expectation, the HEI needs to show by what means it can adjust its plans,

policies and procedures. If objectives are being achieved, the HEI has to show by what means

its objectives are adapted to enhance the quality of student learning. The Audit Exercise verifies

that there are vigorous feedback loops, from evidence of performance back to planning and

implementation at the HEI. Improvement also serves to inform how the processes in place have

become more efficient and effective over time.

102

Appendix 9: Appeal Policy


APPEAL POLICY

The Quality Assurance Authority (QAA) is a statutory body established under the Higher

Education Act 2017 (Act No. 23 of 2017 under Section 28). The objectives of the QAA are to

promote, maintain and enhance Quality Assurance of Higher Education in line with

international high quality standards in Higher Education through appropriate quality assurance

mechanisms. Amongst its functions, the QAA shall ensure that standards for qualifications in

every Higher Education Institution are met and shall carry out regular Quality Audits of Higher

Education Institutions. The QAA is also required to monitor the delivery of online and inter-

institutional programmes.

Section 49 of the Higher Education Act makes provisions for appeals against the decisions of

the Authority. It stipulates the following:

(1) Any person who feels aggrieved by a decision of the Commission or Authority, as the case

may be, may, within 21 days of the communication of the decision to that person, appeal to the

Minister.

(2) (a) An appeal under subsection (1) shall be –

i. in writing and provide a full and precise description of the grounds on which it

is made;

ii. lodged with the supervising officer; and

iii. accompanied by such a fee as may be prescribed.

(b) The fee referred to in subsection (2) (a) (iii) shall be refunded to the appellant where

the appeal is allowed in whole or in part.

(3) The Minister may, on the determination of the appeal, vary or confirm the decision of the

Commission or Authority, as the case may be.

This appeal policy provides for HEIs to appeal against the decisions of the QAA if they are not

satisfied with the process followed or the decision reached that they deem irregular, irrational

or unfair, following a Quality Assurance Exercise.

The Appeal is a formal request by the HEI to the Minister to review QAA’s decision following

the Quality Assurance Exercise at the institution. An appeal may be lodged, by an institution

within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the formal final outcome (report) of a Quality

Assurance Exercise. An applicant must include the following documents as part of the appeal

submission:

● Formal letter lodging a complaint and requesting an appeal and clearly stating the

grounds for appeal; ● Copy of the letter which communicated the outcome to the institution; and ● Documentary evidence supporting the appeal. ● An applicant is not allowed to submit new evidence/documentation as part of the appeal

submission.

The HEI shall bear the cost of appeal.

103

Appendix 10: Policy on Confidentiality

CONFIDENTIALITY AND NON-DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING

I acknowledge that, as part of my appointment as a Panel Member in the Quality Audit arranged

by the QAA, I will be given access to information about the HEI and QAA that is of a personal,

confidential and/ or proprietary nature for the purpose of fulfilling the assignment.

I, therefore agree:

● To hold all Confidential Information in trust and strict confidence and I agree that it

shall be used only for the purposes required to fulfil the obligations for the Audit, and

shall not be used for any other purpose, or disclosed to any third party; ● To keep any Confidential Information in my control or possession in a physically secure

location to which only I and other persons, who have signed a confidentiality agreement

with QAA, have access; ● To take all necessary steps to keep Confidential Information secure and to protect it

from unauthorized use, reproduction or disclosure; ● To maintain the absolute confidentiality of personal, confidential and proprietary

information in recognition of the privacy and proprietary rights of others at all times,

and in both professional and social situations;

● Not to disclose confidential, personal and/or proprietary information to any other

person.

I fully understand and accept responsibilities set above relating to personal, confidential and/or

proprietary Information.

Signed……………………………………………………

Name……………………………………………………..

Post Held…………………………………………………

Date………………………………………………………

Witnessed…………………………………………………

Name………………………………………………………

Post Held…………………………………………………..

104

Glossary of Terms

Term Definition

Academic standards

Level of requirements and conditions regarding different stages

of the educational process and the relationship between those

stages, such as inputs, processes, and outputs. Various types of

educational standards exist with regard to learning resources,

programmes, and results, in general, and student performance

(content standards, performance standards, proficiency

standards, and opportunity‐to‐learn). UNESCO (Vlasceanu. L,

2007)

Accreditation

Accreditation, in relation to an institution or an education

programme, means confirmation that the institution or the

programme, as the case may be, satisfies the minimum criteria

or standards for it to operate or be offered for a specified

duration.

Agency

Agency is, in the context of Quality in Higher Education,

shorthand for any organisation that undertakes any kind of

monitoring, evaluation or review of the quality of Higher

Education (INQAAHE).

Appeal An appeal is a request to review a decision following a Quality

Audit.

Assessment

The process of the systematic gathering, quantifying, and using

of information in view of judging the instructional

effectiveness and the curricular adequacy of a Higher

Education institution as a whole (institutional assessment) or of

its educational programmes (programme assessment). It

implies the evaluation of the core activities of the Higher

Education institution (quantitative and qualitative evidence of

educational activities and research outcomes).

(UNESCO)

Audit

The process of reviewing an institution or a programme that is

primarily focused on its accountability, and determining if the

stated aims and objectives (in terms of curriculum, staff,

infrastructure, etc.) are met.

105

An evidence‐based process carried out through peer review that

investigates the procedures and the mechanisms by which an

institution ensures its Quality Assurance and Quality

enhancement. When it specifically addresses the final

responsibility for the management of quality and standards that

rests with an institution as a whole, the process is called an

Institutional Review.

Audit Cycle The interval of time during which an Audit takes place. An

Audit usually occurs every five years.

Awarding Body

An awarding body is an organisation authorised to issue an

educational award, following formal assessment, and includes

bodies that certify professional competence, thus including

Higher Education Institutions Award Councils and professional

bodies. (INQAAHE)

Benchmarking

A standardized method for collecting and reporting critical

operational data in a way that enables relevant comparisons

among the performances of different organizations or

programmes, usually with a view to establishing good practice,

diagnosing problems in performance, and identifying areas of

strength. Benchmarking gives the organization (or the

programme) the external references and the best practices on

which to base its evaluation and to design its working

processes. (UNESCO)

Compliance Compliance is undertaking activities or establishing practices

or policies in accordance with the requirements or expectations

of an external authority. (INQAAHE)

Commendation A formal acknowledgement of a good practice or action by an

Audit Panel in the context of a Quality Audit.

External Quality

Assurance (EQA)

External Quality Assurance (EQA) is an external evaluation

carried out by an agency to evaluate the performance of an

HEI, based on its IQA.

Fitness for purpose

Quality as Fitness for Purpose: A concept that stresses the need

to meet generally-accepted standards such as those defined by

an accreditation or Quality Assurance Body, the focus being on

the effectiveness of the processes at work in the institution or

programme in fulfilling its objectives and mission.

(UNESCO)

Fitness of purpose

Quality as fitness of purpose: A concept that focuses on the

defined objectives and mission of the institution or programme

with no check of the fitness of the processes themselves in

regard to any external objectives or expectations. Fitness of

purpose evaluates whether the quality‐related intentions of an

106

organization are adequate. (UNESCO)

Guidelines Guidelines for Quality in Higher Education provide advice on

what should be monitored and how this monitoring of Quality

should be carried out. (INQAAHE)

Higher Education

Institution

HEI as per the HE Act:

(a) any public University, established by an Act of Parliament,

which offers any programme of Higher Education; (b) any

private University registered under this Act to offer any

programme of Higher Education; (c) a centre or branch campus

of an overseas Higher Education Institution, or a centre or

branch campus which is separate from an overseas Higher

Education Institution, registered under this Act to offer any

programme of Higher Education; or (d) any other public or

private institution, other than a public or private University,

registered under this Act to offer any programme of Higher

Education.

Internal Quality

Assurance (IQA)

Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) comprises the policy,

standards, structure and mechanisms put in place by a HEI to

monitor the quality of its performance.

Internal Quality

Assurance for Agency

(IQAA)

The process and guidelines through which the QAA evaluates

and quality assure its own performance as an Audit Agency.

Key Performance

Indicator (KPI)

Operational variables referring to specific empirically

measurable characteristics of Higher Education Institutions or

programmes on which evidence can be collected that allows for

a determination of whether or not standards are being met.

Indicators identify performance trends and signal areas in need

of action and enable comparison of actual performance with

established objectives. (UNESCO)

Learning outcomes

Statements of what a learner is expected to know, understand,

and be able to demonstrate after completion of a process of

learning as well as the specific intellectual and practical skills

gained and demonstrated by the successful completion of a unit,

course, or programme. Learning outcomes, together with

assessment criteria, specify the minimum requirements for the

award of credit, while grading is based on attainment above or

below the minimum requirements for the award of credit.

Learning outcomes are distinct from the aims of learning in that

they are concerned with the achievements of the learner rather

than with the overall intentions of the Tutor. (UNESCO)

107

Mid-Cycle Review

The actual process of external evaluation (reviewing,

measuring, and judging) of the quality of Higher Education

Institutions two years after the release of the Audit Report.

The Mid-Cycle Review is an evaluation exercise which

checks the extent to which recommendations of an Audit

Report have been addressed by the HEI.

National Credit Value and

Transfer System

The National Credit Value and Transfer System is used to

recognise qualifications and units by awarding credits. The

units shall have credit value which shall be equal to defined

hours of learning for the purpose of obtaining a qualification

by a learner. A points system used by HEIs that makes Higher

Education more easily comparable across borders.

Mid-Cycle Portfolio A document generated by an HEI, 2 years after a Quality

Audit, to demonstrate its attainment in relation to the

recommendations contained in its Audit Report.

Portfolio Meeting

A preliminary meeting conducted among the Audit Panel

Members to discuss the initial findings of the Self-Evaluation

Report of the HEI, and to agree on the way forward with

regard to the elaboration on the Audit Trail.

Quality Audit

The process of Quality Assessment by which an external body

ensures that Quality Assurance Procedures of the system are

adequate and are actually being carried out. Quality Audit

looks to the system for achieving good quality. (UNESCO)

The outcomes of the Audit are documented in the form of a

Quality Audit Report. (UNESCO)

Quality Audit Report

The Report about an institution which describes the quality

assurance (QA) arrangements of the institution and the effects

of these arrangements on the Quality of its programmes

following a Quality Audit.

Recommendation A statement made by an Audit Panel in the Audit Report, used

to highlight an area for improvement or further action required

by the HEI.

Self-evaluation

The process of self‐evaluation consists of the systematic

collection of administrative data, the questioning of students

and graduates, and the holding of moderated interviews with

lecturers and students, resulting in a Self-Evaluation Report.

Self- evaluation is a collective institutional reflection and an

opportunity for Quality Enhancement. The resulting Report

further serves to provide information for the Review Team in

charge of the external evaluation. (UNESCO)

Standard Statement regarding an expected level of requirements and

conditions against which Quality is assessed or which must be

attained by Higher Education Institutions and their

108

programmes in order for them to be accredited or certified.

(UNESCO)

References

CHE 2007. HEQC Institutional Audits Manual. In: COMMITTEE, H. E. Q. (ed.). Pretoria,

South Africa: Council for Higher Education.

ENQA 2015. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher

Education Area (ESG). In: ENQA (ed.). Brussels, Belgium: EURASHE.

HAQAA-INITIATIVE 2008. African Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in

Higher Education (ASG-QA) In: COMMISSION, A. U. C. A. E. U. (ed.).

International.

MARTIN CARROLL, D. S. R. T. G. 2008. Quality Audit Manual: Institutional

Accreditation: Stage 1 In: COUNCIL, O. A. (ed.). Al-Khuwair, Sultanate of Oman,

Oman Accreditation Council.

QAC 2010. QAC Audit Manual: Second Audit Cycle. In: COMMISSION, U. G. (ed.).

Wanchai, Hong Kong, China: Quality Assurance Council.

VLASCEANU. L, G. L., PARLEA. D 2007. Quality Assurance and Accreditation: A

Glossary of Basic Terms and Definitions. Bucharest: UNESCO-CEPES.

standards and guidelines for quality audits

Documents

Transcript of standards and guidelines for quality audits