Peer reviewer Workshop Presented by: Prof. Dr. Hussein Mahmoud El Magraby National Quality Assurance & Accreditation Project.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Evaluator 101: An Introduction to Serving as a MSCHE Evaluator Dr. Luis G. Pedraja MSCHE Vice President.

Advertisements

Student Involvement Madrid October 2006 Norman Sharp, Director, QAA Scotland Duncan Cockburn, Senior Development Officer, sparqs.

ECA - Code for the selection of experts Rolf Heusser, Chairman of ECA Oslo, 14 February 2008.

Stage One: Registrant Mentor, (N.M.C., 2006).

Promotion and Tenure Workshop for MUSM Faculty A Faculty Development Opportunity Mercer University School of Medicine 2012.

EVALUATOR TIPS FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT WRITING The following slides were excerpted from an evaluator training session presented as part of the June 2011.

The CHE’s Accreditation Criteria QA Forum: Professional bodies February 2012.

Performance management guidance

The SEDA Teacher Accreditation Scheme James Wisdom Visiting Professor in Educational Development, Middlesex University

UKPSEC and UKPSF Dual professionalism of engineering educators

PEER REVIEW OF TEACHING WORKSHOP SUSAN S. WILLIAMS VICE DEAN ALAN KALISH DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR ADVANCEMENT OF TEACHING ASC CHAIRS — JAN. 30,

Alexandria, 2005 NQAAC Quality Assurance and Accreditation for Higher Education Dr. Salwa EL Magoli National Quality Assurance and Accreditation Committee.

Orientation for New Site Visitors CIDA’s Mission, Value, and the Guiding Principles of Peer Review.

Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine The Professional Standards Framework Nigel Purcell - MEDEV.

Realities. Registration Provisional Registration (PRT) Valid for 5 years Subject to Confirmation (STC) Valid for 3 years Full Registration Valid for 5.

National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Preparation for Developmental Reviews.

Handbook for Internal Subject Review Team Members 2013/14 1.

Quality Assurance and Development Unit College of Applied Medical Sciences Females 1.

Stage One: Registrant, (N.M.C., 2006). Student Handout. (May, 2008).

Orientation to the Accreditation Internal Evaluation (Self-Study) Flex Activity March 1, 2012 Lassen Community College.

Overview of RPT Process and Guidelines John C. Carey, M.D., M.P.H. Chair, ad hoc RPT & DAC Committees.

Graduate Program Review Prof. Emad Ali. Major Review Steps Self-study Report External evaluation Apply actions for improvement.

Appraisal and performance management

ISA 220 – Quality Control for Audits of Historical Financial Information

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT Improvement Coach The purpose of this session is to introduce participants to the role of the improvement coach and prepare for.

 The Middle States Commission on Higher Education is a voluntary, non-governmental, membership association that is dedicated to quality assurance and.

Internal Auditing and Outsourcing

FOLLOW UP SITE VISIT Dr Robert Schofield Dr Arthur Brown Advisors to the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Project Republic of Egypt.

The New Scottish Teacher Education Professional Standards and the Development of the Professional Update System Tom Hamilton Director of Education and.

Andy Finch, Ph.D. Vanderbilt University Mary Jo Rattermann, Ph.D. Research & Evaluation Resources

Institutional Review Prof. Wagdy Talaat EMRO, WHO Consultant for Health Manpower Development EMRO Project Director for Accreditation in HPE.

SACS Reaffirmation Project Compliance Certification Team Leaders Meeting Friday, August 27, – 11:00AM 107 Main Building Jennifer Skaggs, Ph.D. SACS.

Continuing Accreditation The Higher Learning Commission provides institutional accreditation through the evaluation of the entire university organization.

Highlights from Dr. Robin Dasher-Alston To Periodic Review Report Committee November 24, 2003.

Basic Workshop For Reviewers NQAAC Recognize the developmental engagements Ensure that they operate smoothly and effectively” Ensure that all team members.

Product Documentation Chapter 5. Required Medical Device Documentation  Business proposal  Product specification  Design specification  Software.

A MEMBER OF THE RUSSELL GROUP PGR PERIODIC REVIEW Sara Crowley

Rhona Sharpe, Head of OCSLD Liz Turner, Head of APQO 11 th April 2013 CHAIRING VALIDATION PANELS.

Peer reviewer Basic Workshop Prof. Dr. Gamalat M. Ali Director of Tanta Quality Assurance Center, Tanta University.

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline LEARNING OBJECTIVES REVIEW TEAM AND COUNTERPARTS Team Composition Qualification PREPARATORY PHASE.

External examiner induction Alison Coates QA Manager (Validation & Review)

WHO Global Standards. 5 Key Areas for Global Standards Program graduates Program graduates Program development and revision Program development and revision.

SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,

QAAP Workshop (Basic). Conduct of the peer review * Commitment * Contribution to a smooth and effective process * The Developmental Engagement Report.

Middle States Reaccreditation Process at The Catholic University of America.

2012 Middle States Accreditation Report Review Chapter 1: Institutional Excellence Standards 1 and 6.

Dr. Salwa B. El-Magoli 16/1/2007Dr.Salwa B. El-magoli Cairo: 16/1/2007 Quality Assurance and Accreditation (The Egyptian Experience) Dr. Salwa B. El-Magoli.

Accreditation Update and Institutional Student Learning Outcomes Deborah Moeckel, SUNY Assistant Provost SCoA Drive in Workshops Fall 2015

Workshop For Reviewers Operating the Developmental Engagements Prof. Dr. Hala SalahProf. Dr. Hoda ELTalawy.

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency. IAEA Outline LEARNING OBJECTIVES REVIEW TEAM AMD COUNTERPARTS Team Composition Qualification PREPARATORY PHASE.

Prior Learning Assessment (PLA) Pilot Project At VSU What is it and how is it important to VSU and our students?

Introduction to the quality system in MOHE Prof. Hala Salah Consultant in NQAAP.

National Lutheran School Accreditation encourages, assists, and recognizes schools that provide quality Christian education and engage in continuous improvement.

30/10/2006 University Leaders Meeting 1 Student Assessment: A Mandatory Requirement For Accreditation Dr. Salwa El-Magoli Chair-Person National Quality.

Board Structure & Responsibilities Governing Board Online Training Module.

ICAJ/PAB - Improving Compliance with International Standards on Auditing Planning an audit of financial statements 19 July 2014.

Jerry E. Trapnell, PhD, CPA Executive Vice President and Chief Accreditation Officer AACSB International A BRIEFING ON AACSB INTERNATIONAL ACCREDITATION.

AUDIT STAFF TRAINING WORKSHOP 13 TH – 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014, HILTON HOTEL NAIROBI AUDIT PLANNING 1.

Performance-Based Accreditation

Academic Program Review Workshop 2017

Dutchess Community College Middle States Self-Study 2015

GOVERNANCE COUNCILS AND HARTNELL’S GOVERNANCE MODEL

Orientation for New Site Visitors

مراجعـة النظـراء Peer Review

SCC Tenure Process November 9, 2016.

Internship Bill of Rights

February 21-22, 2018.

Session 6 2:30pm-4:00pm Site Visitor Training Facilitators:

Research Degree Independent Chair Workshop 4 April 2019

Preparation for the Doctoral Examination 11 March 2019

Presentation transcript:

Peer reviewer Workshop Presented by: Prof. Dr. Hussein Mahmoud El Magraby National Quality Assurance & Accreditation Project

Who is the peer reviewer?

Characteristics Position Appointment Contribution Educational program Institutional agreement Caliber Subject specialism

What are the qualities of the peer reviewer?

Discipline expert Team work skills Credibility with subject area No conflict of interest

 Form evidence - based judgment.  Manage time and stress.  Organize and to chair meetings.  Work according to a prescribed “Evaluative framework” Ability to Cont.

Commitment for the review process Cont.

November Successful completion of training with standard operating procedures in quality assurance and accreditation process. Peer reviewer recruitment -Provided with quality assurance and accreditation handbook. -Make themselves available for 3 review / year. -Take a professional interest in the process and advancement of higher education. -Allocated to reviews within their competence.

November 2006 Peer reviewers essential specifications: - At least 5 years teaching / or research / or community projects within the last 10 years. - Sufficient status and academic reputation. - High order of evaluative skills. - Successful teaching practice. - Proven abilities in communication both in Arabic & English. - Competence in accurate analysis of data, verification and reconciliation techniques.

November Acknowledged track record in research. - IT skills. - Recent experience in external examining. - Effective practice in curricula development. - Recognized contribution to the community (projects, consultancy, teaching, coaching or mentoring). Peer reviewers desirable specifications

What is the key criteria for the team composition?

 Meet personal specification. Consultation Reviewer  Balance of interests.  Potential conflicts. Professional practice Relevant perceptives Final allocation  Team no. & leader.

November 2006 Peer reviewers code of conduct - Knowledge and understanding of quality assurance and accreditation process. - Remain up to date with any developments. - Conduct activities with respect to the published method and protocols. - Reaching justifiable evidence-based judgment.

November Complete the assignment on time with high professional standard. - Respect the confidentiality of the review process. - Respect the confidentiality of the review process. - Contribute positively to the evaluation of the process by offering constructive comments on their experiences as reviewers. - Show courtesy to all colleagues’ views and opinions. - Show courtesy to all colleagues’ views and opinions. - Respects the institution mission and avoids brining any prejudices to the process.

Conduction of the developmental engagements. Planning for the site visit Preliminary visit After the site visit Site visit

Planning for the site visit: Preparation of reports and documents. The institution with NQAAP consider:  Timing of the site visit.  Size and composition of the review team.  Nomination of the facilitator.

NQAAP provisional review team NQAAP Cont. planning for the site visit: Institution Factors determining size & selection of the team Institution Confirmation of the review team

(After review team confirmation) Cont. planning for the site visit: RecipientTaskResponsible authority InstitutionSend names & addresses of the reviewers NQAAP Reviewer 6w. before the site visit Send advance documentations Institution NQAAP 6w. before the site visit Send 2 hard copies & é version of self- evaluation report Institution

(After receiving the documentation) Cont. planning for the site visit: RecipientTaskResponsible authority Review team the representative of the institution 4w. before the site visit ContactReview chair

(After receiving the documentation) Cont. planning for the site visit: RecipientTaskResponsible authority Read course / program / faculty reports & strategic review report Prepare initial commentary & consider review chair guidance Peer reviewer Chair review Other members Send the prepared commentary (1w before 1 st day of site visit)

Facilitator is entitled to see these initial commentaries (After receiving the documentation) Cont. planning for the site visit:

Alternative ways for allocating responsibilities Chairman agrees with team on division of responsibilities Complete allocation by aspect - specific aspects appropriate specialist - non-specific aspects an individual reviewer Focusing on specific aspects and responsibility to contribute anything of note to their colleagues.