View
29
Download
0
Category
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
The Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission Overview of the Commission’s Proposal: Proposed Implementation Forum on Quality Assurance: Towards a Student-Centred Approach March 25, 2013. Working with Institutions to Maintain Quality. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
www.mphec.ca www.cespm.ca
The Maritime Provinces Higher Education Commission
Overview of the Commission’s Proposal:
Proposed Implementation
Forum on Quality Assurance: Towards a Student-Centred Approach
March 25, 2013
www.mphec.ca www.cespm.ca
MPHEC approves (new-
modified)
programs (prior to
implementation)
Working with Institutions to Maintain Quality
Universities assess
existing programs
and services (ongoing)
MPHEC confirms institutional quality assurance frameworks
Modifications/terminations arising are submitted
www.mphec.ca www.cespm.ca
What we Don’t Want
The MPHEC assessing existing programs or
teaching
Micro-management of institutional activities
Forcing the same QA approach across all
institutions
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
What we Do Want
Promote Quality Teaching and Student Learning
Close the Gapsfrom the First Cycle
Demonstrate that universities are focussed on learning and assess
their activities
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Monitoring Process: First Cycle
Nearly all institutions: Have implemented a quality
assurance policy Were reviewing programs Were involving external
experts in the assessment process
REMARKABLE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE
IMPORTANT GAPS
REMAINBut just as
plainly…
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Objective of the Monitoring Process
Assist institutions in enhancing (establishing) their QA frameworks.
The MPHEC Aims to…
Provide (public) third-party validation that Maritime universities have suitable QA programs in place to ensure the on-going quality of their activities.
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Towards Implementation
Revised Standards
Proposed Process for a
Second Cycle of Validation
Quality Assurance Discussion
Paper
Forum on Quality
Assurance
Implementation of revised standards
Validation
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Proposed MPHEC Monitoring Process (Discussion Paper, p. 13)
Quality Assurance Statement
Campus Site Visit Draft Report Action Plan
(Institution)Final Report
(MPHEC)
Follow-up on Action Plan
Implementation
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 1
Progress StudentExperience
MPHECStandards
Quality Assurance Statement
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 2
Site Visit
Meet with Institutional Representatives Meet with Students
Review Program/Unit Assessment Dossiers
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 3
Draft Report
Recommendations to the Institution
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 4
Action Plan
(From Institution)
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 5
Final Report
Forwarded to
Institution
Posted to MPHEC Website
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Step 6
Follow-up on Action Plan Implementation
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Second Cycle: Towards Implementation
Revised Standards
Proposed Process for a
Second Cycle of Validation
Quality Assurance Discussion
Paper
Forum on Quality
Assurance
Next steps:
Implementation of revised standards
Next steps:
Validation
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Next Steps
Implementation of the
Standards (institutions)
Validation of Implementation
by MPHEC
Confirmation of Quality & Focus on Learning
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Group Discussion No.3
1. How appropriate are the proposed steps for the second cycle of the monitoring process? Which changes ought to be considered?
2. What are the main pros and cons to the proposed process? From an institutional standpoint? From the students’? Governments’? The public’s?
3. Are there more effective alternatives to implement a monitoring process to reach the objectives?
Proposed Approach for the Implementation of the Second Cycle
of the Monitoring Process
www.cespm.cawww.mphec.ca
Thank you
Mireille Duguay, CEO
82 Westmorland Street, Suite 401Fredericton, NB E3B 5H1Phone: (506) 453-2844Fax: (506) 453-2106MDuguay@mphec.ca
Recommended