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

2. Purpose Follow-up to Developmental Engagements supplements the reports of the Monitoring and Evaluation team and the Review report from the site-visit. It has two purposes:

3. Purpose  Identifying the time that individual faculties may need to be ready to apply for accreditation.

4. Purpose  Providing further information and support for the continuing improvement of academic standards and the quality of higher education.

5. Method  The follow-up process is designed to deliver evidence based reports to the Ministry for Higher Education and Scientific Research on the readiness of institutions to apply for accreditation during and after the transitional period of establishing internal quality assurance systems and processes and completing related funded QAAP/HEEP projects.

6. Method  * A follow-up site visit, normally needing one day, to faculties, leading to a brief written report to NQAAC on the state of readiness to apply for accreditation, *Conducted by: - the Head of the University ’ s Quality Assurance Centre - a member of the National Committee - an external consultant.

7. Method  Faculties will be reviewed under 10 headings and scored under each heading either one “for satisfactory to apply for accreditation “,or zero for “ further improvement required before an application for accreditation can be made”  Faculties will therefore be scored out of 10.

8. Method  A consolidated overview report to the Ministry on the state of readiness of faculties to apply for accreditation will be prepared by NQAAC after the completion of each series of follow-up visits. The planned timing for the delivery of this report is January 2008.

9. Main Headings 1. Effectiveness of Quality Management and Enhancement. 2. Intended Learning Outcomes(ILOs) 3. Curricula. 4. Student Assessment. 5. Achievement.

10. Main Headings 6. Teaching and Learning. 7. Student Support. 8. Learning Resources. 9.Academic Research and other Scholarly Activity. 10. Community Involvement.

11. Evidence base The faculties ’ state of readiness to apply for accreditation will be assessed by the follow up process using the following sources of evidence:  Successive Faculty Annual Self-Evaluation Reports together with annual programme reports and annual course reports (i.e.2006-2007 as well as 2005-06)  Action plans  Developmental Engagement Review Report (executive summary and conclusions)  Faculty strategic plan linked to the University’s.

12. Faculty Annual Self –Evaluation Reports  All issues in the template must be addressed.  Course reports must be properly completed by the person delivering the course.  Programme reports must be completed by the programme coordinator.  Must report the consideration of and improvements needed in ILOs to reflect external reference points (NARS).  Previous action plan must be addressed.

13. Action Plans  Must be routinely in all course, programme and faculty reports.  Must emphasise the implications for refining ILOs, checking NARS, enhancing teaching and assessment methods, and for learning resources.  Must be checked for completion in succeeding reports.

14. Example  The following ILOs are to be clarified….  The ILOs need checking against the new NARS…  The existing curriculum has the following gaps….  Revisions are proposed for the programme in respect of:  The curriculum (practicals)  Teaching and learning methods  Assessment  Develop laboratories and workshops  The obstacles identified are….  Timetable for implementation including training is….

15. The Follow Up action plan Consider and report how it -  Addresses DE reports  Considers the recommendations  Identifies actions with priorities  Sets out timetable for implementation  Takes into account implications for resources

16. Suggested Timetable for Follow-up Site Visits  Based on a six hour day to accommodate travel etc  The situations in different Faculties will be different so this timetable will have to be flexible  Details to be agreed in advance by NQAAC member and the Faculty representative.

17. Timetable (morning session)  Session 1 (15 minutes) Courtesy meeting with Dean and senior staff.  Session 2 (90 minutes) Meeting with key staff Discussion of implementation of action plan and level of progress  Session 3 (45 minutes) Meeting with students

18. Timetable (afternoon session)  Session 4 (30-60 minutes) a)Tour of any new resources. b)Scrutiny of new documentation.  Session 5 (30-60 minutes) Follow up meetings as required.  Session 6 (45 minutes) Team discussion  Session 7 (15 minutes) Oral feedback.