Search results

Using a descriptive case study approach, this paper aims to validate academic librarians’ perceptions that they are marginalized by faculty during academic program reviews, and recommends ways for the two groups to collaborate more effectively to make program reviews more meaningful.

The paper describes a case study at a Canadian university where the six types of documents produced as part of the program review process for ten graduate programs were analyzed using corpus analysis tools and techniques, such as keyword generation and key word in context analysis. For each program, documents were examined to determine the volume and nature of the discussion involving libraries in the self-study, library report annex, site visit itinerary, external reviewers’ report, academic program’s response and final assessment report.

The empirical evidence from the corpus analysis validates the findings of previous perception-based studies and confirms that librarians currently have a minor role in program reviews. Best practices and gaps emerged, prompting five recommendations for ways in which academic librarians can play a more meaningful role in the program review process.

The results suggest that programs are not currently putting their best foot forward during program reviews, but this could be improved by including librarians more fully in the program review process.

The present study contributes to the existing body of knowledge about the role of academic librarians in the program review process by providing direct and empirical measures to triangulate previous perception-based investigations that rely on surveys and interviews. It summarizes limitations of the current institutional quality assurance process and the benefits to be gained by involving librarians more in the process. It offers recommendations for policymakers and practitioners with regard to potential best practices for facilitating librarian involvement in academic program reviews.

This paper aims to investigate the potential benefits and limitations associated with aligning accreditation and academic program reviews in post-secondary institutions, using a descriptive case study approach.

The paper describes two Canadian graduate programs that are subject to both external professional accreditation and institutional cyclical reviews, as they underwent an aligned review. The process was developed as a collaborative effort between the academic units, the professional associations and the university’s graduate-level quality assurance office. For each program, a single self-study was developed, a single review panel was constituted, and a single site visit was conducted. The merits and challenges posed by the alignment process are discussed.

Initial feedback from the academic units suggests that the alignment of accreditation and program reviews is perceived as reducing the burden on programs with regard to the time and effort invested by faculty, staff and other stakeholders, as well as in terms of financial expenses. Based on this feedback, along with input from reviewers and program evaluation committee members, 14 recommendations emerged for ways in which an aligned review process can be set up for success.

The results suggest that aligned reviews are not only resource-efficient but also allow reviewers to provide more holistic feedback that faculty may be more willing to engage with for program enhancement.

The present study contributes to the existing body of knowledge about conducting aligned reviews in response to external accreditation requirements or institutional needs. It summarizes the potential benefits and limitations and offers recommendations for potential best practices for carrying out aligned reviews for policymakers and practitioners.

Higher education institutions are required to evaluate program quality through cyclical program review processes. Despite often being considered the “gold standard” of academic review, there persists dissatisfaction with the lack of integration of program review findings into other planning processes, such as budgeting, assessment and strategic planning. As a result, the notion of program review action plans “collecting dust on the shelf” is so ubiquitous that the concept is normalized as an expected outcome. The purpose of this paper is to describe a conceptual model whereby teams of faculty members receive education and training from quality assurance practitioners and educational developers, access to institutional resources, opportunities for cross-departmental collaborations and collective advocacy to increase the capacity of faculty members to implement improvement goals resulting from program reviews.

The authors theorize that a professional learning community is a meaningful approach to program review and present a conceptual model – the Academic Program Review Learning Community (PRLC) – as an antidote to hierarchical, fragmented, compliance-oriented processes. The authors suggest that the PRLC offers a reliable institutional framework for learning through formalized structures and nested support services, including peer learning and external coaching, which can enhance the catalytic capacity of reviews.

The authors argue that postsecondary institutions should create formal structures for incorporating learning communities because, without a reliable infrastructure for collective learning, decision-making may be fragmented oridiosyncratic because of shifting demands, priorities or disconnected faculty.

A learning community model for program review fits well with a new way to think about program review because faculty are most engaged when they feel ownership over the process. Furthermore, few models exist for conducting program review; as a result, chairs and academics often struggle to conduct reviews without a coherent framework to draw upon.

Ideally, quality should be, and is, an integral element of education, yet capturing and articulating quality is not simple. Programme quality reviews in third-level education can demonstrate quality and identify areas for improvement, offering many potential benefits. However, details on the process of quality programme review are limited in the literature. This study aims to report on the introduction of a standardised programme review process in one university.

Using a standardised template, the annual programme review (APR) process captured student voice, external examiner reports, statistical data and action/s since the previous review. Following completion of programme reviews across the university, the APR process was itself evaluated using questionnaires and focus groups.

Findings showed that the programme chairs understood the rationale for the review, welcomed the standardised format and felt the information could inform future programme planning. However, in the focus group, issues arose about the timing, ownership and possible alternate use of the data collected in the course of the review.

This case study demonstrates the experience of APR in a single third-level institution, therefore, limiting generalisability.

APR offers a comprehensive record of the programme that can be carried out with efficacy and efficiency. The study illustrates one institution’s experience, and this may assist others in using similar quality evaluation tools. Using APR allows quality to be measured, articulated and improved.

Using APR allows quality, or its lack to be to be measured, articulated and improved in the delivery of education at a third-level institution.

This study demonstrates the experience of the introduction of an APR process in one higher education institute. Programme review is an important and essential part of academia in the 21st century. At third level, quality assurance is, or should be, a central part of academic programmes and delivery. The review of the first implementation has provided valuable information that will inform future programme review processes. Academic programmes grow, evolve and need to be reviewed regularly. It is hoped that the information reported here will aid others developing academic review procedures.

Increased emphasis on offering quality education underscores the need for developing a rigorous process for assessing academic programs in higher education. In this chapter, we develop a practical and rigorous framework for comprehensive assessment of academic programs. This framework generates in-depth communication between the academic departments and the university administration. It provides a useful tool for advancing the university mission, setting priorities, allocating resources, and identifying future areas of potential growth. This data-driven framework covers a wide range of qualitative and quantitative variables. To ensure a smooth and efficient implementation of the assessment process we present the critical stages in the development of a successful program assessment framework − from determining the assessment criteria, establishing the organizational climate, appointing the assessment committee, preparing program self-studies, to collecting and analyzing data. We present real examples from the author’s home institution to illustrate and support the reader’s understanding of the framework.

Program reviews are standard practice in higher education. Yet, due to the infancy of the leadership discipline, little is known about the process of conducting reviews of leadership programs. Through interviewing 13 experienced leadership program reviewers in both curricular and co-curricular contexts, the authors of this study aim to address this gap in the literature. A comparative case study was employed to learn more about what encompasses a leadership program review and elicit experience-based practices for facilitating leadership program reviews in higher education. A thematic analysis of the interview transcripts was conducted by the researchers and the four major themes of review logistics, reviewer experiences, review outcomes, and lessons learned are shared in this study. The researchers found contextual factors related to the institutions and leadership programs, reviewer facilitation skills, setting clear expectations of the review process and outcomes, identifying resources, and nuances related to power considerations and political dynamics to be primary factors in conducting leadership program reviews. The authors close by offering implications for research and practice based on these findings.

The involvement of stakeholders such as employers, alumni, and students has always been considered a key element in improving the higher education (HE) system. While considering stakeholders as key players in serving the market and in improving HE instruction, a two-sided collaborative involvement should aim at satisfying the mutual interests and overcoming existing barriers. Quality assurance systems have always supported crossing these barriers to link with the external stakeholders. However, many of the external quality assurance agencies (EQA) in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region specify a group of external holders, limiting the various types of key stakeholders needed to enhance the academic programs. On the other hand, there are encountered risks in involving stakeholders if left with no objective guidance, especially that quality agencies are formidably urging the universities to consider the external stakeholders’ inputs to satisfy the quality assurance standards. The main objective of this chapter is to investigate the types of stakeholders’ and their levels of involvement within the local higher education institutions (HEIs). The chapter aims to provide an insight to invest in this involvement and utilize it to further improve the programs and their graduate attributes and suggests actions that would proficiently and truly enhance the involvement of external stakeholders. The outcomes of this chapter are expected to guide the EQAs and the HEIs to develop new practices in involving stakeholders, such as curriculum input, collegiate internships, aligning graduate attributes to market needs, financial support through endowments, professional development, and partnerships in service-level agreements.

Standards should provide a means for transparently comparing academic programmes delivered by higher education providers and the research activities they carry out. The purpose of this study is to investigate the different sets of standards related to the quality assurance of academic programmes in four countries with regard to the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), developed by the European Association for Quality Assurance, for internal quality assurance within higher education institutions. The main aim is to find the convergence and divergence points and to test the consistency of terminologies in use which may impede international collaboration to develop one comprehensive international quality assurance system.

The study relied solely on desk-based research and no fieldwork or interviews were conducted for data collection; a point-by-point comparative approach has been applied to explore the standards related to quality assurance of academic programmes.

Although there is a great deal of convergence between the different sets of standards compared in this study, fundamental differences still exist.

This study compared the standards of academic programmes in four countries with the ESG. To generalise the findings of this study, future research may include other standards for comparison.

This study engages in the debate of how quality of higher education will remain maintained, in times, when higher education is facing challenges such as internationalisation, which requires new initiatives and integrated mechanisms to facilitate mutual recognition of qualifications of students and staff moving across borders.

In 2010, the Ontario Universities Quality Assurance Council was established and became responsible for monitoring the quality of university programs, and each university was tasked with establishing institutional quality assurance purposes. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the quality assurance process at facilitating change at one Canadian institution.

To better understand the impacts of quality assurance, the authors analyzed 39 self-study documents, which were completed for all academic programs at Queen’s University. Focus groups were also conducted with key stakeholders to gain more insights into the institutional change that resulted from completing these self-studies.

After the analysis of the self-studies and focus groups, three themes emerged as impacts of completing self-studies: teaching and learning, identity and collaboration and resource allocation and strategic planning. This study demonstrates that self-studies completed by departments have value beyond simply meeting the provincial mandate, as they are effective in catalyzing positive institutional change.

The self-study documents were created for the purpose of institutional quality assurance process, not this research study, therefore limiting the data that could be collected.

Four considerations are provided at the end of this study to spark conversations at other institutions when reviewing and assessing the impact of their quality assurance processes.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first time self-studies have been analyzed to evaluate the quality assurance process.

This article is written by the chairman and a panel member of the UK Benchmarking Group in Earth Science, Environmental Science and Environmental Studies. In it we have discussed the broad “purpose” of benchmarking and the timescale and remit afforded to the group. As far as the benchmark statement itself is concerned, we have reviewed the statement section by section concentrating especially both on the rationale underpinning each section and the way in which the statement may be used for the purpose of academic review. Finally, we have looked briefly at the process of academic review itself, in so far as it is understood at the moment. Although we are confident that the Benchmarking Group as a whole would agree with the vast majority of this article, nonetheless it must be seen as representing only our own views.