Framework for National Review - Council on Higher Educationnr-online.che.ac.za/html_documents/FRW_National Review_2015.pdfSince approval of an original framework for national review

Framework for

National Review

of programmes in Higher Education

2015

This Framework sets out principles, policy, agency and general procedure for national reviews of higher education programmes. Specific details, including what is required of the institutions offering the programme(s) under review, are contained in a National Review Manual that accompanies each review.

Contents

Abbreviations 2

Foreword 3

1. National policy and the legislative context 5

2. Contextual factors 6

3. Principles underpinning a National Review 8

4. The general objectives of a National Review 9

5. The specific purpose of a National Review 9

6. The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework 10

6.1 Thequalificationstandard 10

6.2 Developmentofthestandard 11

6.3 Evaluationofprogrammesintermsofthestandard 11

6.4 Thestandardandqualityassuranceofprogrammes 12

7. The function of the HEQC National Review Committee 15

8. The review process 15

8.1 Identifyingprogrammesforanationalreview 15

8.2 Developmentandapprovalofaproposalforanational

programmereview 16

8.3 Institutionalself-evaluationofaprogramme 16

8.4 Planningforsitevisits 17

8.5 Peer-reviewdecision-makingandoutcomes 18

8.6 HEQCratificationofoutcomes 18

8.7 Outcomes 19

8.8 Improvementplansinrespectofprogrammesthatdonotachieve

unconditionalaccreditation 19

8.9 Identificationofabove-thresholdpractice 20

8.10Publicationofoutcomes 20

9. Report on the national state of the qualification 20

10. Conclusion 21

Diagrammatic representation of the process 22

References 23

Page 2 |FrameworkforNationalReviewinHigherEducation

Abbreviations

CHE CouncilonHigherEducation

DHET DepartmentofHigherEducationandTraining

HEI HigherEducationInstitution

HEQC HigherEducationQualityCommittee

HEQSF HigherEducationQualificationsSub-Framework

FQSHE FrameworkforQualificationStandardsinHigherEducation

NQF NationalQualificationsFramework

NRC NationalReviewCommittee

QC QualityCouncil

SAQA SouthAfricanQualificationAuthority

SER Self-EvaluationReport

FrameworkforNationalReviewinHigherEducation | Page 3

Foreword

TheHigherEducationAct(No.101of1997,asamended)assignsresponsibilityforqualityassuranceinhighereducationinSouthAfricatotheCouncilonHigherEducation(CHE).Thisresponsibilityisdischargedthroughitspermanentsub-committee,theHigherEducationQualityCommittee(HEQC).Inaddition,theNationalQualificationsFrameworkAct(No.67of2008)assignstotheCHEtheroleofQualityCouncilforhighereducation,whichbringswithitadditionalresponsibilities.TheHigherEducationQualificationsSub-Framework(HEQSF)istheSub-FrameworkoftheNationalQualificationsFramework(NQF)dedicatedtohighereducation.

The mandate of the HEQC includes quality promotion and capacity development,institutional audits, standards development, accreditation and re-accreditation ofprogrammes,andnationalreviews.HEQChasexecutiveresponsibilityforqualityassurancedecisions,includingdecisionsinrespectofanationalreview.

TheHEQC’sapproachtoqualityassuranceislargelyshapedbythecomplexchallengesfacinghighereducationinstitutionsinSouthAfrica.Theapproachseekstoberesponsiveand proactive in advancing the higher education transformation agenda as reflectedin various national legislative imperatives since 1994, and also to ensure improved andsustainablequality.

In2009theHEQCconductedanextensiveevaluationofitsqualityassurancepoliciesandprocedures. The outcome of the evaluation resulted in significant revision to its role asQualityCouncil.Therevisionisrepresentedinrecentlyapprovedframeworks,suchastheFrameworkforInstitutionalQualityEnhancementintheSecondPeriodofQualityAssurance(CHE,2014),FrameworkforQualificationStandardsinHigherEducation(FQSHE)(CHE2013),Accreditation Framework (CHE, 2015), and this Framework. These revised frameworksemphasisethepointthattheprocessesarecloselyinter-relatedandinformoneanother.

Afurtherindicationoftheintegralnatureofthesequalityassuranceprocessesisthemergerof two previously separate directorates (Standards Development and National Reviews)intoasingleDirectorateofNationalStandardsandReviews.ThisDirectoratecoordinatesandadministersnationalreviewsofprogrammes.

This Framework sets out the evaluation and re-accreditation policy for programmesidentifiedfornationalreview.SinceapprovalofanoriginalframeworkfornationalreviewinSeptember2012,therehavebeentwomajordevelopmentsaffectingtheapproachtonationalreviews.OneistheimplementationoftheHEQSFgazettedinOctober2014.TheotherisprogressbytheCHEindevelopmentofstandardsforhighereducationqualifications.

The development of qualification standards adds a new dimension to the policy fornationalreviewofprogrammes.Nationalqualificationstandardsprovidebothcompliancebenchmarksanddevelopmentalindicatorsforqualificationtypesasawardedinparticular


fieldsofstudyordisciplines.Theyserveanimportantfunctionaspartofthenationalreviewprocess,inthatthestandardprovidesabenchmarkforthepurposeofthequalificationandthegraduateattributesthatmanifestit;thusthestandardisimportantforbothanationalassessmentofaqualificationandforconfirmingtheaccreditationofindividualprogrammesleading to the award of the qualification. This approach represents a cyclical process,from a national qualification benchmark, through the programmes offered by individualinstitutions, and reflection back on the national perspective revealed by a compositeanalysisandevaluationoftheprogrammesreviewed.ThustheprovisionsoftheHEQSFarecloselylinked,inrespectofqualityassurance,withthespecificprogrammeofferingsofhighereducationinstitutions.

The national review process is alignedwith the programme accreditation systemwhichevaluatesnewprogrammesandexistingprogrammes.Thefundamentalaimsofanationalreviewaretoensurethatminimumstandardsinprogrammesaremet,thatstudentsareprotectedfromprogrammesthatdonotmeetminimumqualitystandardsandthatpublicconfidenceinhighereducationprogrammesisassured.Tobere-accredited,programmesneedtomeetthenationalqualificationstandardandtheprogramme-levelcriteria.

Dr Denyse WebbstockActing CEO


1. National Policy and the Legislative Context

QualityassuranceistheresponsibilityoftheHigherEducationQualityCommittee(HEQC)whichisapermanentsub-committeeoftheCouncilonHigherEducation(CHE),establishedbytheHigherEducationAct,1997(ActNo.101of1997).TheCHEisalsotheQualityCouncilfor Higher Education as established by the National Qualifications FrameworkAct, 2008(ActNo.67of2008)(NQF).TheCHE’sresponsibilitiesareto:

• advise the Minister at his/her request or proactively on all matters related to highereducation;

• assume executive responsibility for quality assurance within higher education andtraining;

• monitorandevaluatewhetherthepolicygoalsandobjectivesforhighereducationarebeingrealised;

• contributetodevelopinghighereducationthroughpublicationsandconferences;

• reporttoparliamentonhighereducation;and

• consultwithstakeholdersonhighereducationmatters.

ThespecificfunctionsoftheHEQCareto:

• promotequalityassuranceinhighereducation;

• auditthequalityassurancemechanismsofinstitutionsofhighereducation;and

• accreditprogrammesofhighereducation.

TheoriginofthewayinwhichtheworkoftheCHEisconductedliesinthetransformativeintention of early SouthAfrican democratic legislation in education. The parameters forcarryingoutthesemandatesaretobefoundin,amongstothers:The Higher Education Act asamended,WhitePaper3:A Programme for the Transformation of Higher Education (1997), theNational Plan for Higher Education of 2001 (NPHE) and, more recently, the amendedNQFlegislation,asitaffectstheroleandfunctionoftheCHE.

AccordingtotheNQFAct,aQualityCouncil(QC)isrequiredto:

• develop and manage its qualifications Sub-Framework and advise the Minister onmattersrelatingtoit;

• develop and implement policy and criteria for the development of qualifications asneededinthesector;

• recommendqualificationstoSAQAforregistration;


• executeaqualityassurancefunctionwithinitsSub-Framework;

• maintain a database of learner achievements and related matters and submit suchdatatoSAQAfortheNationalLearners’RecordsDatabase(NLRD);and

• conductresearchonmatterspertainingtoitsSub-Framework.

WhiletheNQFActprovidesfortheQCtodelegatecertainfunctionsundercertainconditions,in terms of the Higher EducationAct, 1997 (Act 101 of 1997) as amended, the CHE maynotdelegateitsqualityassurancefunctionsbeyonditssub-committee,theHEQC.AttherecommendationoftheHEQC,theCounciloftheCHEapprovesthepolicyandproceduresfor the quality assurancework of the CHE. Under the current legislation, the HEQC hasexecutiveresponsibilityforqualityassurancedecisions,includingdecisionsinrespectofnational review. It makes its judgements independently of other national agencies andprofessional bodies, but takes into consideration theirworkwhere issues of quality andstandardsareinvolved.DecisionsoftheHEQCarebasedonpeerevaluationandexpertreviewprocesses.

SinceapprovalofanoriginalframeworkfornationalreviewinSeptember2012therehavebeen two major developments affecting the approach to national reviews. One is theimplementation of the revised Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework (HEQSF)gazettedinOctober2014.TheHEQSFestablishesthesuiteofqualificationtypesandtype-variants that may be awarded in higher education.The other is progress by the CHE indevelopmentofstandardsforhighereducationqualifications.AstheHEQSFstates,

The development of standards is an important element in contributing to the successful implementation of the HEQSF, as standards provide benchmarks to guide the development, implementation and quality assurance of programmes leading to qualifications. Standards registered for higher education qualifications must have legitimacy, credibility and a common, well-understood meaning… [T]he CHE will ensure that there are appropriate safeguards to ensure the integrity of standards development and quality assurance processes respectively.

(HEQSF,p13,#16)

2. Contextual factors

Thefirstdecadeofqualityassurancesoughttoprovideexternalmeasuresforimprovingqualityandenhancingaccountabilityinanequitablemanneracrossthehighereducationsystem.Highereducationinthatperiodwascharacterisedbyalegacyoffragmentation,unevenprovisionandracialsegregation.ThesectorneededtoaddressthechallengesoftransformationinlinewiththedemandforsocialandeconomicjusticethatisatthecoreoftheagendafordemocraticchangeinSouthAfrica.Partofthelatterinvolvedextensiverestructuringofthepublichighereducationsystem:thelargescaleprogrammeofmergers


ofparticularinstitutions,theredefiningofinstitutionalmissionsandtypesincertaincases,the introduction of a new qualifications framework, the introduction of a new fundingformula and the advent of external quality assurance. During the first period of qualityassurance (2004 – 2010) the regulated private sector also grew in terms of the numberofproviders,studentsenrolledandqualificationsoffered,suchthatitisnolongerasmallrelativelyhomogenousgroup.

While the initial challenges of transformation such as the need for increased accessandequityopportunitiesforpreviouslymarginalisedgroups,andtheneedfor increasedthroughput,retentionandgraduationratesinacademicprogrammesremain,thesizeandshapeofthehighereducationsystemhasalteredsignificantly,andnewchallengeshaveemerged.Amongtheseistheneedtomanagetheunintendedconsequencesofparticularmergers,theintroductionofnewpublichighereducationinstitutions,thenascentmissiondifferentiationofdifferenttypesofinstitutionandtheimpactthereofonprogrammeofferings,theemergenceofnewformsandmodesofofferingthatchallengetraditionaldefinitions,and different levels of institutional engagement with quality assurance processes, bothexternalandinternal.

The Framework also takes into account challenges relating to the need to increase thepool of basic and applied knowledge to enhance understanding, social and economicdevelopment, aswell as opportunities emerging from new educational technology andmodes of delivery, to adapt and innovate academic programmes, thereby enhancinggraduateattributesandskillsneededfornationalhumanresourcedevelopment.

The national quality assurance review activities of the CHE are therefore conducted inthecontextofthenationaltransformationagendathatseekstoestablishaqualityhighereducationsystemthatisabletoaddressthecomplexknowledgedevelopmentneedsofSouthAfricansociety.

Resultingfromanextensiveevaluationofitsqualityassuranceprinciplesandproceduresappliedduringthefirstperiod(2004–2010,referredtoabove),theCHEhasconductedareviewofitsactivities,takingintoaccountitsownmandate,nationalpriorities,aswellasthebestinterestsofproviderinstitutions,theirstudentsandgraduates,andthecontextsforwhichthegraduatesareprepared.ThishasresultedinsignificantrevisiontoitsroleastheQualityCouncilforhighereducation.Therevisionisrepresentedinrecentlyapprovedframeworks, such as the Framework for Institutional Quality Enhancement in the Second Period of Quality Assurance (CHE, 2014), Framework for Qualification Standards in Higher Education (FQSHE) (CHE 2013), Accreditation Framework (CHE, 2015), and Framework for National Review of Programmes leading to Qualifications on the HEQSF (CHE,2015).Theserevisedframeworksemphasisethepointthattheprocessesarecloselyinter-relatedandinformoneanother.

Afurtherindicationoftheintegralnatureofthesequalityassuranceprocessesisthemergerof two previously separate directorates (Standards Development and National Reviews)intoasingleDirectorateofNationalStandardsandReviews.ThisDirectoratecoordinatesandadministersnationalreviewsofprogrammes.


AstheexternalqualityassuranceprocessesoftheCHEenterintoitssecondperiod,theneed for the range of processes is affirmed.While the next period of quality assurancebuildsonthefirstperiod,therearetwoparticularshiftsinfocus.

The first takes account of the lessons learned about the state of provision in highereducation, particularly through the first round of institutional audits, and recognises theneed to pay more focused attention at a different level than institutional-level policies,structuresandprocesses,totheimprovementofqualityinteachingandlearningasoneofthecoreareasofinstitutionaloperation.Itwasfoundduringtheauditsthatundergraduateteachingandlearningissubjecttoavarietyofchallengesandconstraintsthatunderminetheachievementofdesiredlevelsofqualityinhighereducation,andthatsuchchallengesrequire further focused and creative engagement in order to resolve them. (While thefocushasbeenonundergraduateaffairs,theyclearlyhaveimplicationsforpostgraduatestudies,andtheseimplicationsneedtobeconsideredincontext.)

Consequently,thesecondshift istowardsagreaterbalancebetweenimprovementandaccountability at the undergraduate level, without compromise in ensuring quality ofeducationalprovisionacrossthesystem,andacrossallqualificationlevelsontheHEQSF.

3. Principles underpinning a National Review

Thefollowingprinciplesguidethenationalreviewmodel.

• The primary responsibility for programme and institutional quality rests with highereducation institutions themselves. Institutions should seek to establish and sustaineffective mechanisms to facilitate the offering of programmes of quality and whichyieldreliableinformationforinternalprogramme-relatedplanningandself-evaluation,externalevaluationandpublicreporting.

• Highereducationinstitutions(HEIs)mustdemonstratetheircapacitytoofferprogrammesofacceptablequalityatthehighereducationlevelthatmeetthestandardsandcriteriadesignedtopromotesuchqualitybeforetheymaybeoffered.

• HEIs must also, as required from time to time, be able to provide evidence of theircapacitytodeliverandsustainprogrammesbeingoffered.

• The HEQC’s responsibility is to maintain a robust external system of programmeaccreditationthatcanvalidateinstitutionalinformationontheeffectivenessofstandardsandarrangementsforassuringthequalityofacademicprogrammes.

• AccreditationbytheHEQCisbasedonasystemofpeerandexpertreview,inthecontextof qualification standards and accreditation criteria for programmes, which ensurestransparent, credible and consistent decision-making on the quality of programmesandinstitutionalcapacity.


4. The general objectives of a National Review

Thegeneralobjectivesofanationalreviewareto:

• assureandenhancethequalityofhighereducationprogrammesandinstitutionsbyidentifying and granting recognition status to programmes that satisfy the HEQC’sstandardsforprovision,ordemonstratetheirpotentialtodosoinastipulatedperiodoftime;

• protect students from low quality programmes through accreditation arrangementsthatbuildonreportsfromself-evaluationandexternalevaluationactivities,includinginter-relatedCHEprocesses,andotherrelevantsourcesofinformation;

• encourage and support providers to institutionalise a culture of self-managedevaluationthatbuildsonandsurpassesthresholdstandards,andtorecognisesuchachievements;and

• increasetheconfidenceofthepublicinhighereducationprogrammesandqualifications.

5. The specific purpose of a National Review

Nationalreviewofhighereducationprogrammeshasaseven-foldpurpose,comprising:

1) establishmentofathresholdstandardforthequalificationtowhichtheprogrammesleadandagainstwhichtheyarebenchmarked;

2) evaluationofeachprogrammeintermsofitsmeetingthequalificationstandard;

3) qualityassuranceofeachprogrammeintermsofinstitutionalresourcesforthedesign,deliveryanddesiredoutputoftheprogramme;

4) identification,asthecasemaybe,ofareasofabove-thresholdperformance,areasthatcallforimprovement,andareasthatfallseriouslyshortofthethreshold;

5) provision of opportunities, as required, for short- and longer-term processes ofprogrammedevelopmentandimprovement;

6) taking the factors above into account, systematically confirming accreditation,conditionalre-accreditationorwithdrawalofaccreditationofprogrammes;and

7) productionofanevaluativereportonthenationalstateofthequalificationasrevealedbytheprogrammesleadingtothequalification.


Theseaspectsofanationalreviewrepresentacyclicalprocess,fromanationalqualificationbenchmark, through the programmes offered by individual institutions, and reflectingbackonthenationalperspectiverevealedbyacompositeanalysisandevaluationoftheprogrammes. Thus the provisions of the HEQSF are closely linked, in respect of qualityassurance,withthespecificprogrammeofferingsoftheinstitutions.

6. The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework

TheexpandedCHEmandateincludesthedevelopmentofstandardsforqualificationsinhighereducation.Thedevelopmentofqualificationstandardsaddsanewdimensiontothepolicyfornationalreviewofprogrammes.

Nationalqualificationstandardsprovidebothcompliancebenchmarksanddevelopmentalindicatorsforqualificationtypesasawardedinparticularfieldsofstudyordisciplines.Theyserve an important function as part of the national review process, in that the standardprovidesabenchmarkforthepurposeofthequalificationandthegraduateattributesthatmanifestit;thusthestandardisimportantforbothanationalassessmentofaqualificationandforconfirmingtheaccreditationofindividualprogrammesleadingtotheawardofthequalification.

6.1 The qualification standard1

Itisimportant,attheoutset,todistinguishclearlybetweenqualificationstandardsandotherkindsofstandardappliedinhighereducation.

There are clear distinctions between qualification standards … and other fundamentallydifferent kinds of standards sometimes employed by higher education, for example,content standards, teaching and learning standards, standards for the assessment ofstudentachievement,andstandardsforinstitutionalperformance.Aqualificationstandardis largely determined by the purpose and characteristics of a qualification type. It is ageneric statement of the learning domains, the level of achievement and the graduateattributesthatcharacterise,andarerequiredfortheawardof,thequalification.

1 TheAccreditationFramework(2014)usestheterm‘minimumstandards’asasub-categoryofthe‘criteria’foraccreditation.

Theuseofthetermineachframeworkisquitedistinctive.Whereas‘standards’appliedtoaccreditationrefertospecific

aspectsofaprogrammeoffered,qualificationstandardsapplytothenationalqualificationontheHEQSFinaparticularfield

ofstudyordiscipline.


As generic statements of achievement, qualification standards apply to all programmes leading to the award of the qualification type. Given the range and diversity of knowledge fields, disciplines and professions that comprise higher education, and their distinctive blends of learning domains and required achievements, it is necessary for generic qualification-type standards to be interpreted, articulated and applied according to the particular character of the field, discipline or profession. The Council, in consultation with relevant academic and, where relevant, professional experts, develops these specific applications.

(FQSHE,2013,p8,#2.1)

6.2 Development of the standard

Todevelopthequalificationstandard,theCHEconvenesaworkinggroupofacademicsfrom higher education institutions (HEIs) with expertise in the particular field of study,normallyafterconsultationwitharepresentativeacademicbodyorassociation.AstandardisdraftedaccordingtothepolicyandprovisionsoftheFramework for Qualification Standards in Higher Education(CHE,2013).Inthecaseofprofessionalqualifications,adraftendorsedby the working group is made available to relevant professional bodies or associationsand,inthecaseofallqualificationsforwhichstandardshavebeendeveloped,toHEIs,forcommentandrecommendations.Oncetheprocessofconsultationhasbeencompletedandallconcernshavebeenaddressed,thestandardispresentedtotheHEQCforapproval.Thedevelopmentofastandardforthequalificationisanessentialprecursortoanationalreviewofprogrammesleadingtotheawardofthequalification.

6.3 Evaluation of programmes in terms of the standard

BesideslocatingthequalificationontheHEQSFandaligningitwiththeleveldescriptorsontheNQF,thestandardseekstoaddressfourfundamentalquestions.

• Whatisthepurposeofthequalification?

• What are the threshold attributes of a graduate who is awarded the qualification(knowledge,skills,andcapacitytoapplycompetenceinauthenticsituations)?

• Howdothoseattributesreflect the purpose?

• Inwhatcontextsandunderwhatconditionsarethatattributestobeassessed?


AstheFramework for Qualification Standards in Higher Educationstates,

Their role is to provide benchmarks, agreed on by academic experts, to inform and guide the design, approval and, where required, the improvement of programmes leading to the award of qualifications … Standards development is a necessary aspect of implementation of the HEQSF. One of its aims is to enhance public perceptions of consistency between similar qualifications offered by different institutions and in different fields of study. The standard states what a programme leading to the qualification type intends to achieve and how we can establish that it has been achieved. This would assure a nationally agreed and internationally comparable fitness for purpose. Standards aim to provide institutions with benchmarks for qualifications that may be used for internal quality assurance as well as external comparison.(FQSHE,p.6,#1.2)

Thestandardincludesguidelinesthatclarifyaspectsof,andconceptsortermsusedinthestandardstatement.

It is equally important to note what the standard does not determine. To ensure thatcontextual diversity and institutional autonomy are recognised, the standard does notprescribe actual programme design, modes and methods of delivery, or assessmentpolicies and practice.These matters are addressed through other means, as describedbelow.

Thestandardisalsointendedtoensureinternationalcomparability. Inthecaseofsomequalifications, comparability is informed by international accords to which a nationalprofessionalbodyisasignatoryorbyaninternationalbenchmarkwhichanationalassociationhas informally endorsed. In other cases, comparability depends on the expertise of theacademicworkinggroupthatdevelopsthestandardandinputfromHEIs.

Anationalreviewtakesintoaccountthelikelihoodthat,inmostcases,programmeshavebeenaccreditedanddeliveredwellbeforethequalificationstandardhasbeendeveloped.For this reason, the process described below provides opportunity for HEIs to identify,whererelevant,aspectsofthestandardthatneedtobeaddressedasaninitialstageinthereviewprocess.

6.4 The standard and quality assurance of programmes

There is a close relationship between standards development and national reviews, ontheonehand,andthequalityassuranceofinstitutionalprogrammes,effectedthroughtheprocessofaccreditationandre-accreditation,ontheother.AstheAccreditation Framework states,


Programme accreditation is one part of an interconnected quality assurance system, which includes, inter-alia:

• Standards development, which involves the development, maintenance and improvement of qualification standards across the higher education system. Programme accreditation involves the application of standards in the decision-making process about the quality of the proposed or current programmes and the fitness of institutions to offer the higher education programmes …

• National review, which involves the re-accreditation of programmes and qualifications in particular disciplinary fields offered across the higher education sector in a particular time period. (AccreditationFramework, 2014, p. 7)

The close relationship betweenvarious quality assurance processes is also reflected inthedefinitionof ‘studentsuccess’ in theFramework for Institutional Quality Enhancement in the Second Period of Quality Assurance (CHE, 2014): ‘Enhanced student learning with a view to increasing the number of graduates with attributes that are personally, professionally and socially valuable.’ These complementary and inter-connected processes togetherrepresentacontinuumofexternalqualityassurance,rangingfromthosethathaveahardaccountability focus such as programme accreditation, to those that, while addressingaccountability,arealsodevelopmentalinorientation,suchasinstitutionalaudits,nationalreviewsandstandardsdevelopment.AstheFramework for Qualification Standards in Higher Educationstates,

Criteria for accreditation of a programme leading to a qualification include the requirement to demonstrate the programme’s fitness, intellectual credibility, coherence and capacity for articulation (HEQC, 2004, Criterion 1). There is little doubt that these qualities are central to any notion of standards in higher education. Would criteria for programme accreditation not, then, cover much of the ground that standards might embrace? There are some important differences. Requirements for accreditation are very generally stipulated, and do not give any explicit guide to potential providers or to the judges of proposed new programmes. In applications, responses to Criterion 1 are adjudicated by knowledgeable peers, but, in the absence of more explicit benchmarks, these cover a wide range of possibilities and disputes become tricky to arbitrate. Far from being simply adjuncts to existing criteria for accreditation, standards aim to establish the core credentials of qualifications and, as such, they are intended to make the process of programme accreditation – as well as review, whether internal or external to institutions – better benchmarked, and thus more transparent and even-handed. However, the development of standards and the application of criteria for accreditation are not mutually exclusive matters.

(FQSHE,p.14,#5.3)


Whiletheprimaryaspectofanationalreviewisanassessmentoftheextenttowhichthequalificationawardedmeetsthenationalstandardasdefinedabove,anassociatedaspectisadetailedassessmentoftheinstitutionalprogrammeleadingtothequalification:accessto the programme, programme design, fitness for and of purpose, human and physicalresources necessary for quality provision, modes and methods of delivery, assessmentpolicy and practice, throughput and graduation rates, provision for internal review anddevelopment,andotherrelevantissues.ThisaspectisinformedbythecriteriasetoutinCriteria for Programme Accreditation(CHE,2014).Mattersemergingfromanationalreviewthatneedtobeconsideredataninstitutionallevelmaybeaddressedfurtherthroughtheinstitutionalqualityenhancementprocess.

Whilealltheaccreditationcriteriaarerelevantandaretakenintoaccount,qualificationsin different fields of study and disciplines may have distinctive sets of prioritiesand concerns that call for the relative prioritisation of some criteria over others.2

Furthermore, the criteria are adapted to be aligned with the distinctive details of thequalification standard. For these reasons, the accreditation criteria may be adapted toprovidespecialfocusonsuchpriorities,concernsandprerequisites.

Inthefirstinstance,thescope,qualificationstandardandaccreditationcriteriaspecifictoaparticularprogrammereview,areproposedbyareferencegroupcomposedoffieldordiscipline experts in the higher education academic community. The group is selectedbytheCHEfromnominationsreceivedfromtheaffectedinstitutions.Itmayalsoconsidernominationsfromarepresentativeacademicbody.Afterconsultationwiththereferencegroup, the Directorate of National Standards and Reviews (the Directorate) submits theproposaltotheNationalReviewsCommittee(NRC)foritsconsideration.TheNRCendorsesoramendstheproposaland,inturn,presentsittotheHEQCforapproval.ThisensuresthattheHEQChasapprovedthescopeandcriteriaonwhichitsdecision-makingwillbebased.MattersbroughttotheattentionoftheCHEbyaffectedprofessionalbodiesandassociationsmayalsobetaken intoaccount,providedthatthey impingedirectlyonthequalificationstandardandarenotextraneoustoit.

Thescopesofthereviewandproposedcriteriaforre-accreditation,draftedaccordingly,aresubmittedtotheaffectedHEIsforcommentand,possibly,furthermodificationbeforetheyareconfirmedbytheHEQC.Theyformthebasisforinstitutionalself-evaluationreportsandtheproceedingsofreviewpanels,assetoutfullyinthemanualthataccompanieseachnationalreview.

2 Priorityareasare likelytovarybetweenqualificationsthatareprimarilyvocational,professionalorgeneral incharacter.

Forexample,therearelikelytobedifferencesbetweenqualificationsinthepresenceandimportanceof,aswellasscope

and methods applied to, work-integrated learning. Another example would be differences in priority areas between

qualificationsawardedthroughcourseworkandthosethatarefundamentallyresearch-related.


7. The function of the National Review Committee

TheNRCisastandingsub-committeeoftheHEQC. Itcomprisessenioracademicswithexpertise in programme accreditation and, depending on the particular review, expertpeersfromwithinthedisciplinaryareaoftheprogramme.ThetermsofreferencefortheNRCincludethefollowing:

• recommendpossibleareasofnationalreviewtotheCHE;

• providesupportandadviceontheefficientandeffectiveimplementationofthenationalreviewsystem;

• recommend to the HEQC its approval of the scope of the review, procedures andcriteriaforre-accreditation;

• evaluatedraftreviewpanelreportsfortheirconsistencyandtone;

• recommendtotheHEQCoutcomesinrespectofeachprogrammereviewed;

• analyse institutional improvement plans for their coverage and thoroughness inaddressingrecommendationsfortheprogramme;

• reviewprogressreportstoconfirmthatimprovementplanshavebeenimplementedandcompleted,andrecommendtotheHEQCthatthereviewprocessforaninstitutioncanbeconcluded,orthatfurtherengagementwithaninstitutionisrequired;

• provideguidanceonthenationalreportfollowingcompletionofthereview;and

• raisesystemicissueswhichmayariseoutofthenationalreviewprocessfortheattentionoftheHEQC.

Incarryingoutitswork,theNRCchecksforuseofevidenceandconsistencyinjudgementsmade in the programme reports. It takes into account available evidence for suchjudgementswithinandacrossreports.

8. The review process

8.1 Identifying programmes for a national review

In reaching its decision to undertake a national review of a particular qualification, theCHE takes into account factors such as: identified areas of national need; significantacademicdevelopmentswithinthefieldordiscipline;concernsraisedbyhighereducationstakeholders;unwarrantedproliferationorpaucityofprogrammesinthatparticulararea;


expressedconcernsrelatedtocurrentqualityofprovisioninoneormoreoftheprogrammesleadingtothequalification;oranyotherdemonstrablysubstantivereason.

Notwithstanding the specific area identified for a national review, the main purposes ofsuchareview,expressedintermsofthecomponentsidentifiedabove,arecommontoallnationalreviews.

8.2 Development and approval of a proposal for a national programme review

The development of a proposal and scope of work for HEQC approval on the selectedprogrammeforthenationalreviewincludes:

• selectionoftheprogrammetobere-accredited;consultationwithproviders,experts,peers and other relevant stakeholders in the relevant field/discipline regarding theplannednationalreview;

• nomination and selection of academic experts in the field/discipline to establish areferencegroupforthepurposeofproposingthescopeofthereviewandthecriteriafor re-accreditation. The group may include international as well as local disciplineexperts;

• collection and analysis of background information and baseline data to inform thereviewprocess, includingtheprogrammestobereviewed,andrelevant informationsuchasstudentenrolment,throughputandgraduationrates;

• areviewoflocalandinternationalliteraturetoidentifyandanalysereportsandstudiesonanyqualityassuranceprocessesrelevanttothedisciplineorfield;and

• dissemination to participating institutions of the proposed scope and criteria forcomment.

TheoutcomeofthisprocessisaNRCrecommendationtotheHEQCforapprovalofthescopeofthereviewandthecriteriatobeapplied.

8.3 Institutional self-evaluation of a programme

TheCHEattachesgreatimportancetoinstitutionalself-evaluationwithaviewtoimprovingthequalityofprogrammes.Tothisend,theassemblyofdataforthereviewcommenceswithinstitutionalself-evaluationoftheidentifiedprogrammeagainstthestandardandthepublishedcriteria.

Thecompilationoftheself-evaluationreport(SER)requiresthedepartment/unitofferingthe programme to engage in critical self-evaluation leading to evidence-based claimsontheachievementofthestandardandcompliancewiththecriteria,theidentificationof


areasofgoodpractice,areasforimprovement,andanyotherinterventionswhichmightberequiredtosustainorenhancethequalityoftheprogramme.

Incaseswhereaninstitutionidentifiesitsprogrammeasfallingshortofthequalificationstandardandthusbeinginneedofdevelopment−eitherasawholeorinrespectofspecificaspectsofthestandard−theself-evaluationreportshould includestepsthatarebeingtakenorwillbetakentoaddresstheissues.Thereportshouldalsoproposetimelineswithinwhichthenecessarystepsmightbeaccomplished.Thesetimelinesmaybeapprovedor,afterfurtherconsultation,amendedbytheHEQC.

TheinstitutionalSERissubjectedtoadesktopevaluationbytheCHE.Themainpurposeofthisevaluationistocomparetheprogrammewiththenationalqualificationstandardandtoidentifyareasofgoodpracticeandshortcomings.Itmayrecommendareasinneedofattention,butitdoesnotincludeanyrecommendationinrespectofaccreditation.

TheevaluationreportissenttotheHEI,whichmay,duringtheforthcomingsitevisit,providefurtherinformationbywayofclarification,orelaborateonplansfordevelopment.

8.4 Planning for site visits

Thenextstageoftheprocesscomprisesasite-basedpeerevaluationoftheprogramme.TheCHEproceedswiththefollowingsteps:

• invites HEIs to submit nominations for the appointment of expert peer-review panelmemberstoconductinstitutionalsitevisits(theCHEmayaddtothenominationlist);

• selectsandconvenesthepanels;

• considersanyobjectionsinrespectofpanelmembershipmadebyinstitutionsonthegroundsofconflictofinterest;

• arrangesforthetrainingofreviewpanelsandreportwriters;

• makes all relevant documentation available to panellists, including the SER anddesktopevaluator’sreport;and

• plansascheduleofsitevisits,andcommunicatesdetailstotheinstitutionsconcerned.

Panellistsarerequiredtosigndeclarationsofconfidentiality,andofanypotentialconflictofinterest.

ThechairordesignatedpersoninthereviewpanelpreparesadraftreportaftereachsitevisitandsubmitsthistotheCHE.This isaholisticreportbasedonboththe institutionalself-evaluation report and peer judgements emanating from the site visit. The panelmayrecommendendorsementof,oritmayamendoraddtotheinstitutionalaccountofimprovementareas,andmayrecommenddifferenttimelines.


8.5 Peer-review decision-making and outcomes

Members of review panels have the responsibility to apply their discipline and subjectknowledgeinmakingappropriatejudgementswithinthecontextoftheprogrammebeingevaluated.Theextenttowhichtheprogrammemeetsthestandardandthecriteriawillbeassessedthroughanevaluationofaninstitution’sself-evaluationreportandappendicesandthroughthecollectionoforalanddocumentaryevidenceduringthesitevisitbyreviewpanels.

Whilethereisinterpretativescopeforevaluators,professionaljudgementsareevidence-based. Such evidence constituted from documentation, observations, interviews orother data must be collected systematically and documented both from institutionalsubmissionsandsitevisits.Suchevidencemustbeusedtoprovideacoherentrationaleforeachjudgement.

DocumentaryandotherformsofevidencethatcannotrealisticallybesubmittedtotheCHE,togetherwithself-evaluationportfolios,shouldbedisplayedonsite,suitablylabelledandcross-referencedwiththeportfolioinsuchawayastofacilitatetheworkofthepanellists.

8.6 HEQC ratification of outcomes

TheNRCscrutinisesandassessesthepanelreports,togetherwiththe institutionalSER,the prior evaluation report and any other relevant documentation. It recommends anaccreditationoutcometotheHEQC.

Prior to making a decision, the HEQC makes the recommendation submitted by theNRC available to the institution, together with the report by the NRC on which therecommendationisbased.Shoulditwishtodoso,theinstitutionmaymakerepresentationwithin a period determined by the HEQC. In this representation the institution may seekcorrection of factual information affecting the findings in the report.Additional evidencemaybeprovidedtosupportclaimsalreadymade,provideditisdesignedtoclarifyexistingclaimsandisnotusedtointroducenewones.

ArepresentationisscrutinisedandevaluatedbyanexpertappointedbytheCHE,whoreportstotheNRC.Basedonthereport,theNRCconfirmsorreviewsitsoriginalrecommendationtotheHEQC.BasedonalltheevidenceprovidedbytheNRC,theinstitution,thereviewpanel and any other relevant documentation, the HEQC decides on the outcome. ThedecisionbytheHEQCisthenconveyedtotherelevantinstitution.Thedecisionisfinalandbindingontheinstitution.


8.7 Outcomes

The outcomes of the accreditation process in respect of each programme will bedetermined in a holistic manner and not merely by mechanistically calculating the sumtotalofoutcomesagainstindividualcriteria.Ineachcase,thisresultsinoneofthefollowingprogrammeoutcomes:

· Accreditation confirmed, with commendationThequalificationstandardandallprogrammecriteriaaremetand,inaddition,examplesofgoodpracticeandinnovationareidentifiedinrelationtothestandardandseveralcriteria.

· Accreditation confirmedQualificationstandardandprogrammecriteriaaremet.

· Re-accreditation subject to meeting specified conditionsAprogrammedoesnotyetmeetthequalificationstandardandcriteria.Shortcomingsarewithinthecapacityoftheacademicunitand/orinstitution,andcanberemediedwithinareasonableperiod.

· Programme on notice of withdrawal of accreditationThe programme has significant weaknesses such that it falls short of the qualificationstandardanddoesnotmeetcriteriarelatingtoprogrammedesign,teachingandlearning,or assessment, so that the achievement of required graduate attributes is cruciallycompromised.However,presentedwithadescriptionofshortcomingsintheprogrammeandstepsthatmustbetakentoaddresstheshortcomings,theinstitutionhasthecapacitythoroughlytoreviewitsprogrammeand,throughanimprovementplan,complywiththestandardandcriteria.

· Accreditation withdrawnTheprogrammehasfundamentalweaknessessuchthatitfallswellshortofthequalificationstandard and does not meet the criteria, so that alignment of the programme with thepurposeofthequalificationandtherelatedgraduateattributesisunachievable.

8.8 Improvement plans in respect of programmes that do not achieve unconditional accreditation

Theoutcomeofthenationalreviewprocessinformstheimprovementplanrequirements.A programme that exceeds or meets the minimum standards retains its accreditationstatus.However,aprogrammeaccreditedwithconditionsoronethatisplacedonnoticeofwithdrawalofaccreditationisrequiredtomeetstipulatedconditionswithinaspecifiedtimeframe,whichmaybeshort-orlong-term.InstitutionsofferingsuchaprogrammearerequiredtoreportfromtimetotimetotheNRConprogressmadeinrespectofimprovementtotheprogramme.


AllimprovementplansandprogressreportsreceivedbytheNRCaresubjecttoevaluation.TheNRCmayat itsdiscretionandforgoodreasonrequesttheDirectoratetoarrangeafollow-upsitevisitifitisoftheviewthatthatwouldbeanappropriatewayofmonitoringprogress.

Incaseswherethetimelinesforconditionstobemetarenotadheredto,oritbecomesclearthattheconditionsarenotbeingadequatelyaddressed,theHEQCmay,onrecommendationbytheNRC,alteradecisionof‘accreditationsubjecttoconditions’toanoticeofwithdrawal,or,whereaprogrammeisalreadyonnoticeofwithdrawaltoconfirmationofwithdrawal.

8.9 Identification of above-threshold practice

A national review aims to be a means not only of quality control, but also of qualitydevelopmentthroughouttherelevantacademicsector.Ontheonehand,thereviewseeksto identify and acknowledge areas of above-threshold policy and practicewhich mightbesharedamongtheentireacademiccommunity,tothebenefitofthequalificationatanationalleveland,whererequired,enhanceitsinternationalcomparability

.8.10 Publication of outcomes

FinaldecisionsbytheHEQCarepublishedontheCHEwebsite.

9. Report on the national state of the qualification

Of equal importance in a national review to the quality assurance of programmes andprovision of opportunities for development and improvement, is an evaluation of thecompositenationalpictureinrespectofthequalification.Tothisend,theCHEproducesandpublishesareportaddressingthemainfindings,strengths,shortcomingsandconcernsemergingfromthereviewasawhole.Examplesofmaintopicsfollow.

Towhatextentisthenationalstandardbeingmet?Arethereanydiscrepanciesbetweenthenationalstandardandprogrammediversity?Istheoverallgraduateoutputaddressingnational needs (qualitatively and quantitatively)? In the interests of national qualityenhancement,arethereinstancesofabove-thresholdpolicyandpracticethatshouldbeidentifiedandfosteredinthesectorasawhole?Incasesofsignificantandwidespreadareasinneedofimprovement,isimprovementwithinthecapacityofindividualHEIs,orwithinthecapacityofthesectorasawhole,orbeyonditscapacityandinneedofaddressbyotheragencies?WhatrecommendationsdoestheCHEmaketowardsthegeneralenhancementofprogrammesleadingtothequalification?


TheHEQCpreparesanationalreportonthestateofprovisionoftheprogramme.Areferencegroupofexpertsandrelevantstakeholderswillbeappointedforthispurpose.Thereportdrawson:

• outcomesofthenationalreviewprocess;

• ananalysisoftheresultsofthereviewinrelationtoeachofthecriteria;

• thebaselinedataobtainedfromthesurveycarriedoutduringthepreparatoryphase;

• self-evaluationssubmittedbyinstitutions;

• theHEQCreportsanddecisions;and

• otherrelevantstatisticsanddocumentation.

Trendsandpatternsarehighlighted,butindividualinstitutionsarenotidentifiedunlessaninstitutionspecificallypermitsit.

Thereportfocusesontheresultsofthenationalreviewprocessagainstthebackgroundof the history of its offering at higher education institutions. It maps the distribution ofthe programme onto the South African higher education landscape and analyses theperformanceoftheprogrammeinrelationtotheestablishedqualityassurancestandardsand criteria. The aim of the report is not only to evaluate the current quality of thequalificationreviewed,butalsotopromotequalityenhancementinrespectofareaswherethecollectiveevidenceaccumulatedfromthenationalreviewsuggeststhatitiscalledfor.

10. Conclusion

ThisFrameworkshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeotherqualityassuranceframeworkspublished by the CHE, and with the National Review Manual relevant to the particularprogramme review. An integrated approach to the quality assurance responsibilities oftheCHE,ofwhichprogrammereviewsformapart,willenhanceaccomplishmentoftheintentions of HEQSF.Thus, the Framework guides the process of developing the reviewproposal,thereviewitself,anditsoutcomes.


Diagrammatic representation of the process

NQF level descriptors HEQSF

Qualification standardPurposeGraduateattributes

ProgrammeDesign,content

Resourcesfordesign&deliveryGraduateoutput

Development/Improvement

Currentnationalstateofqualification


ReferencesCouncilonHigherEducation.2014.Framework for Institutional Quality Enhancement in the

Second Period of Quality Assurance. CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/frameworks-criteria/framework-

institutional-quality-enhancement-second-period

CouncilonHigherEducation.2013. Framework for Qualification Standards in Higher

Education. CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/frameworks-criteria/second-draft-

framework-qualification-standards-higher

CouncilonHigherEducation.2013. The Higher Education Qualifications Sub-Framework as

revised January 2013 and final amendments put in 25 July 2013. CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/focus_areas/higher_education_qualification_sub_framework/

CouncilonHigherEducation. 2013. Framework for National Review of Programmes leading

to Qualifications on the HEQSF. CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/legislation/government-gazette-higher-

education-qualifications-sub-framewor-0

CouncilonHigherEducation.2014.FrameworkforInstitutionalQualityEnhancementin

theSecondPeriodofQualityAssurance.CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/frameworks-criteria/quality-

enhancement-project-qep-process

DepartmentofEducation.1997.HigherEducationAct,1997(ActNo.101of1997).

DepartmentofEducation:Pretoria

http://www.acts.co.za/higher-education-act-1997/index.html

DepartmentofEducation.1997.WhitePaper3:A Programme for the Transformation of

Higher Education. DOE:Pretoria

http://www.education.gov.za/DocumentsLibrary/Legislation/WhitePapers/tabid/191/

Default.aspx


DepartmentofEducation.2001.National Plan for Higher Education. Departmentof

Education:Pretoria

http://www.dhet.gov.za/Gazette/Gazette%20no%2037928,Notice%20681%20of%20

2014,Department%20of%20Higher%20Education%20and%20Training.pdf

HEQC. 2009. External Evaluation of the Higher Education Quality Committee of the Council

on Higher Education, South Africa.CHE:Pretoria

http://www.che.ac.za/media_and_publications/accreditation/external-evaluation-

report-higher-education-quality-committee

SouthAfricanQualificationsAuthority.2008.NationalQualificationsFrameworkAct,2008

(ActNo.67of2008)(NQF).SAQA:Pretoria

http://www.acts.co.za/index.html?national_qualifications_framework_act_2008.php