Programme Review at the NMMU –
Outcomes, Lessons Learnt and
Remaining Challenges
Final Workshop of HEQC Quality Systems
Restructuring Project20-21 October 2008
Presenters: Martin Oosthuizen and Piet Roodt
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Port Elizabeth
South Africa
OUTLINE
 NMMU: Background
 Components of Quality Systems
Restructuring Project
 Objective of Programme Review
 Outcomes of Programme Review
 Lessons learnt
 Challenges
2
NMMU: Background
• NMMU – Merger in 2004-2005 of: UPE, PE Technikon,
Vista Campus in Port Elizabeth
• One of 6 comprehensive universities in SA HE sector
• 5 Campuses in PE, 2 in George
3
NMMU Background
One of 9 medium sized universities in SA HE
sector:
Total enrolments in 2007: 23688
Total undergrad in 2007: 21093 (89%)
 Total pg – 11% (Below M - 4% ; M – 5.6%, D –
1.4%)
UG Diploma: 11358 (47.9%); UG Degree: 9252
(39.1%)
Contact: 19754 (83%); Distance: 3934 (17%)
SET: 31%; Business and Management: 24.9%;
Education: 22.2%; Other Humanities: 21.9%
Components of Quality Systems
Restructuring Project
Consolidation of institutional quality management
systems (Project 1)
Development of a policy for the approval of new
academic programmes (Project 2)
Quality review of all existing programmes against
defined quality criteria (Project 3A) (Focus of
Presentation)
Development of a framework for the new academic
programme structure of the NMMU (Project 3B)
5
OBJECTIVE of PROGRAMME
REVIEW
Ensure quality of educational
provision
 Systematic review of existing
undergraduate & postgraduate
coursework programmes
Provide basis for development and
implementation of a programme
review system
OUTCOMES
 Programme review framework Slide 8
 Review criteria Slide 12
 Capacity development
 Conduct of programme reviews Slide 14
 Programme review structures
 Duplicate programmes
 Programme review database
Programme Review and Planning
Process
Preparatory Phase
1. Review Design
- Programme
definition
- Criteria
Development
- Programme clusters
2. Review Guidelines
- Criteria
- Templates
- Timeline
- Module Report
3. Workshops (with
HEQC)
- Training
- Clarification of
process
Quality Review Phase
Programme Review and Planning
Process
CPID Input
- Module
Information
- Student data
- Staff data
4.
- SE Portfolio Development
- Departmental Review
5. Validation of SE Report by
Review Panel
6. Quality Report
7. Quality Improvement Plan
Academic Planning Phase
Programme Review and
Planning Process
CPID Input
- Strategic Planning
- Sustainability and
Viability
8. FMC considers academic
planning and resource aspects in
conjunction with quality reports
9. Consolidated Faculty
Planning and Quality Report
Institutional Review and
Planning Phase
Programme Review and Planning
Process
10. Faculty Board
11. APQC
12. EMCOM
13. SENATE
CPID records results of programme review on:
- Programme Database
- PQM
Review Criteria
Programme
Monitoring &
Review
Resources &
Infrastructure
Programme
Coordination &
Administration
Mission, Goals
29 Statements
Input: 17 criteria
Process: 9 criteria
Output: 2 criteria
Review: 1 criterion
Programme
Planning & Design
Student
Recruitment,
Admission &
Selection
Staffing
Teaching &
Learning
Assessment
Academic
Development
12
Summary of panel reviews
2007-2008
Cycle
Panels
Number of
programmes
reviewed
1
Faculties of Law,
Education & Health
Sciences
21
35
81
15
23
53
82
17
3
5
8
4
2
Faculties of Business
and Economic
Sciences & George
Campus
3
Faculties of Arts,
EBEIT & Science
(in process)
Departmental
Number of
staff present at
Academics
reviews
involved in panels
Progress through the
Programme Review Process
• SE Portfolio Development
• Departmental Review
CYCLE 1
CYCLE 2
CYCLE 3
21
23
4
21
23
4
21
16
1
8
9
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
• Validation of SE Report by Review Panel
• Quality Report
• Quality Improvement Plan
• FMC considers academic planning aspects in
conjunction with quality reports
• Consolidated Faculty Planning and Quality
Report
OUTCOMES
Improvement processes and
quality enhancement. Examples:
Staff appointed on short-term
contracts
Recognition of prior learning
Module guides
Assessment
LESSONS LEARNT
 Academic ownership
 Understanding of quality criteria
 Capacity for self-evaluation reflective
practice
 Cooperation between CPID and
CTLM
 Realistic timeframes
CHALLENGES
 Institutional cultures
 Disciplinary benchmarking
 Use and availability of information and
evidence
 Programme coordination and Definition of
a “programme”
 Programme review and academic
planning
 Leadership of engagement
Thank You To the HEQC and the
Finnish Funders
Piet Roodt & Martin Oosthuizen
Planning and Institutional Development
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
Port Elizabeth, South Africa
+ 27 (0)41 504 (piet) 5042152 (martin);
[email protected];
[email protected]
18