1. Programme Review at the NMMU – Outcomes, Lessons Learnt and Remaining Challenges Programme Review at the NMMU – Outcomes, Lessons Learnt and Remaining Challenges Final Workshop of HEQC Quality Systems Restructuring Project- 20-21 October 2008 Presenters: Martin Oosthuizen and Piet Roodt Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Port Elizabeth South Africa

2. 2  NMMU: Background  Components of Quality Systems Restructuring Project  Objective of Programme Review  Outcomes of Programme Review  Lessons learnt  Challenges OUTLINE

3. 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

4. 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%

5. Components of Quality Systems Restructuring Project 5 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)

6. 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

7. OUTCOMES  Programme review framework Slide 8 Slide 8  Review criteria Slide 12 Slide 12  Capacity development  Conduct of programme reviews Slide 14 Slide 14  Programme review structures  Duplicate programmes  Programme review database

8. Programme Review and Planning Process 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 Preparatory Phase

9. CPID Input - Module Information - Student data - Staff data 4. - SE Portfolio Development - Departmental Review 6. Quality Report 5. Validation of SE Report by Review Panel 7. Quality Improvement Plan Quality Review Phase Programme Review and Planning Process

10. 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 Academic Planning Phase Programme Review and Planning Process

11. 10. Faculty Board 11. APQC 12. EMCOM 13. SENATE CPID records results of programme review on: - Programme Database - PQM Institutional Review and Planning Phase Programme Review and Planning Process

12. Review Criteria 12 Mission, Goals Programme Planning & Design Student Recruitment, Admission & Selection Staffing Teaching & Learning Academic Development Assessment Programme Coordination & Administration Resources & Infrastructure Programme Monitoring & Review 29 Statements Input: 17 criteria Process: 9 criteria Output: 2 criteria Review: 1 criterion

13. Summary of panel reviews 2007-2008 CyclePanelsNumber of programmes reviewed Departmental staff present at reviews Number of Academics involved in panels 1 Faculties of Law, Education & Health Sciences 21358115 2 Faculties of Business and Economic Sciences & George Campus 23538217 3 Faculties of Arts, EBEIT & Science (in process) 3584

14. Progress through the Programme Review Process CYCLE 1CYCLE 2CYCLE 3 SE Portfolio Development Departmental Review 21234 Validation of SE Report by Review Panel 21234 Quality Report 21161 Quality Improvement Plan 890 FMC considers academic planning aspects in conjunction with quality reports 010 Consolidated Faculty Planning and Quality Report 000

15.  Improvement processes and quality enhancement. Examples:  Staff appointed on short-term contracts  Recognition of prior learning  Module guides  AssessmentOUTCOMES

16. LESSONS LEARNT  Academic ownership  Understanding of quality criteria  Capacity for self-evaluation reflective practice  Cooperation between CPID and CTLM  Realistic timeframes

17. 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

18. 18 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); Piet.roodt@nmmu.ac.za; Martin.oosthuizen@nmmu.ac.za