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

3. Who is the peer reviewer?

4. Characteristics Position Appointment Contribution Educational program Institutional agreement Caliber Subject specialism

5. What are the qualities of the peer reviewer?

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

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

8. Commitment for the review process Cont.

9. November 2006 -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.

10. 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.

11. November 2006 - 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

12. What is the key criteria for the team composition?

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

14. 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.

15. November 2006 - 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.

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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. (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

20. (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

21. (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)

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

23. 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.