Chapter 5: Academic Program Quality Review

Contents

Chapter 5: Academic Program Quality Review .................................................................................................................. 1

Structures & Responsibilities .............................................................................................................................. 2

Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs.................................................................................. 2

Academic Council ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Board of Trustees ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Institutional Research Unit, Organizational Excellence Department (IR) ....................................................... 2

Programme Quality Review Framework ............................................................................................................. 2

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Responsibilities: Programme Quality Review Framework .............................................................................. 4

Timeline .......................................................................................................................................................... 5

Program Review Site ....................................................................................................................................... 5

Programme Learning Outcome Assessment ...................................................................................................... 6

Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

Requirement .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Process ............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Long Term (3-Year) Assessment Plan ............................................................................................................. 8

Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment ...................................................................................... 9

Annual Academic Programme Audit ................................................................................................................. 14

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 14

Requirement ................................................................................................................................................. 14

Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 15

Responsibilities: Annual Program Audit ....................................................................................................... 15

Timeline ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Evidence ........................................................................................................................................................ 16

Sources of Evidence ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Cyclical Programme Review .............................................................................................................................. 18

Purpose ......................................................................................................................................................... 18

Requirement ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Process .......................................................................................................................................................... 19

Self-study ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

External Review Team Report....................................................................................................................... 20

Responsibilities: Cyclical Program Review .................................................................................................... 21

Timeline ........................................................................................................................................................ 22

Policy and Procedures....................................................................................................................................... 22

Structures & Responsibilities

Office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs

Program and Curricula Department, Academic Affairs The Department is responsible for supporting academic divisions in the continuous quality improvement of

the HCT’s educational provision, the development of the academic quality program review provision, and the

assurance of its implementation. The Department is headed by the Assistant Deputy Vice-Chancellor Program

and Curricula and contains a specialist section for Program Review and Improvement.

Academic Divisions

Divisional Academic Committees (DAC) The DAC is responsible for implementing the policy and procedure related to program review.

Industry Advisory Committee (IAC) Industry Advisory Committees (IAC's) provide input from local industry professionals and other external

stakeholder into the programme and its courses from the perspective of industry professionals and external

community stakeholders.

Academic Council The Academic Council receives and evaluates recommendations from the PQR Sub-Committee and endorses

them for approval by the Executive Committee or Board of Trustees.

Program Quality Review (PQR) Sub-Committee The PQR Sub-Committee of the Academic Council oversees and supports the implementation of the program

quality review provision, and reports annually to Academic Council on the effectiveness of program quality

review processes and activities. The Sub-Committee approves the Cyclical Program Review calendar.

Board of Trustees The Board approves the teaching-out of an academic program across the HCT.

Institutional Research Unit, Organizational Excellence Department (IR) IR provides input in terms of institutional research data and analysis, and monitors the effectiveness of the

academic program quality review provision. IR also publishes an annual Institutional Effectiveness (IE) Report

which contains Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for Academic Divisions and campuses. The Report provides

trend analysis of institutional effectiveness indicators over the last three years, responses from Academic

Divisions and campuses on the past trends, targets and action plans for improvement.

Programme Quality Review Framework

Purpose The HCT’s academic Programme Review Policy is designed to ensure that programmes are:

Aligned to the Mission of the HCT

Regularly enhanced to meet the changing needs of the nation and its economy

Continuously improved for effective learning

Upgraded to align with new and emerging technologies

Effectively resourced in terms of instructors, teaching and learning resources, computer and information technology, physical facilities, and budgeting

Requirement

Academic Programs Process Frequency Focus Timeline

HCT 2.0 Bachelor’s, Higher

Diploma, Diploma

Programs being phased out

Program Learning

Outcome Assessment

Each PLO at least

once every 3 years

Minimum 30% of

PLOs per year

Teaching &

Learning August

HCT 2.0 Bachelor’s, Higher

Diploma, Diploma

Programs being phased out

Annual Program Audit Yearly review of key

indicators

Program

Health Check October

HCT 2.0 Bachelor’s, Higher

Diploma, Diploma Cyclical Program Review

Bachelor: every 5

years

Higher Diploma: every

4 years

Diploma: every 3

years

Program

Continuance December

HCT 2.0 Bachelor’s, Higher

Diploma, Diploma

External Accreditation of

Academic Programs

Periodically

(depending on

external accreditation

schedule)

International

Standards -

Overview of the HCT Programme Review Process

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Focus

=>30% PLOsAssessed

=>60% PLOsAssessed

100% PLOsAssessed

=>30% PLOsAssessed

=>60% PLOsAssessed

Annual Programme Audit Report

Annual Programme Audit Report

Annual Programme Audit Report

Annual Programme Report

Cyclical Review

Student LearningProgramme Modification

ProgrammeContinuance

Annual Programme Report

Responsibilities: Programme Quality Review Framework

Program

Review

Component

Programs and

Curricula

Department

Academic

Division

PQR

Sub-Committee

Academic

Council

Program

Quality

Review

Framework

Implements the

framework

Reports on the

implementation of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework to

the Programme Quality

Review Sub-

Committee

Recommends measures

for improvement of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework to

the Programme Quality

Review Sub-

Committee.

Reports on the

effectiveness of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework

including Program

Learning Outcome

Assessment, Annual

Program Audits, and

Cyclical Program

Review

Recommends measures

for improvement of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework to

the Programme Quality

Review Sub-

Committee.

Reviews and monitors

the effectiveness of

Programme Quality

Review Framework

Receives feedback

from academic

divisions regarding the

effectiveness of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework

Recommends measures

for improvement of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework to

the Academic Council

Receives reports on the

implementation and

effectiveness of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework

from the Programme

Quality Review Sub-

Committee

Approves measures for

improvement of the

Programme Quality

Review Framework

Timeline

What When Purpose

Programme Learning

Outcome Assessment

At least once every 3 years Continuous quality improvement

Program Audit Report Annually Continuous quality improvement - evaluate

program’s effectiveness in meeting its mission, and

the needs of students and society

Cyclical Program Review Every 5 years Continuance at the HCT or at a particular campus

External Review of

Academic Programs

Periodically (depending on

external accreditation

schedule)

National and international accreditation

Program Review Site Resources and Reports related to program learning outcome assessment, Annual Program Audit and cyclical

program review are published on-line.

For further details visit the: Program Review Site

Programme Learning Outcome Assessment

Purpose The purpose of PLO Assessment is to monitor the effectiveness of the curriculum and to guide quality improvements to programs. This section describes the collection of direct evidence of student achievement of programme learning outcome using embedded course assessments. Academic divisions may also employ alternatives to embedded assessment such as specially designed assessment tasks, external examinations etc. Indirect evidence of student achievement of programme learning outcomes is collected by means of surveys. The survey results and their analysis form part of the Annual Program Audit Report (see below)

Requirement For every academic program leading to a HCT credential:

Each programme learning outcome is to be assessed at least once over a three year period.

A minimum of 30% of programme learning outcomes must be assessed each academic year.

Each Academic Division identifies assessments to provide evidence of student achievement of each

Programme Learning Outcome (PLO). Division’s then interpret the results and provide an action plan to

address any shortcomings. Typically, the assessments used to provide evidence are final assessments from

courses in year 3 or year 4 of the programme. The designated assessments are common assessments i.e. the

assessment instrument (oral defence, portfolio, project, report, test etc.), marking scheme or rubric, grading

and standards of achievement are the same for all students taking the assessment across the system.

Academic Divisions must ensure that the following are kept for example in the relevant electronic Course File:

Copies of the assessment instrument

Marking scheme/rubric

Details of moderation process

Samples of student work reflecting the range of performance -­­ wherever possible

Quantitative analysis of results

Process

Academic DivisionLong Term

(3-Year) PLO Assessment Plan

Academic DivisionAnnual PLO Assessment

Plan

Academic DivisionAssess students

Academic DivisionReport ResultsAction Plan for

improving student learning

Program & Curricula Department

Review Report & Action Plan

Academic DivisionEvaluate impact of

action plan

Academic DivisionImplementActions for

improving student learning

PLO Assessment Process

Modifications to Plan

Long Term (3-Year) Assessment Plan

Each Academic Division develops a long term plan for each program to ensure that evidence is collected of

student achievement for each programme learning outcome at least once every 3-years by a:

Direct assessment in a required course such as a final assessment, capstone project, external assessment etc.

Common assessment instrument (oral defense, portfolio, project, report, test etc.), marking scheme/rubric, grading system, moderation process, and standards of achievement.

Course learning outcomes are mapped to programme learning outcomes to show how each course

contributes to student achievement of the outcomes. The mappings also ensure that each programme

learning outcome is adequately covered through the curriculum and that all courses are aligned to the

outcomes. Mapping reports are available from the curriculum management system.

Academic Divisions select the most valid assessments to be used as evidence of student achievement of

programme learning outcomes from year 3 or year 4 BAS courses, and from year 2 Diploma courses.

Best practice indicates that Division’s should identify a number of different assessment tasks to provide for a

wider sampling of student learning allowing students to demonstrate a wider range of knowledge, skills and

competencies than can be observed from reliance on a single form of assessment such as a written

examination.

The designated assessment must provide sufficient depth and scope to produce valid evidence of student

achievement of the targeted programme learning outcome. In cases where no single assessment is sufficient,

a number of assessment may be designated.

Each designated assessment becomes a common assessment i.e. the assessment instrument (oral defence,

portfolio, project, report, test etc.), marking scheme or rubric, grading and standards of achievement are the

same for all students taking the assessment across the system.

Illustration: 3-Year PLO Assessment Plan

PLO

No.

Programme Learning Outcome 2017-­­18 2018-19 2019-20

1 An ability to apply knowledge of computing and

mathematics appropriate to the discipline

CIS 3003: FWA

2 An ability to analyze a problem, and identify and

define the computing requirements appropriate to its

solution

CIS 4906: Capstone

project

3 An ability to analyse a problem, and identify and define

the computing requirements appropriate to its solution. CIS 4906: Capstone

project

4 An ability to function effectively on teams to

accomplish a common goal

CIS 4103: CSA

5 An understanding of professional, ethical, legal, security

and social issues and responsibilities CIS 3103: CSA

etc

Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment In each academic year, it is expected that for each program, evidence of student achievement will be collected

for a minimum of 30% of each of programme’s learning outcomes.

Process

Step Process When By Action

Plan Develop assessment plans for each

PLO

Designate assessments for each

PLO

Start of academic

year

Divisional Academic

Committee

Submit to Executive Dean to review

and recommend for approval by

Program & Curricula Department

Do Implement assessment plan

consistently across classes and

delivery sites

Throughout

academic year

Academic Division

(Course Team)

Administer assessments

Collect data from direct

assessment

Throughout

academic year

Academic Division

(Course Team)

Mark and record results

Check Analyze data

Identify shortcomings and/or

anomalies

Each Fall and

Spring semester

Academic Division

and Program &

Curricula

Department

Input to Annual Program Audit

Develop action plans to address

shortcomings and/or anomalies

End of each

semester

Academic Division

(Course Team)

Minor modifications: submit to

Executive Dean for approval

Major modifications: submit to

Executive Dean to review and

recommend for approval by

Academic Council

Input into Annual Program Audit

Act Implement action plans e.g. modify

curriculum, assessment, resource

allocation (instructors, learning

resources, physical resources,

budget)

Following

semester

Academic Division

(Course Team)

Update: curriculum management

system, programme and course

documentation

Monitor effectiveness of actions.

Report effectiveness of QA process

Throughout

academic year

Academic Division

and Program &

Curricula

Department

Input to Annual Program Audit

Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment Plan The Plan describes how the Long Term Plan will be implemented in the academic year and the standard to be

used for evaluating student achievement.

The Report provides the results of the assessment used as evidence, the analysis of the results, and plans to

deal with any shortfalls in meeting expectations (e.g. issues related to the assessment task used etc.) and to

improve student learning (e.g. modifications to teaching & learning strategies, materials etc.).

Illustrations

a) Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment Plan

PLO

Course code

Assessment

Evidence

Target

Campus

Result

Interpretation

Action/

Recommendation

Self-­­ Rating

(1-­­5)

1 CIS 3003 FWA

Written exam

Entire

exam

80% of students

will be awarded

‘Satisfactory’

(Grade C)

System

4 CIS 4103 CSA

Poster

Presentation &

Oral Defence

Individual

assessment

Rubric

Criteria:

2,3,5,6

80% of students

will be awarded

‘Satisfactory’

(Grade C)

System

Notes

Evidence: if it is not possible to specify which components of the assessment will be used, enter ‘TBC’ (to

be confirmed). Update IE when the components are determined.

Target: the same target applies across all campuses to ensure consistency of standard – by default target

for each PLO is that 80% of students will attain Satisfactory (Grade C) on the assessment. The default target

is based on the expected grade distribution for Upper Level Courses contained in the HCT Assessment and

Grading Procedures i.e. 81% of students are expected to achieve C or above. (Refer: Chapter 7: Assessment

and Grading)

Proposed changes to the default target together with a supporting rationale should be submitted for

approval to the Program & Curricula Department.

b) Annual Programme Learning Outcome Assessment Report

After the assessments have been administered and analyzed, the academic division completes the template as

illustrated below:

PLO

No.

Course

code

Assessment

Evidence

Target

System/

Campus

Result

Interpretation

Action/

Recommendation

Self-­­

Rating (1-

­­5)

1 CIS 3003 FWA

Written exam

Entire

exam

80% of

students will

be awarded

‘Satisfactory’

(Grade C)

System 95% at

target

General opinion

from teaching

faculty was that

the exam was

too easy.

Review the exam

specification and exam

moderation process to

ensure that the degree

of challenge is

appropriate to the level

of the course

3 1 CIS 3003 FWA

Written exam

Entire

exam

80% of

students will

be awarded

‘Satisfactory’

(Grade C)

AAMC 87% Most students

easily met the

required

standard.

No issues

4 1 CIS 3003 FWA

Written exam

Entire

exam

80% of

students will

be awarded

‘Satisfactory’

(Grade C)

ADMC

(etc)

97% Not very

challenging for

students.

Increase the level of

challenge

5

Notes

System/ Campus: insert a new row for each campus administering the assessment

Result: results from each individual campus to be reported as evidence of comparable achievement across

the system.

Interpretation: to be completed for the System and separately by each campus. Interpretation occurs at 2

levels:

Primary - Program level

Purpose is to evaluate progressive development of knowledge, skills and competencies aligned with the

particular PLO through the length of the program.

Focus is on the range of courses mapped to the particular PLO

Secondary - Course level

Purpose is to evaluate quality of particular course’s curriculum, delivery, and assessment task.

Focus is on the particular course itself.

Action / Recommendation: to be completed for the System and separately by each campus

If performance standard is met, use result to demonstrate the objective has been achieved

If performance standard is not met, explain what actions will be taken to improve performance

If the plan itself needs to change, explain the change

Self‐Rating: rating to be given for the System and separately by each campus using the statement and scale

below

“The evidence indicates that the level of achievement of the PLO meets the Academic Division’s

expectations.”

1 2 3 4 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree nor

Disagree

Agree Strongly Agree

Responsibilities: Programme Learning Outcome Assessment

Programs and Curricula

Department Academic Division

Program

Learning

Outcome

Assessment

(PLOA)

Initiates the PLO Assessment

process

Provides PLOA templates for plans

and reports

Reviews Divisional PLOA plans

Reviews PLOA Reports from

academic divisions

Publishes PLOA Plans and Reports

Approves any update/change to

published plans

The Divisional Executive Dean with the support of the

Divisional Academic Committee and faculty members:

Submits a 3-year PLOA plan for each program for review by

Programme and Curricula Department

Ensures that 100% of PLOs are assessed over a 3 year period

with at least 30% of all PLOs assessed in each academic year

Produces an Annual PLOA plan for each Diploma, Higher

Diploma and Bachelor program

Implements the annual assessment plan consistently across

classes and delivery sites and collects data

Analyzes data and develops action plans

Reports results and analysis and action plans to Programme

and Curricula Department

Ensures that an electronic file containing copies of each PLO

assessment and samples of student work reflecting range of

performance is maintained

Ensures that action plans to improve program quality are

implemented and evaluated

Timeline

Action Responsibility When

Annual PLO Assessment Plan Draft Academic Division By end of March

Plan Endorsement Programme & Curriculum

Department

By end of April

PLO Assessment Administration Academic Division Fall & Spring Semesters

Annual PLO Assessment Report & Action

Plan completed

Academic Division By end of August

Review of Program Reports & Action Plans Programme & Curriculum

Department

By end of September

Annual Academic Programme Audit

Purpose The purpose of the Annual Academic Program Audit is to evaluate key indicators to identify any issues and

take action to improve program quality.

Requirement Each Academic Division is required to complete an annual internal review for each programme and major

under its responsibility.

The report is a critical evaluation of:

Need for the programme by business and society

Demand for the programme by students

Curriculum

Student learning

Faculty

Resourcing

Continuous Quality Improvement Processes

Process

Academic DivisionAnnual PLO

Assessments

Academic DivisionAnnual Program Audit

Report Review program quality

indicatorsEvaluate actions for

quality improvement

Academic DivisionAction Plan

to improve program quality

Program & Curricula

Department Review

Report & Action PLan

Programme Quality Review Sub-Committee

Endorse Report & Action Plan

Recommend quality improvement measures

Academic DivisionImplement

Actions for quality improvement

Academic CouncilApprove

Actions for quality improvement

Annual Program Audit Report Process

Responsibilities: Annual Program Audit

Program

Review

Component

Programs and

Curricula

Department

Academic

Division

PQR

Sub-Committee

Academic

Council

Annual

Program Audit

Initiates the Annual

Program Audit

process

Ensures the

implementation of

the Annual Program

Audit Report process

Provides templates

for Annual Program

Audit Reports

The Divisional Executive

Dean with the support

of the Divisional

Academic Committee

and faculty members:

Identify an Audit Team

for each programme

Conduct Annual

Program Audit critically

evaluating the need,

demand, resourcing and

Recommends

academic programs

to undergo

immediate cyclical

program review to

the Academic

Council

Recommends

measures for

improving

programme quality

Receives reports from

the Programme Quality

Review Sub-Committee

Approves academic

programs to undergo

immediate cyclical

program review to the

Academic Council

Endorses

recommendations for

Program

Review

Component

Programs and

Curricula

Department

Academic

Division

PQR

Sub-Committee

Academic

Council

Endorses the

nominated Audit

Team for each

programme

Reviews the Annual

Program Audit Report

for each program

Publishes all Annual

Program Audit

Reports

Recommends

academic programs

for further review to

the Programme

Quality Review

Committee

Provides an Annual

Academic Affairs

Program Audit Report

to the Programme

Quality Review

Committee

quality for each

programme

Complete Annual

Program Audit Report

including Action Plan for

improvement for each

programme

Submits an Annual

Divisional Program Audit

Report reviewing &

summarizing

programme reports to

Program and Curricula

Department

Implements Action Plan

and recommendations

from Academic Council

for improving

programme quality

to Academic

Council

improving programme

quality

Timeline Action Responsibility By end of

Annual Programme Audit Report completed for each active

programme and major

Executive Dean October

Annual Divisional Executive Summary completed Executive Dean November

Recommendation Assistant Deputy Vice-

Chancellor Program and

Curricula

December

Annual Academic Affairs Report completed Deputy Vice Chancellor,

Academic Affairs

January

Changes for improvement made to programmes and

courses

Executive Dean March

Evidence Key Focus Area Main Evidence

Student Learning Program learning outcome assessment reports

Key Focus Area Main Evidence

Satisfaction surveys: Exiting Students, Graduates (alumni), Graduate

Employers

Curriculum: currency & relevance Satisfaction surveys: Graduates (Alumni), Graduate Employers;

Faculty Evaluation (Program Effectiveness Survey)

Industry Advisory Committee / Industry Advisory Board Feedback

Cohort Analysis Institutional Research Data: Student enrolment, attrition, at-risk

students, CGPA, graduation rate

Demand/Need for the program Employment Rates; Satisfaction surveys: Exiting Students,

Graduates (alumni), Graduate Employers;

Industry Advisory Committee / Industry Advisory Board Feedback

Feedback from learners Satisfaction surveys: Exiting Students, Graduates (alumni

Resources: faculty, teaching &

learning, facilities

Faculty Complement analysis, Workload data

Faculty Evaluation (Program Effectiveness Survey)

Satisfaction Surveys: Student Services, Staff Services

Sources of Evidence

Programme Learning Outcome (PLO) Assessment Reports

PLO Assessment Reports are available from the Academic Division – refer above for further detail.

The requirement is:

Each programme learning outcome is assessed at least once over a three year period

A minimum of 30% of programme learning outcomes are assessed each academic year.

Assessment Reports Reports of student performance on course assessments are published after each Semester either on the Portal

eGradebook or the Academic Programme Review Dashboard of the IEMS. The following reports are available:

eGradebook Reports The following are available through the HCT Intranet Portal and report the median, mean, and distribution of

grades for coursework and final assessments:

CSA (Common Specification Assessment) Analysis Report by academic division

CSA Analysis Report by campus

CSA Analysis Report by course

CSA Analysis Report by CRN

Course Learning Outcome Report (under development)

Dashboard Reports The following are available through the Academic Programme Review Dashboard of the IEMS and report

grade distributions and grade point averages by course and programme:

Grade Distribution Report by Academic Division

Grade Distribution Report by Course

Average Course Grade Point Average

Cumulative Grade Point Average by Programme

Cohort Analysis The following data are available through the Academic Programme Review Dashboard of the IEMS:

Enrolment

Attrition rate

Average class absences

Students on probation

Graduation rate

Employment rate

Surveys The following surveys are available through the Academic Programme Review Dashboard of the IEMS:

Internal

Student Satisfaction with Programme (Every Term)

Campus Programme Chair Survey (Every Year)

External

Graduate Satisfaction Survey (Every Term)

Graduate Employer Survey (Every Year)

External Stakeholder Input The following are available from the academic division:

Industry Advisory Committee feedback

Accreditation reports

Cyclical Programme Review

Purpose The purpose of the Cyclical Program Review is to decide on whether to continue offering the program or to

teach-out the program at the HCT or at particular campuses.

Requirement Each active programme and major is required to undergo a periodic review notwithstanding any national or

international accreditation. However, academic divisions are recommended to synchronise the HCT’s Cyclical

Program Review with external program accreditation reviews wherever feasible.

The Cyclical Program Review is a critical evaluation of the academic quality and demand for the program over

the previous years and is based on evidence and trend analysis provided by the Annual Program Audit Reports

produced in that period.

Programmes are periodically reviewed according to length of credential:

Two Year Diplomas: every 3 years

Three Year Higher Diplomas: every 4 years

Four Year Bachelors: every 5 years

Two Year Masters: every 3 years

Process

Academic Division Self-Study

Bachelor’s: every 5 yearsHigher Diploma: every 4 years

Diploma: every 3 years

External Review Team Report

Program & Curricula Department

Review

Academic CouncilRecommendation

DecisionContinuance - Academic Council

Discontinue at campus(es) – Executive Committee

Close program - Board of Trustees

Academic Division

Annual PLO AssessmentsAnnual Program Audit

Reports

Cyclical Program Review Cycle

Programme Quality Review Sub-Committee

Review

Self-study The responsible Academic Division completes a Self-Study including analyses of its:

Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (i.e. SWOT analysis);

Need by industry and society;

Demand by students;

Academic quality e.g. are students achieving the programme learning outcomes; are academic standards consistently maintained, are faculty delivering the program appropriate qualified and experienced etc;

Budget efficiency.

For further information refer to the Program Review Site

External Review Team Report The External Review Team (ERT) is appointed by the Executive Dean Programme & Curriculum in consultation

with the relevant Executive Dean.

The ERT:

Verifies and evaluates the Self-study.

Makes site visits - depending on the nature of the program and the evidence presented in the self-study, the ERT, after consultation with the ADVC Programme & Curriculum, may make site visits to all or a sample of campuses and delivery sites to evaluate facilities and resources.

Interviews program managers, faculty, current students, alumni, and external stakeholders (e.g. employers), as feasible.

Makes a recommendation for continuance of the program.

Responsibilities: Cyclical Program Review (CPR)

Programs and

Curricula Department

Academic

Division

External Review

Team

PQR

Sub-Committee

Academic

Council

Executive

Committee

Board

of Trustees

Initiates the CPR

process

Ensures the

implementation of the

CPR process

Provides templates for

CPR

Approves the review

team responsible for

writing the Program

Self-Study Report

Approves the External

Review Team

responsible for

reviewing the Program

Self-Study Report and

conducting campus

visits

Reviews the CPR

Report for each

academic program

Recommends the internal

team to write Self-Study

Team for each

programme under review

Recommends the

External Review Team to

evaluate the program

Completes Program Self-

Study Report including

critically evaluation of

previous Annual Program

Audit Reports for each

programme under review

Makes a

recommendation on the

continuation of the

program

Implements

recommendations from

Academic Council for

improving programme

quality

Critically evaluates the

Program Self-Study

Report

Conducts campus visits

evaluating teaching and

learning resources,

facilities, and

interviewing

stakeholders including

students and faculty

Makes a

recommendation on

the continuation of the

program

Approves the timetable

for the CPR of each

academic program

Receives and reviews

CPR Reports

Makes recommendations

for program continuance

to Academic Council

Makes recommendations

for improving

programme quality to

Academic Council

Approves continuance of

an academic program

Recommends

discontinuation of an

academic program at

one or more campuses

or across the HCT

Endorses

recommendations for

improving programme

quality

Approves

discontinuation of

an academic

program at one or

more campuses

Approves

discontinuation of

an academic

program across the

HCT

Timeline

Action Responsibility By end of

Calendar for program cyclical review Executive Dean April

Programmes nominated in addition

to the calendar cyclical review Deputy Vice Chancellor Academic Affairs May

Programme Self Study Completed Executive Dean October

Programme Quality Review

Completed External Review Team November

Recommendation Programme & Curriculum Department December

Endorses recommendations Academic Council January

Programme Review Decisions

Continuance: Executive Committee

Discontinuance at a campus: Executive

Committee

Discontinuance across HCT: Board of

Trustees

February

Change and areas of improvement

made to programme and courses Executive Dean May

Policy and Procedures LP225 Course & Program Review