Upload
azizul-azmi-al-jawaher
View
252
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
1/160
i
Second Edition
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
2/160
ii
Code of Practice for Institutional Audit
First Published June 2008Second Edition February 2009
ISBN 978-983-44015-0-4
2009 Agensi Kelayakan Malaysia (Malaysian Qualifcations Agency, MQA)
Level 14B, Menara PKNS-PJNo. 17, Jalan Yong Shook Lin46050 Petaling JayaSelangor Darul EhsanMalaysia
Tel: +603 7968 7002Fax: +603 7956 9496
www.mqa.gov.my
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
3/160
iii
Foreword to the First Edition vii
Glossary ix
Abbreviations xiList o Tables xii
Section 1: An Overview o Quality Assurance o Malaysian
Higher Education
INTRODUCTION 3
1. The Malaysian Qualications Agency 3
2. The Council o Malaysian Qualications Agency 3
3. Committees 4
3.1 The Accreditation Committees3.2 The Institutional Audit Committee
3.3 The Equivalency Committee
3.4 The Standards Committees
4. The Malaysian Qualications Framework 5
5. Approaches to Quality Assurance 6
6. The Malaysian Qualications Register 6
7. The Quality Assurance Guidelines 7
7.1 Quality Assurance Documents
7.2 Areas o Evaluation
8. Programme Accreditation 8
8.1 The Accreditation Report
8.2 The Accreditation Summary Report
9. Institutional Audit 9
9.1 Report to the Higher Education Provider: Continual Quality
Improvement
9.2 Report to the Ministry o Higher Education
9.3 Report or the Public
Section 2: Guidelines on Criteria and Standards or Higher
Education Providers
INTRODUCTION 13
Area 1: Vision, Mission, Education Goals and Learning Outcomes 15
1.1 Statement o Vision, Mission and Educational Goals
1.2 Participation in the Formulation o Vision, Mission and
Educational Goals
1.3 Academic Autonomy
1.4 Learning Outcomes
Area 2: Curriculum Design and Delivery 182.1 Curriculum Design and Teaching-Learning Methods
List of Contents
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
4/160
iv
2.2 Curriculum Content and Structure
2.3 Management o Programmes
2.4 Linkages with External StakeholdersArea 3: Assessment o Students 21
3.1 Relationship Between Assessment and Learning
3.2 Assessment Methods
3.3 Management o Student Assessment
Area 4: Student Selection and Support Services 23
4.1 Admission and Selection
4.2 Articulation Regulations, Credit Transer and Credit Exemption
4.3 Transer o Students
4.4 Student Support Services and Co-Curricular Activities4.5 Student Representation and Participation
4.6 Alumni
Area 5: Academic Sta 28
5.1 Recruitment and Management
5.2 Service and Development
Area 6: Educational Resources 30
6.1 Physical Facilities
6.2 Research and Development
6.3 Educational Expertise
6.4 Educational Exchanges
6.5 Financial Allocation
Area 7: Programme Monitoring and Review 34
7.1 Mechanisms or Programme Monitoring and Review
7.2 Involvement o Stakeholders
Area 8: Leadership, Governance and Administration 36
8.1 Governance
8.2 Institutional and Academic Leadership
8.3 Administrative and Management Sta
8.4 Academic Records
8.5 Interaction with External Sectors
Area 9: Continual Quality Improvement 39
9.1 Quality Improvement
Section 3: Submission or Institutional Audit
INTRODUCTION 43
3.1 The Documentation Required 43
Part A: General Inormation About the Higher Education Provider 45
Part B: Inormation on the Nine Areas o Evaluation or Quality Assurance 50Part C: Sel-Review Report 77
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
5/160
v
Section 4: The Institutional Audit
INTRODUCTION 81
4.1 The Internal Quality Audit 81
4.1.1 The Internal Quality Audit Task Force
4.1.2 Data Collection
4.1.3 The Sel-Review Portolio (SRP)
4.2 Institutional Audit: The External Audit 83
4.2.1 The Role Players
4.2.2 Support Facilities
4.2.3 The Audit Timeline
4.2.4 The Audit Management Meeting
4.2.5 The Preparatory Meeting4.2.6 The Planning Visit
4.2.7 The Audit Visit
4.2.8 The Oral Exit Report
4.2.9 The Drat Institutional Audit Report
4.2.10 The Institutional Audit Report
4.2.11 Findings and Judgments
4.2.12 Appeal
4.2.13 Follow Up
Section 5: The Panel o Auditors
INTRODUCTION 99
5.1 Appointment o the Members o an Audit Panel 99
5.1.1 Personal and General Attributes o Auditors
5.1.2 Responsibilities o the Auditors
5.2 Confict o Interest 101
5.3 The Audit Panel 102
5.3.1 The Chairperson
5.3.2 The Secretary
5.3.3 The MQA Ocer
5.4 The Audit Trail 104
5.4.1 Beore the Audit Visit
5.4.2 Preparatory Meeting
5.4.3 During the Audit Visit
5.4.4 Ater the Audit Visit
5.5 The Institutional Audit Report 109
Section 6: Guidelines or Preparing the Institutional Audit Report
INTRODUCTION 1131. The Cover Page 113
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
6/160
vi
2. Table o Contents 113
3. Memorandum 113
4. Introduction and Composition o the Audit Panel 1145. Abstract 114
6. Summary o Panel o Auditors Findings 115
7. Previous Quality Assurance or Accreditation Assessments and Progress 117
Reports
8. The Sel-Review Portolio 117
9. Background o the Higher Education Provider 117
10. Report on the Higher Education Provider in Relation to the Nine Areas 117
o Evaluation
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: The Quality Assurance Process: An Overview 141
Appendix 2: General Comparison o Programme Accreditation and 143
Institutional Audit Process
Appendix 3: Flow Chart or Institutional Audit Process 145
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
7/160
vii
Foreword to the First Edition
The National Accreditation Board (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, LAN) was established in
1997 to quality assure private higher education in Malaysia. Quality assurance o public
higher education institutions was entrusted to the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) othe Ministry o Higher Education. In 2005, the Malaysian Cabinet decided to merge LAN
and QAD into a single quality assurance body. Thus, the Malaysian Qualications Agency
(MQA) was born under the Malaysian Qualications Agency Act 2007. Concurrently, the
Malaysian Qualications Framework (MQF) was developed to uniy and harmonise all
Malaysian qualications.
This development is in line with Malaysias long term development plans as well as the
Ministry o Higher Educations aspiration or the transormation o higher education
in the country. These refect a maturing Malaysian higher education system that
encourages providers to adopt a more systematic and holistic approach in the provision oquality education.
Assigned the task to ensure quality in higher education in the spirit o the MQF, the MQA
has developed a series o guidelines, standards and codes o practice to assist the higher
education providers enhance their academic perormance and institutional eectiveness.
Key among these are the Code o Practice or Programme Accreditation (COPPA) and
Code o Practice or Institutional Audit(COPIA).
COPPA and COPIA are intended to be useul guides or providers o higher education,
quality assurance auditors, ocers o the MQA, policy makers, proessional bodiesand other stakeholders engaged in higher education. The Codes, not only contain an
overview o the Malaysian quality assurance system or higher education, they also guide
the reader on the nine areas o evaluation or quality assurance as well as the two levels
o standards -- benchmarked and enhanced standards -- that underline them. In addition,
the two documents provide guidance or internal quality review to be conducted by the
institution and external audit to be conducted by the MQAs panel o assessors. They also
include site visit schedules as well as guidelines on report writing.
COPPA and COPIA have been developed by bringing together the good practices adopted
by the QAD and LAN, with inputs rom experts and stakeholders via a series o ocus group
discussions. They were also benchmarked against international best practices. In doing
this, reerences have been made to quality assurance practices o MQAs counterparts,
which include the Quality Assurance Agency or Higher Education (QAA) o the United
Kingdom, Australian Universities Quality Agency (AUQA), the New Zealand Qualications
Authority (NZQA), Hong Kong Council or Accreditation o Academic and Vocational
Qualications (HKCAAVQ), South Arican Qualications Authority (SAQA) and National
Accreditation and Assessment Council (NAAC) o India.
Quality assurance is an ongoing process and it is the responsibility o all parties involved.
Thus, it is o utmost importance or MQA to continuously review its quality assurance
practices to ensure their relevancy, reliability, adaptability and eectiveness to address
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
8/160
viii
the ever changing environment within which higher education operates. The MQA hopes
that both COPPA and COPIA would assist institutions to enhance their quality provisions
through the sel-review and internal assessment processes as well as the external auditconducted by the MQA. In the spirit o shared responsibility and balancing the demands
o autonomy, fexibility and accountability, the MQA looks orward to continuous
collaboration with all stakeholders in enhancing the quality o higher education
in Malaysia.
On behal o the MQA, I wish to extend our sincere appreciation and gratitude to all
those who have contributed towards the preparation o these Codes o Practice. It is
our hope that these Codes will serve the purpose o our common endeavour to achieve
higher education o the highest quality.
Tan Sri Dato Dr. Muhammad Rais Abdul Karim
Chairman, Malaysian Qualifcations Agency
1 June 2008
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
9/160
ix
Glossary
Benchmark Data
Benchmark data are inormation collected rom other relevant sources to determine how
others achieve their levels o perormance.
Formative Assessment
Formative assessment is the assessment o student progress throughout a course, in which
the eedback rom the learning activities is used to improve student attainment.
Good Practices
Good practices are a set o internationally accepted norms which are expected to be
ullled to maintain high quality.
Higher Education Provider (HEP)A higher education provider is a body corporate, organisation or other body o persons
which conducts higher education or training programmes leading to the award o a
higher education qualication.
Institutional Audit
Institutional Audit is an external evaluation o an institution to determine whether it
is achieving its mission and goals, to identiy strengths and areas o concern, and to
enhance quality.
Internal Quality AuditAn internal quality audit is a sel-review exercise conducted internally by a higher
education provider to determine whether it is achieving its mission and goals; to identiy
strengths and areas o concern, and to enhance quality. It generates a Sel-Review Report
or Institutional Audit.
Learning Outcomes
Learning outcomes are statements on what students should know, understand and can
do upon the completion o a period o study.
Longitudinal Study
A longitudinal study involves repeated observations o the same items or phenomena
over a long period o time.
Malaysian Qualifcations Framework (MQF)
The Malaysian Qualications Framework is an instrument that classies qualications based
on a set o criteria that are approved nationally and benchmarked against international
best practices.
Modules
Modules are components o a programme. The term modules is used interchangeably
with subjects, units, or courses.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
10/160
x
MQF Level
An MQF level, as described in the Framework, is an award level described with
generic learning outcomes and qualication descriptors which characterises atypical qualication.
Programme
A programme is a set o modules that are structured or a specied duration and learning
volume to achieve the stated learning outcomes which usually leads to an award o
a qualication.
Programme Accreditation
Provisional accreditation is an assessment exercise to determine whether aprogramme has met the minimum quality requirements prior to ull accreditation.
Full accreditation is an assessment exercise to ascertain that the teaching, learning
and all other related activities o a programme provided by a higher education provider
has met the quality standards and in compliance with the MQF.
Quality Assurance
Quality assurance comprises planned and systematic actions (policies, strategies, attitudes,
procedures and activities) to provide adequate demonstration that quality is being
achieved, maintained and enhanced, and meets the specied standards o teaching,scholarship and research as well as student learning experience.
Quality Enhancement
Quality enhancement is steps taken to bring about continual improvement in quality.
Sel-Review Portolio (SRP)
A Sel-Review Portolio is a portolio generated by an Internal Quality Audit, which is
submitted to the MQA or the purpose o an Institutional Audit.
Sel-Review Report (SRR)A Sel-Review Report is a report submitted by a higher education provider to the MQA or
the purpose o an Institutional Audit that demonstrates whether the higher education
provider has achieved the quality standards as required in the areas that are evaluated.
Student Learning Experience
Student learning experience comprises the entire educational experience o a student
whilst studying or a Programme.
Summative Assessment
Summative assessment is the assessment o learning, which summarises the progress o
the learner at a particular time and is used to assign the learner a course grade.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
11/160
xi
1. HEP Higher Education Provider
2. COPIA Code o Practice or Institutional Audit
3. COPPA Code o Practice or Programme Accreditation
4. MOHE Ministry o Higher Education
5. MQA Malaysian Qualications Agency
6. MQF Malaysian Qualications Framework
7. MQR Malaysian Qualications Register
8. SRP Sel-Review Portolio
9. SRR Sel-Review Report
Abbreviations
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
12/160
xii
1. Table 1 A typical timeline prior to the audit visit
2. Table 2 A typical timetable or an audit visit
3. Table 3 A typical timeline ater the audit visit
List of Tables
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
13/160
Section 1An Overview of Quality Assurance of
Malaysian Higher Education
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
14/160
2
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
15/160
3
Section 1 An Overview o Quality Assurance
o Malaysian Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
Malaysias vision o its uture advocates the development o a human capital o highestquality. The Ministry o Higher Education (MOHE) has incorporated this vision as one o
its primary objectives under its Strategic Plan, in line with the national agenda to make
Malaysia as a preerred centre to pursue higher education.
1. THE MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY
In December 2005, the Malaysian Cabinet decided to merge the National Accreditation
Board (Lembaga Akreditasi Negara, LAN) and the Quality Assurance Division (QAD) o
the MOHE. This merger created the Malaysian Qualications Agency (MQA), the single
quality assurance agency in the country, whose scope now covers both the public and
private Higher Education Providers (HEP).
The Malaysian Qualications Agency Act 2007 (MQAA 2007) assigns the responsibility
or quality assuring higher education in Malaysia to the MQA. The responsibilities o the
MQA are:
toimplementtheMalaysianQualicationsFramework(MQF)asareference
point or Malaysian qualications;
todevelop,withthecooperationofstakeholders,standardsandcriteriaandinstruments as a national reerence or the conerment o awards;
toqualityassurehighereducationprovidersandprogrammes;
toaccreditprogrammesthatfullasetofcriteriaandstandards;
tofacilitatetherecognitionandarticulationofqualications;
toestablishandmaintaintheMalaysianQualicationsRegister(MQR);and
toadvisetheMinisterofHigherEducationonanymatterrelatingtoquality
assurance in higher education.
2. THE COUNCIL OF MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS AGENCY
The MQA is headed by a Council. It comprises o a Chairman and 16 members. The
unctions o the Council are:
toapproveplansandpoliciesforthemanagementoftheAgency;
toapproveamendmentsandupdatesoftheMQF;
to approve policies and guidelines relating to audit processes and the
accreditation o programmes, qualications and higher education providers;
toreceiveandmonitorreports,returns,statementsandanyotherinformationrelating to accreditation, institutional audit and evaluation; and
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
16/160
4
tocontinuouslyguidetheAgencyinitsfunctionasaqualityassurancebody
and do all things reasonably necessary or the perormance o its unctions
under the Act.
3. COMMITTEES
Fromtimetotime,theAgencymayestablishcommitteesforvariouspurposes,including
to provide input or policy decisions. These committees consist o resource persons who
possess in-depth and specialised knowledge and experience in their respective disciplines
to perorm such duties as prescribed under the MQAA 2007.
The committees that have been established are:
3.1 The Accreditation Committees
There are ve Accreditation Committees covering the major areas o study, i.e.,
Science and Medicine, Engineering and Built Environment, Inormation Technology
and Multimedia, Arts and Humanities, and the Social Sciences. The Accreditation
Committees have the ollowing unctions:
Toevaluateandanalyseaccreditationreports;and
To make decisions on an HEPs application for provisional or fullaccreditation o programmes and qualications, i.e., to grant, deny,
maintain or revoke provisional accreditation or ull accreditation o
programmes and qualications.
3.2 The Institutional Audit Committee
One o the main unctions o the Agency is to conduct institutional audits or a
variety o purposes: the procedures o institutional audits may dier according to
their respective purposes.
Among the main unctions o the Institutional Audit Committee are:
toevaluateandmakerecommendationsoninstitutionalauditreports;
tomakethenalrecommendationontheawarding,orotherwise,of
institutional sel-accreditation status; and
tomakerecommendationsforthemaintenance,suspensionorrevocation
o sel-accreditation status.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
17/160
5
3.3 The Equivalency Committee
Allprogrammesoffered inMalaysiamust establishtheir level vis-a-vistheMQF.However, there are qualications, within Malaysia or without, whose level in
theMQFisunclearandneedstobedetermined.Thus,theestablishmentofthe
Equivalency Committee. The equivalency statement o a qualication is generally
used or purposes o admission, employment and recognition, although it is not
necessarily legally binding on the authorities responsible or these.
The key unction o the Equivalency Committee is to make decisions on the
equivalency o qualications or their placement in the level o qualications in
theMQF.
3.4 The Standards Committees
Standards is an essential component in a quality assurance system to determine
the expected level of attainment of quality. From time to time, theMQAwill
establish standards committees, both permanent and ad hoc, consisting o experts
in the various disciplines o study. The members o the committees come rom the
academe, proessional bodies and industry. The guidelines, standards and criteria
are developed in consultation with principal stakeholders and various ocus groups
and approved by the Council o the MQA.
The main unctions o the Standards Committees are:
to develop and review the guidelines, standards and criteria for
programme accreditation and institutional audit;
todevelopandreviewstandardsforspecicdisciplines;and
todevelopandreviewguidestogoodpractices.
4. THE MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS FRAMEWORK
TheMalaysianQualicationsFramework(MQF)servesasabasisforqualityassuranceof
higher education and as the reerence point or national qualications. It is an instrument
that classies qualications based on international best practices and on a set o criteria
that are approved nationally. These agreed upon criteria are used or all qualications
awardedbyahighereducationprovider.TheFrameworkclariestheacademiclevels,
learning outcomes and credit systems based on student academic load. The MQF
integrates all national qualications and provides educational pathways through which
it links qualications systematically. These pathways will enable the individual learner to
progress through credit transers and accreditation o prior experiential learning in thecontext o lielong learning.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
18/160
6
5. APPROACHES TO QUALITY ASSURANCE
The work o the MQA revolves around two major approaches to quality assure highereducation in Malaysia. The rst approach is to accredit programmes and qualications.
The second is to audit institutions or their components. The two are distinct approaches
but highly interrelated.
There are two levels in programme accreditation. The rst level is Provisional Accreditation
which indicates that the programme has ullled the minimum requirement or it to be
oered. This level is connected to seeking approval rom the MOHE to conduct a new
programme.ThesecondlevelisFull(orFinal)Accreditation,i.e.,aconfermenttodenote
that a programme has met all the criteria and standards set or that purpose and in
compliancewiththeMQF.
Institutional Audit takes many orms. It could be comprehensive or thematic; it could be
by aculty or across aculties. It could take the orm o a periodic academic perormance
audit on institutions o higher learning or an assessment to determine the continuation or
maintenance o programme accreditation status. It could take the orm o an exercise or
purposes o veriying data, or purposes o public policy input or or rating and ranking
o institutions and programmes.
The highest orm o institutional audit is the sel-accreditation audit, which can lead
to a conerment o a sel-accreditation status or the institution so audited, whereby
the institution can accredit its own programmes. Sometimes called a system audit,
the institutional audit or purposes o sel-accreditation ocuses on the capacity and
capability o the internal quality assurance system o an institution to evaluate academic
programmes that it oers. In a sense, a sel-accreditation audit is an exercise in accrediting
the internal quality assurance system o the institution.
The various approaches to quality assurance processes include periodic monitoring to
ensure that quality is maintained and continuously enhanced.
6. THE MALAYSIAN QUALIFICATIONS REGISTER
The Malaysian Qualications Register (MQR) is a registry of all higher education
qualicationsaccreditedbytheMQA.TheMQRcontains,amongothers,informationon
programmes, providers, levels and validity periods o accreditation o these qualications.
It is meant to provide students, parents, employers, unding agencies and other related
stakeholderswiththenecessaryinformation.TheMQRisaccessibleat.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
19/160
7
7. THE QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES
7.1 Quality Assurance Documents
The quality assurance evaluation conducted by the MQA would be guided by:
TheMalaysianQualicationsFramework(MQF);
TheCodeofPracticeforProgrammeAccreditation(COPPA);
TheCodeofPracticeforInstitutionalAudit(COPIA);
ProgrammeDisciplineStandards;and
GuidestoGoodPractices.
The Code o Practice or Institutional Audit(COPIA) is adapted rom the Code o
Practice or Quality Assurance in Public Universities o Malaysia (2002) published by
the Quality Assurance Division o the Ministry o Higher Education. In addition, the
Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (National Accreditation Board) -- the predecessor to the
MQA -- had a series o guidelines or programme accreditation and good practices
which MQA will continue to utilise to complement COPIA. MQA will continue to
develop programme standards and guides to good practices to cover the whole
range o disciplines and good practices. It will also review them periodically to
ensure their relevance and currency.
This Code o Practice or Institutional Audit(COPIA), guides the HEP and the MQA in
auditing higher education institutions. Unlike the Code o Practice or Programme
Accreditation (COPPA), COPIA is dedicated to review institutions o higher learning
or specic purposes through comprehensive institutional and thematic audits. Both
COPPA and COPIA utilise a similar nine areas o evaluation or quality assurance.
7.2 Areas o Evaluation
The quality evaluation process covers the ollowing nine areas:
Vision,mission,educationalgoalsandlearningoutcomes;
Curriculumdesignanddelivery;
Assessmentofstudents;
Studentselectionandsupportservices;
Academicstaff;
Educationalresources;
Programmemonitoringandreview;
Leadership,governanceandadministration;and
Continualqualityimprovement.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
20/160
8
Each o these nine areas contains quality standards and criteria. These standards
and criteria have two distinct levels, i.e., benchmarked standards and enhanced
standards. The degree o compliance to these nine areas o evaluation (and thestandards accompanying them) expected o the HEP depends on the type and level
o assessment.
Generally,theMQAsubscribestotheshiftfromatnessofpurposetoatnessfor
specied purpose. However, in the current stage o the development o Malaysian
higher education and its quality assurance processes, there is a need to ensure that
the HEPs ull all the benchmarked standards. Nevertheless, the diversity o the
institutions and their programmes call or fexibility wherever appropriate. Where
necessary, when preparing their documents or submission to the MQA, the HEPs
may need to provide additional inormation to explain why certain standards arenot applicable to their case.
8. PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION
Programme accreditation is an assessment exercise, conducted by peers, to ascertain
whether a programme has satised the expected quality standards.
Therearetwolevelsofprogrammeaccreditation,i.e.,ProvisionalAccreditationandFull
(orFinal)Accreditation.
The purpose o Provisional Accreditation is to establish whether a programme has met
the minimum requirements in respect o the nine areas o evaluation or it to be oered
by the HEP. Where necessary, a visit may be conducted to conrm the arrangement or the
suitability o the acilities at the HEP premises.
The evaluation is conducted by MQAs Panel o Assessors (POA) and its ndings are tabled
at the respective Accreditation Committee or its decision. The HEP uses the Provisional
Accreditation report as one o the requirements to seek approval rom the MOHE to oer
the programme, and, on obtaining it, to commence the programme.
ThepurposeofaFull(orFinal)Accreditationistoensurethattheprogrammehasmetthe
setofstandardsforFullAccreditationasstipulatedintheCode o Practice or Programme
Accreditation,andincompliancewiththeFramework.FullAccreditationisequallyan
external, peer and independent assessment conducted by MQA through its POA, who
would evaluate the Programme Information and Self-Review Report submitted by
the HEP.
The panel would also make an evaluation visit to the institution. This site visit is to validate
and veriy the inormation urnished by the HEP.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
21/160
9
The panel will then submit the nal report to the MQA, to be then tabled to the respective
Accreditation Committee or its nal decision.
8.1 The Accreditation Report
In the whole accreditation exercise, the eedback processes between the Agency
and the HEP are communicated through the panels oral exit report and written
reportinthespiritoftransparencyandaccountability.TheAccreditationReport
will be made available to the HEP concerned. The most important purpose o the
ReportisforcontinualqualityimprovementoftheHEP.
TheAccreditationReportisanarrativethataimstobeinformative.Itrecognises
context and allows comparison over time. It discerns strengths and areas o concern
as well as provides specic recommendations or quality enhancement in the
structure and perormance o the HEP, based on peer experience and the consensus
on quality as embodied in the standards.
I the HEP ails to achieve the accreditation o a programme, the MQA will inorm the
relevant authority accordingly or its necessary action. In the case o a maintenance
audit or programmes already accredited, the cessation date shall be eected on
theMQRtoindicatetherevocationoftheaccreditation.
8.2 The Accreditation Summary Report
A summary o the nal evaluation report o the Panel is accessible to the public.
The report contains inormation that would be helpul to prospective students,
parents, unding agencies and employers.
Accreditation adds value to a programme and qualication. It enhances public
condence and can become a basis or recognition nationally and internationally.
The accreditation reports can be used or benchmarking and or revising quality
standards and practices. Benchmarking ocuses on how to improve the educationalprocesses by exploiting the best practices adopted by institutions around
the world.
9. INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT
Therearetwomaincomponentsofaninstitutionalaudit:theHEPSelf-Review(internal
quality audit) and the MQA Institutional Audit (external quality audit).
The sel-review is done by the institution and is the key component o the documentsubmitted to the MQA or evaluation by the Audit Panel.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
22/160
10
The institutional audit is an external and independent peer audit conducted by MQA
through a panel o auditors, who would evaluate the sel-review as well as visit the
institution to validate and veriy inormation given by the HEP and submit the nal reportto the MQA.
In programme accreditation, there is an element o auditing in the orm o Programme
Maintenance Audit, whose purpose is to ensure the continuous maintenance and
enhancement o programmes that have been accredited. The Programme Maintenance
Audit is crucial given that the accredited status o a programme is perpetual, i.e., without
an expiry provision. Programme Maintenance Audit, which applies to all accredited
programmes and qualications, must be carried out at least once in three years.
9.1 Report to the Higher Education Provider: ContinualQuality Improvement
ThemostimportantpurposeoftheInstitutionalAuditReportiscontinualquality
improvement o the HEP. The eedback processes in the orm o the oral exit reports
and written reports promote accountability and reinorce the continual quality
improvement process by validating the HEPs strengths and areas o concern.
The written report is narrative and aims to be inormative. It is contextual to allow
comparison over time. It highlights strengths and concerns as well as provides
recommendations or quality improvement.
9.2 Report to the Ministry o Higher Education
TheInstitutionalAuditReportismadeavailabletotheMinistryofHigherEducation
where it can be used or policy decisions to assist HEPs improve their quality and
standards, and, in the case o sel-accrediting application, or granting sel-
accreditation status.
9.3 Report or the Public
A summary report is made accessible to the public. The report contains inormation that
would be helpul to prospective students, parents, unding agencies and employers.
The quality assurance reports can be used or benchmarking and or revising quality
standards and practices. Benchmarking ocuses on how to improve the educational
processes through adopting the best approaches practised by renowned institutions
o higher education around the world. Adopting best practices provides the HEP the
opportunity to gain strategic, operational and nancial advantage.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
23/160
Section 2Guidelines on Criteria and Standards
for Higher Education Providers
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
24/160
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
25/160
13
Section 2 GuidelinesonCriteriaandStandards
or Higher Education Providers
INTRODUCTION
The guidelines on criteria and standards or higher education recommend practices thatare in line with internationally recognised good practices. These guidelines are aimed
at helping Higher Education Providers (HEP) attain at least benchmarked standards in
each aspect o higher education and to stimulate them to continuously improve their
programmes. All these are in support o the national aspiration o making Malaysia the
centre or educational excellence.
The guidelines are designed to encourage diversity o approach that is compatible with
national and global human resources requirements. The guidelines dene standards or
higher education in broad terms, within which individual HEPs can creatively design their
programmes o study and to appropriately allocate resources in accordance with their
stated vision, mission, educational goals and learning outcomes.
Like COPPA, COPIA also utilises the nine areas o evaluation, i.e.:
1. Vision,mission,educationalgoalsandlearningoutcomes;
2. Curriculum design and delivery;
3. Assessment o students;
4. Student selection and support services;
5. Academic sta;
6. Educational resources;
7. Programme monitoring and review;
8. Leadership, governance and administration; and
9. Continual quality improvement.
ThesenineareaswillbeadjustedaccordinglytotthedistinctpurposeofCOPIA.For
example, the item on the larger vision o the institution is crucial at the institutional level,
as compared to its t when conducting a programme accreditation in which it is more
directed to see how a specic programme supports the larger institutional vision. Similarly,
when COPIA talks about curriculum design its perspective is largely about institutionalpolicies, structures, processes and practices related to curriculum development across
the institution. In COPPA, it reers specically to description, content and delivery o a
particular programme.
The standards in each o these nine areas dene the expected level o attainment or
each criterion within them, and serve as a perormance indicator. Standards are specied
at two levels o attainment: benchmarked standard and enhanced standard.
Benchmarked standards are standards that must be met and its compliance demonstrated
during an institutional audit. These are minimum standards expected o an institution ohigherlearning.Generally,institutionsofhigherlearningareexpectedtofullallthe
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
26/160
14
benchmarked standards. However, some o these standards may not be applicable to
certain institutions or in certain situations, or which the institution involved must justiy
this exception. Benchmarked standards are expressed as a must.
Enhanced standards are standards that should be met as the institution strives to
continuously improve itsel. Enhanced standards refect international and national
consensus on good practices in higher education. HEPs should be able to demonstrate
achievement o some or all o these or that initiatives toward the achievement o these
standards are underway. Achievement o these standards will vary with the stage o
development o the HEPs, their resources and policies. Enhanced standards are expressed
by a should.
The use o two levels o standards recognises the act that HEPs are at dierent stages odevelopment and emphasises that quality improvement is a continual process. Enhanced
standards, in particular, allow fexibility and recognise diversity to acilitate the creative
growth o education.
In the remaining pages o this chapter, specic criteria o the standards are spelt out or
each o the nine areas o evaluation. These serve as perormance indicators o quality.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
27/160
15
AREA 1: VISION, MISSION, EDUCATIONAL GOALS ANDLEARNING OUTCOMES
The vision, mission and goals o education set the direction o an HEP, guide academic
planning and implementation as well as bring together all members o the institution to
strive towards a tradition o excellence.
The vision and mission o an HEP direct and guide all aspects o the institutional existence
and its uture progress. The larger vision and mission o the HEP provides the oundation
or the development o all its academic programmes; one must be guided by them when
designing such programmes.
The educational goals describe the crucial characteristics o the outcomes and processes
o higher education that are in keeping with national aspirations and global importance.
The general goal o higher education is to produce broadly educated individuals
through the:
provisionofknowledgeandpracticalskillsbasedonscienticprinciples;
inculcation of attitudes, ethics, sense of professionalism, and leadership
and citizenship skills or societal advancement within the ramework o the
national vision;
nurturingoftheabilitytoanalyseandsolveproblemsaswellastoevaluateand
make decisions critically and creatively based on evidence and experience; developmentofthequestforknowledgeandlifelonglearningskillsthatare
essential or continuous upgrading o knowledge and skills that parallel the
rapid advancement in global knowledge; and
consideration of other issues that are relevant to the local, national and
international context.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 1
1.1 Statement o Vision, Mission and Educational Goals
1.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must ormulate educational goals consistent with its vision
and mission.
Themissionstatementandeducationalgoalsmust refect the crucial
elements o the processes and outcomes o higher education that is in
line with national and global developments.
The vision, mission, and educational goals must be approved by a
governing board or other appropriate body whose membership is madeup o those competent to discharge such duties and responsibilities.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
28/160
16
EveryHEPmust disseminate its vision, mission and educational goals to
its internal and external stakeholders.
1.1.2 Enhanced Standards
The mission and educational goals should encompass leadership
qualities in the areas o social responsibility, research and scholarly
attainment, community engagement, ethical values, proessionalism, and
knowledge creation.
TheHEPshould demonstrate that its planning and evaluation processes,
educational programmes, educational support services, nancial and
physical resources, and administrative processes are adequate and
appropriate to ull its stated goals.
1.2 Participation in the Formulation o Vision, Mission andEducational Goals
1.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
Thevision,missionandgoalsmust be developed in consultation with
principal stakeholders which include departments, schools or aculties,
research centres, governing boards, academic sta, student organisations,
and administration and management sta.
1.2.2 Enhanced Standards
The vision, mission and goals should be periodically reviewed in
consultation with a wider range o stakeholders that may include the
community, civil society, international peers, alumni, industry, proessional
bodies, unding agencies, and the government.
1.3 Academic Autonomy
An academic institution is expected to have sucient autonomy over academicmatters. Such autonomy should be refected in its oerings, its scholarly activities
and its decision-making processes.
1.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEPmust have sucient autonomy to design the curriculum o
the qualications that it is conerring and to allocate the resources
necessary or their implementation to ensure the achievement o their
learning outcomes.
(Where applicable, this provision must also cover programmes and
activities conducted in collaboration with others within or outside
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
29/160
17
the country in accordance with national interest and international
best practices.)
Theacademicstaffmust be given sucient autonomy to ocus on areaso his expertise, such as curriculum development and implementation,
academic supervision o students, research and writing, scholarly activities,
academically-related administrative duties, and community engagement.
1.3.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould strive to expand the boundaries o academic autonomy
to refect the progression o its intellectual maturity.
1.4 Learning Outcomes
The quality o the HEP is ultimately assessed by the ability o its graduates to
carry out their expected roles and responsibilities in society. This requires a clear
denition o the competencies that are expected to be achieved by students upon
completion o a period o study. The ability o the graduate should demonstrate the
level o competencies as dened by the expected learning outcomes outlined in the
MalaysianQualicationsFramework(MQF).
1.4.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must ormulate learning outcomes and educational goals
consistent with its vision and mission.
The HEPmust dene the specic competencies that students should
demonstrate upon completion o the period o study.
(The competencies include mastery o the body o knowledge; practical
skills; social skills and responsibility; ethics and proessionalism; scientifc
method, critical thinking and problem solving; communication skills
and teamwork; inormation management and lielong learning; and
entrepreneurship and management.)
1.4.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP should speciy the link between competencies expected
at completion o studies and those required or career undertakings,
urther studies and good citizenship.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
30/160
18
AREA 2: CURRICULUM DESIGN AND DELIVERY
A curriculum denes the body o knowledge and the area o specialisation. The dynamismo the HEP is refected by it keeping abreast with the latest development in the various
disciplines through an eective relationship between curriculum content and current
practices in these disciplines as well as by it taking into consideration the current needs
o an ever changing society.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 2
2.1 Curriculum Design and Teaching-Learning Methods
2.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have a clearly dened process to establish, review and
evaluate the curriculum in which the aculty, the administration and the
governing board plays an active role.
Allprogrammesmust be considered only ater their needs assessment
has indicated that there is a need or them to be conducted.
Allprogrammesmust be considered only ater the resources to support
them have been identied.
Theaimsandobjectivesofallprogrammesmust be consistent with, andsupportive o, the HEPs vision and mission.
TheHEPmust show that the content, approach, and teaching-learning
methods o the curricula are consistent with, and supportive o, their
learning outcomes.
Theremust be a variety o teaching-learning methods in order to achieve
the eight domains o the learning outcomes and to ensure that students
take responsibility or their own learning.
The teaching and learning activities must be consistent with
the curriculum.
2.1.2 Enhanced Standards
The curriculum should encourage multi-disciplinary approaches to
enhance personal development through electives, study pathways and
other means which should be monitored and appraised.
Theneedsanalysis forallprogrammesshould involve eedback rom
external sources including the market, students, alumni, peers, and
international experts whose commentaries are utilised or purposes o
curriculum improvement.
There should be co-curricular activities that will enrich students
experiences, and oster personal development and responsibility.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
31/160
19
2.2 Curriculum Content and Structure
2.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
All academic programmes must incorporate the core content o the
discipline that are essential or understanding the concepts, principles
and methods that support the programme outcomes.
Allacademicprogrammesmust ull the requirements o the discipline
and incorporate topics o local, national and international importance,
taking into account the appropriate discipline standards and international
best practices or the eld, as well as changes in them.
2.2.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould establish mechanisms -- through the use o the latest
technology and through global networking -- to access to real time
inormation and to identiy up-to-date topics o importance or inclusion
in the curriculum and its delivery.
2.3 Management o Programmes
2.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
Studentsmust be provided with the most current written inormation
about the aims, outline, learning outcomes, and methods o assessment
o programmes oered by the HEP.
Allprogrammesmust have a coordinator and a team o appropriate
academic sta (e.g., programme committee or team) that is responsible
or the planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement o
the programme.
Allprogrammeteamsmust have authority and established procedures
or programme planning and monitoring.
All programme teams must be given resources to implement the
teaching-learning activities, and to conduct programme evaluation orquality improvement.
Allprogrammes--inparticulartheir contentanddelivery --must be
regularly reviewed and evaluated and the results utilised to assure
quality. (At level 6 and above of theMQF, the review must involve
external examiners.)
TheHEPmust provide a conducive learning environment or its students
in which scholarly and creative achievements are nurtured.
TheHEPmust have eective structures and processes when ullling the
necessary criteria and standards o qualications awarded.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
32/160
20
2.3.2 Enhanced Standards
Innovationstoimproveteachingandlearningshould be continuously
developed, adequately supported, and critically evaluated, in consultationwith principal stakeholders and experts, internally and externally.
The review and evaluation of programmes should involve external
expertise nationally and internationally.
2.4 Linkages with External Stakeholders
At the operational level, linkages with stakeholders outside o the HEP are crucial
or identiying, clariying and improving key aspects o programmes and their
interrelationships in the planning and implementation process. The linkages arebest developed and maintained at local, national, regional and global levels.
2.4.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must have linkages with all external stakeholders at the
local, national, regional or global levels or the purposes o planning,
implementing and reviewing its programmes.
2.4.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP should obtain eedback rom employers and utilise the
inormation or curriculum improvement as well as or purposes o
student placement, training and workplace exposure.
The HEPshould acilitate students to develop linkages with external
stakeholders.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
33/160
21
AREA 3: ASSESSMENT OF STUDENTS
Student assessment is a crucial aspect o quality assurance because it drives studentlearning and it is one o the most important measures to show the achievement o
learning outcomes. The result o assessment is also the basis in awarding qualications.
Hence, the methods o assessing students have to be clear, consistent, eective,
reliable and in line with current practices and must clearly support the achievement
o learning outcomes.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 3
3.1 Relationship Between Assessment and Learning
3.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
Theprinciples,methodsandpracticesof studentassessmentmust be
aligned with learning outcomes and the curricula.
AssessmentmustbeconsistentwiththelevelsdenedintheMQF,the
eight domains o learning outcomes and the programme standards.
3.1.2 Enhanced Standards
Thelinkbetweenassessmentandprogrammelearningoutcomesshouldbe reviewed periodically to ensure its eectiveness.
3.2 Assessment Methods
3.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
A varietyofmethodsandtoolsmust be used appropriately to assess
learning outcomes and competencies.
Assessmentmust be summative and ormative.
Theremust be mechanisms to ensure the validity, reliability, consistency,currency and airness o the student assessment system.
Theassessmentmethodsmust be reviewed at appropriate scheduled
intervals to ensure currency.
Themethodsofstudentassessment--includingthegradingcriteria --
must be documented and communicated to students on commencement
o a programme.
3.2.2 Enhanced Standards
The methods of assessing should be comparable to internationalbest practices.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
34/160
22
Thereviewoftheassessmentmethodsshould incorporate current global
developments and best practices in the discipline.
The reviewof theassessment systemshould be done in consultationwith external experts, both locally and internationally.
3.3 Management o Student Assessment
The management o the assessment system is directly linked to the HEPs responsibility
as a body that coners qualications. The robustness and security o the processes
and procedures related to student assessment are important in inspiring condence
in the quality o the qualications awarded by the HEP.
3.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust provide sucient autonomy to the relevant departments
in the management o student assessment.
Studentassessmentresultsmust be communicated to the student within
reasonable time.
Changes to student assessment methods must ollow established
procedures and regulations and communicated to students prior to
their implementation.
The programme grading, assessment and appeal policies must
be publicised.
There must be mechanisms to ensure the security o assessment
documents and records.
3.3.2 Enhanced Standards
Thereshould be independent external scrutiny to evaluate and improve
the management o student assessment, including ormal certication
o the processes.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
35/160
23
AREA 4: STUDENT SELECTION AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Student admission is governed by policies ormulated by the Ministry o Higher Education(MOHE). There are varying views on the most appropriate way to select students into
a higher education institution; there is no one best method o student selection.
Whatever method is selected, the HEP must be able to deend it consistently. Appropriate
developmental or remedial support must be made available to assist students. The number
o students to be admitted is determined by the resources and capacity o the HEP as well
as the number o qualied applicants. The admission and retention policies o the HEP
must not be compromised or the sole purpose o maintaining a desired enrolment. I an
HEP operates geographically separated campuses, or i a programme is a collaborative
one, the selection and assignment o all students must be equally consistent with
national policies.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 4
4.1 Admission and Selection
4.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEPmust have clear criteria and processes o student admission
-- including those aecting transer and exchange students -- and
select students whose capabilities are consistent with these criteria
and processes.
Thecriteriaandprocessesofselectionmust be published, disseminated
and publicly accessible, especially to students.
Prerequisiteknowledgeandskillsforpurposesofstudententryintoeach
programme must be appropriate and clearly stated.
If a selection interview is utilised, the process must be structured,
objective and air.
Studentselectionmust be air and transparent.
There must be a clear policy on, and appropriate mechanism
or, appeal.
TheHEPmust oer appropriate developmental or remedial support to
assist students who need such support.
Thenumberforeachstudentintakemust be related to the resources,
capacity and capability o the HEP to eectively deliver its programmes.
Visiting, exchange and transfer students must be accounted or to
ensure the adequacy o the HEPs resources to accommodate them.
Theadmissionpolicymust be monitored and reviewed periodically to
continuously improve the selection processes.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
36/160
24
4.1.2 Enhanced Standards
Studentperformanceshould be monitored as a eedback mechanism to
assist in improving selection processes.
Thereviewoftheadmissionpolicyandprocessesshouldbe in consultation
with relevant stakeholders, nationally and internationally.
Student intake should incorporate social responsibility by privileged
consideration or people with special needs.
Thereshould be a relationship between student selection, programmes,
and the desired learning outcomes.
4.2 Articulation Regulations, Credit Transer and Credit Exemption
4.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
HEP must have well dened and eectively disseminated policies,
regulations and processes concerning articulation practices, credit
transers and credit exemptions.
4.2.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould be in touch with the latest development and thinking
about the processes o articulation, credit transers and credit exemptions
including cross-border collaborative provisions.
4.3 Transer o Students
In this age o increased cross-border education and student mobility, nationally and
globally, the question o the transer o students and credits and the articulation
o accumulated learning has become a very important aspect o higher education.
Thus, sucient attention must be given to ensure that transer students are
smoothly assimilated into the institution without undue disruption to his studies.
4.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must have a well-disseminated policy with clear criteria,
mechanisms and processes, both academic and non-academic, to enable
qualied students to transer to another programme, within it or in
another HEP.
Incomingtransferstudentsmust have comparable achievement in their
previous institution o study.
4.3.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould have in place policies and mechanisms that acilitatestudent mobility between programmes and institutions, within the
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
37/160
25
country or cross-border, through articulation arrangements, joint
degrees, exchange semesters, advanced standing arrangements, and
the like.
4.4 Student Support Services and Co-Curricular Activities
Student support services and co-curricular activities acilitate learning and
wholesome personal development and contribute to the achievement o learning
outcomes. It includes physical amenities and services such as recreation, arts
and culture, accommodation, transport, saety, ood, health, nance, academic
advice and counselling. Students with special needs and those acing personal,
relationship or identity problems can be helped through special-purpose acilities
and proessional counselling. By examining a students career inclination, career
counselling can help students make more inormed programme and career choices.
4.4.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must make available appropriate and adequate support
services, such as physical, social, nancial and recreational acilities, and
counselling and health services.
Studentsupport servicesmust be evaluated regularly to ensure their
adequacy, eectiveness and saety.
Theremust be a mechanism or students to air grievances and makeappeals relating to student support services.
TheHEPmust designate an administrative unit responsible or planning
and implementing student support services, staed by individuals who
have appropriate experience consistent with their assignments.
Academic and career counselling must be provided to students by
adequate and qualied sta.
Inductionprogrammesmustbe made available to students and evaluated
regularly with special attention given to out o state and international
students as well as students with special needs.
4.4.2 Enhanced Standards
Student support services should be given prominent organisational
status in the HEP and a dominant role in supplementing programme
learning outcomes.
An equippedandadequatelystaffedunitdedicated to academic and
non-academic counselling should be established.
Studentacademicandnon-academiccounsellingshould include ongoing
monitoring o the students progress to measure the eectiveness o,
and to improve, the counselling services.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
38/160
26
There should be a structured training and development plan
to enhance the skills and proessionalism o the academic and
non-academic counsellors.
4.5 Student Representation and Participation
The participation o students in various institutional activities inculcates sel-
condence or leadership, and provides experience in education and related
matters. By involving students, it will also be easier or the HEP to obtain their
eedback. Student publications can also contribute to an atmosphere o responsible
intellectual discourse.
4.5.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmusthave a widely disseminated policy on student representation
and participation in line with national policies and laws.
TheHEPmust publish a statement o student rights and responsibilities
and make it available to the campus community.
Thejurisdictionofjudicialbodies,thedisciplinaryresponsibilitiesofHEP
ocials, and all disciplinary procedures must be clearly dened and
broadly disseminated.
Theremust be a policy and programmes or active student participation
in areas that aect their welare, or example, peer counselling, co-
curricular activities, and community engagement.
4.5.2 Enhanced Standards
Students and student organisations should be acilitated to gain
managerial and leadership experience, to encourage character building,
to inculcate a sense o belonging and responsibility, and to promote
active citizenship.
Wherestudentpublicationsorothermediaexist,theHEPshould provide
a clear, ormal and well-publicised policy regarding such publications. Thereshould be appropriate channels to allow student participation in
the ormulation, management and evaluation o the curriculum, and in
academic matters relevant to them.
TheHEPshould have adequate acilities to encourage students to be
involved in publication activities.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
39/160
27
4.6 Alumni
4.6.1 Benchmarked Standards TheHEPmust encourage active linkages and continuous relationship
between it and its alumni.
4.6.2 Enhanced Standards
The views of the alumni should be incorporated in curriculum
development, the achievement o the learning outcomes and the uture
direction o the HEP.
The HEP should encourage the alumni to play a role in preparing
students or their proessional uture, and to provide linkages withindustry and the proessions.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
40/160
28
AREA 5: ACADEMIC STAFF
The quality o the academic sta is one o the most important components in assuringthe quality o higher education and thus every eort must be made to establish proper
and eective recruitment, service, development and appraisal policies that are conducive
to sta productivity. It is important that every programme has appropriately qualied
and sucient number o academic sta in a conducive environment that encourages
recruitment and retention.
Teaching, research, consultancy services and community engagement are the core
interrelated academic activities. Nevertheless, the degree o involvement in these areas
varies between academic sta and between academic institutions.
Work and its equitable distribution is one o the ways the HEP recognises meritorious
contribution or the purpose o promotion, salary determination and other incentives. It
is crucial or the HEP to provide training or its academic sta. The equitable distribution
o work helps ensure that such training can be done airly and systematically.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 5
5.1 Recruitment and Management
5.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have a clear and documented academic sta recruitment
policy where the criteria or selection are based on academic merit.
The staff tostudentratiofor each programmemust be appropriate
to the teaching-learning methods and comply with the programme
discipline standards.
TheHEPmust have an adequate number o ull-time academic sta or
each programme.
TheHEPmust clariy the roles o the academic sta in teaching, research
and scholarly activities, consultancy, community services and administrative
unctions to show a balance o unctions and responsibilities in line with
academic conventions.
TheHEPpolicymust refect an equitable distribution o responsibilities
among the academic sta.
Recognition and reward through promotion, salary increment or
other remuneration must be based on equitable work distribution
and meritorious academic roles using clear and transparent policies
and procedures.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
41/160
29
The HEPmust have clear policies, criteria and processes in academic
appointment and promotion exercise -- or example, that o Proessors
and Associate Proessors -- guided by considerations which are in linewith national policy and international best practices.
5.1.2 Enhanced Standards
The recruitment policy should seek a balance between senior and
junior academic sta, between academic and non-academic sta,
between academic sta with dierent approaches to the subject,
and between local and international academic sta with multi-
disciplinary backgrounds.
TheHEPshould have national and international linkages to provide or
the involvement o renowned academics and proessionals to enhance
its scholarly activities.
5.2 Service and Development
5.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must provide or an eective academic sta
development programme.
Thepolicyontheacademicstaffmust address matters related to service,
development and appraisal.
The HEP must provide mentoring and ormative guidance or new
academic sta as part o its sta development programme.
The academic staff must be provided with the necessary training,
tools and technology or sel-learning, access to inormation and
or communication.
The HEP must provide or a suitable environment or the student
appraisal o the academic sta.
5.2.2 Enhanced Standards TheHEPshouldprovide opportunities -- including unding -- or academic
sta participation in proessional, academic and other relevant activities,
national and international. It should appraise this participation and
demonstrate that it utilises the results o this appraisal or improvement
o the student experience.
The HEP should have appropriate provision to allow or advanced
enhancement or its academic sta through research leave, sabbatical,
and sponsored participation in, and organisation o, conerences.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
42/160
30
AREA 6: EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Adequate educational resources are necessary to support teaching-learning activitieso a programme. These resources include nance, expertise, physical inrastructure,
inormation and communication technology, and research acilities.
The physical acilities o a programme are largely guided by the needs o the specic eld
o study. These acilities include the space and the necessary equipments and acilities
or administration, or large and small group learning (e.g., libraries, resource centres,
lecture halls, auditoriums, tutorial rooms), or practical classes (e.g., science and computer
laboratories, workshops, studios), and or clinical learning (e.g., hospitals, clinics).
Where appropriate, research acilities are included as part o educational resourcesbecause a research-active environment improves the quality o higher education.
A research culture attracts high calibre academics that engender critical thinking
and enquiring mind, contributing urther to knowledge advancement. Active
researchers are best suited to interpret and apply current knowledge or the benet
o academic programmes and the community. They also attract grants that increase
the number o sta and their morale. Interdisciplinary research has positive eects on
academic programmes.
A research-active environment provides opportunities or students to observe and
participate in research through electives or core courses. Exposure to an environment
o curiosity and inquiry encourages students to develop lasting skills in problem solving,
data analysis and continuous updating o knowledge. Some students may develop an
interest in research as a career choice.
Educational experts are specialised sta rom various disciplines who have been trained
or who have considerable experience in eective teaching-learning methodologies
and related matters o higher education. They would deal with problems and provide
training as well as advice on teaching-learning processes and practices. The expertise
can be provided by an education unit or division at the HEP or acquired rom an
external source.
Other acilities, which are essential or supporting teaching-learning activities such as
dormitories, transport, security, recreation and counselling, are equally important. A
balanced and proportional increase in the direct and indirect educational resources
supports eective teaching-learning.
Adequate quantity o physical and nancial resources and services is crucial. Equally
important, i not more so, is the quality, relevance, accessibility, availability and delivery
o such resources and services, and their actual utilisation by learners and teachers alike.
These considerations must be taken into account in evaluating the eectiveness o
educational resources.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
43/160
31
STANDARDS FOR AREA 6
6.1 Physical Facilities
6.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must have sucient and appropriate resources, including
equipments and acilities or training, to ensure eective delivery o
the curriculum.
Educationalresources,includinginfrastructureandresourcesinsupport
o academic sta development programmes, must be distributed
according to the educational needs.
The physical facilitiesmust comply with the relevant laws, and withhealth and saety regulations.
The library and resource centre must have adequate and current
reerences, qualied sta and other acilities -- including appropriate
inormation and communication technology-mediated reerence
materials -- to support academic programmes and research activities.
The HEP must provide adequate and suitable acilities to promote
research activities.
TheHEPmust have a policy regarding access to inormation and external
linkages or eective teaching and learning, or example, through the
use o the most current electronic devices, library databases, networks
and linkages and other eective means o using inormation and
communication technology.
6.1.2 Enhanced Standards
Thephysicallearningenvironmentshould be periodically reviewed to
assess its quality and appropriateness or current education and training,
and regularly improved through renovations, building new acilities and
the acquisition o the latest and appropriate equipment to keep up with
the development in educational practices and changes.
Studentsandfacultyshould be provided with adequate and continual
support to learn how to utilise new equipments and to access inormation
in the various and ever changing mediums and ormats.
Thefacilitiesshould be user riendly to those with special needs.
6.2 Research and Development(These standards are largely directed to universities and university colleges)
6.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have a policy and planning that identies the priorities,
acilities and development in research and commercialisation.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
44/160
32
TheHEPmust acilitate and provide incentives or the academic sta
and the departments to conduct research.
Theinteractionbetweenresearchandeducationmust be refected inthe curriculum, inorm current teaching, and encourage and prepare
students or engagement in research, scholarship and development.
6.2.2 Enhanced Standards
There should be a link between research, development and
commercialisation.
TheHEPshould periodically review research resources and acilities and
take appropriate action to enhance its research capabilities and to keep
up with latest technology. TheHEPshould provide incentives, including unding, to academic sta
to engage in publication, including in reputable reereed journals.
6.3 Educational Expertise
6.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must have a policy on the use o educational expertise in
planning educational programmes and in the development o new
teaching and assessment methods.
6.3.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP should have access to educational experts whose expertise
can be utilised or sta development and educational research in the
various disciplines.
6.4 Educational Exchanges
6.4.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have a policy on exchanges o students, academic sta
and educational resources, and disseminate it to students and aculty.
6.4.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould have a clear policy and uture planning on educational
collaboration with relevant international institutions.
TheHEPshould provide appropriate acilities and adequate nancial
allocation or exchanges o academic sta, students, and resources.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
45/160
33
6.5 Financial Allocation
6.5.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have budgetary and procurement procedures to ensure
that its resources are sucient and that it is capable o utilising its
nances eciently and responsibly to achieve its objectives and maintain
high standards o quality.
The HEP must have a clear line o responsibility and authority or
budgeting and resource allocation that takes into account the specic
needs o each department.
TheHEPmust have a written and well-disseminated policy on tuition
ees, reunds and other related payments.
6.5.2 Enhanced Standards
Those responsible for an academic programme should be given
sucient autonomy to appropriately allocate resources to achieve
the programme objectives and to maintain high educational standards.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
46/160
34
AREA 7: PROGRAMME MONITORING AND REVIEW
Quality enhancement calls or programmes to be regularly monitored, reviewed andevaluated. This includes the monitoring, reviewing and evaluating o institutional
structures and processes (administrative structure, leadership and governance, planning
and review mechanisms), curriculum components (syllabi, teaching methodologies,
learning outcomes) as well as student progress, employability and perormance.
Feedbackfrommultiplesources--students,alumni,academicstaff,employers,professional
bodies,parents--assistsinenhancingthequalityoftheprogramme.Feedbackcanalso
be obtained rom an analysis o student perormance and rom longitudinal studies.
Measures o student perormance would include the average study duration, assessmentscores, passing rate at examinations, success and dropout rates, students and alumnis
report about their learning experience, as well as time spent by students in areas o
special interest. Evaluation o student perormance in examinations can reveal very
useul inormation. I student selection has been correctly done, a high ailure rate in
a programme indicates something amiss in the curriculum content, teaching-learning
activities or assessment system. The programme committees need to monitor the
perormance rate in each course and investigate i the rate is too high or too low.
Student eedback, or example through questionnaires and representation in programme
committees, is useul to identiy specic problems and or continual improvement o
the programmes.
One method to evaluate programme eectiveness is a longitudinal study o the graduates.
The HEP should have mechanisms or monitoring the perormance o its graduates and
or obtaining the perceptions o society and employers on the strengths and weaknesses
o the graduates and to respond appropriately.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 7
7.1 Mechanisms or Programme Monitoring and Review
7.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have a policy on the reviewing, monitoring and evaluation
o all programmes oered that utilises proper mechanisms and resources,
including benchmark data, teaching-learning methods and technologies,
administration and related educational services, as well as eedback rom
principal stakeholders.
Theremust be a programme review committee or each departmentheaded by a designated coordinator.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
47/160
35
In collaborativearrangements, thepartners involved must share the
responsibility o programme monitoring and review.
Theareasofconcernandwaystoimproveprogrammesasidentiedbythe HEP sel-review processes must be brought to the attention o the
highest management level to ensure urther appropriate measures.
Studentperformanceandprogressionmust be analysed to ascertain the
achievement o the learning outcomes o each programme.
7.1.2 Enhanced Standards
Student performance andprogression analysis should be utilised to
provide eedback to committees responsible or student selection,
curriculum planning and student counselling.
7.2 Involvement o Stakeholders
7.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
Theevaluationand reviewofprogrammesmust involve the relevant
stakeholders.
7.2.2 Enhanced Standards
Stakeholderfeedback--particularlythatofthealumniandemployers
-- should be incorporated into a programme review exercise.
For a professional programme, the HEP should engage the relevant
proessional bodies and associations in its programme evaluation
exercise.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
48/160
36
AREA 8: LEADERSHIP, GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
There are many ways o administering a higher education institution. Nevertheless,governance that refects the leadership o an academic organisation must emphasise
excellence and scholarship. It is very crucial that leadership at the various levels o the
HEP provides clear guidelines and direction, builds relationship amongst the dierent
constituents based on collegiality and transparency, manages nances and other resources
with transparency and accountability, orge partnerships with signicant stakeholders
in educational delivery, research and consultancy and dedicates itsel to academic and
scholarly endeavours. Whilst ormalised arrangements can protect these relationships,
they are best developed by a culture o reciprocity and open communication.
STANDARDS FOR AREA 8
8.1 Governance
8.1.1 Benchmarked Standards
The policies and practices of the HEP must be consistent with its
statement o purpose.
The HEP must clariy its governance structures and unctions, and
the relationships within them, and these must be communicated toparties involved based on principles o transparency, accountability
and authority.
ThegoverningboardoftheHEPmust be an active policy-making body
with an adequate degree o autonomy.
Mechanisms to ensure functional integration and comparability
o educational quality must be established in HEPs which have
geographically separated campuses.
TheHEPmust have a department or unit dedicated to, and responsible
or, the internal quality assurance system.
The HEP must encourage connectivity o its sta and students with
the local community around it, including through cultural, social and
community service activities.
8.1.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP should have a comprehensive, interconnected and
institutionalised committee system responsible or academic
programmes that takes into consideration, among others, internal
and external consultation, eedback, market needs analysis and
employability projections.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
49/160
37
Thegovernanceprinciplesshould refect the representation o academic
sta, students and other stakeholders.
TheChairofthegoverningboardshould exercise non-executive powerso the HEP.
Thegoverningboardshould be ree rom undue external pressures.
The HEP should have a clearly stated policy on confict o interest,
particularly in relation to private practice and part-time employment o
its employees.
TheHEPshould actively participate in socio-economic activities o the
community in which it is located.
8.2 Institutional and Academic Leadership
8.2.1 Benchmarked Standards
The selection criteria, selection process, job description, and the
qualication and experience required o members o the institutional
executive management team o the HEP (i.e., the HEP leadership) must
be clearly stated.
The leadership of academic programmes and departments (i.e.,
the academic leadership) must be held by those with appropriate
qualications and experience, and suciently knowledgeable on issueso curriculum design, delivery and review.
Mechanismsandprocessesmust be in place to allow or communication
between the HEP leadership and the academic leadership o
departments and programmes in matters such as aculty recruitment
and training, student admission, allocation o resources, and decision-
making processes.
Theacademicleadershipatthedepartmentandprogrammelevelsmust
be evaluated at dened intervals with respect to perormance and in
relation to the achievement o the mission and goals o the HEP.
8.2.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP leadership and the academic leadership should take on
the responsibility o creating a conducive environment to generate
innovation and creativity.
The HEP leadership and the academic leadership should undergo
periodic training and sta development programme to enhance their
leadership capabilities.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
50/160
38
8.3 Administrative and Management Sta
8.3.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheadministrativestaffoftheHEPmust be appropriate and sucient
to support the implementation o the educational programmes and
related activities, and to ensure good management and deployment o
the resources.
TheHEPmust have mechanisms or training and career advancement
or its administrative and management sta.
TheHEPmust conduct regular perormance review o its administrative
and management sta.
8.3.2 Enhanced Standards
TheHEPshould have an advanced training scheme or the administrative
and management sta to ull the specic needs o educational
programmes, or example, risk management, maintenance o specialised
equipment, and additional technical skills.
8.4 Academic Records
8.4.1 Benchmarked Standards
TheHEPmust have policies concerning the accessibility and security o
student and academic sta records.
TheHEPmust establish and disseminate policies that respect the rights
o individual privacy and the condentiality o records.
8.4.2 Enhanced Standards
The HEP should continuously review policies on security o
records including increased use o electronic technologies and its
saety systems.
8.5 Interaction with External Sectors
8.5.1 Benchmarked Standards
The HEP must have a constructive mechanism or cooperation with
external sectors, including with its external stakeholders.
8.5.2 Enhanced Standards
The collaboration with external sectors should be institutionalised
through ormalised agreements.
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
51/160
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
52/160
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
53/160
Section 3Submission for Institutional Audit
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
54/160
42
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
55/160
43
Section 3 Submission or Institutional Audit
INTRODUCTION
This section contains inormation and reerence to assist the Higher Education Provider(HEP) in the preparation o submission or an institutional audit. It is not a prescriptive
tool; it is a general manual meant to assist the provider to understand and interpret the
necessary inormation required or such a submission. The HEP should ollow closely the
requirements ound in Section 3.1 below and clariy with the MQA rom time to time
should the need arise.
Although comprehensive, not all items in this section apply equally to all submissions;
some are more relevant and applicable than others. The HEP should utilise the guidelines
appropriately and customise their submission in accordance to the specic needs o their
institution. They should, however, indicate -- and explain -- items that are not applicableto them.
The guidelines in this section cover all the main dimensions in the nine areas o evaluation.
It also provides illustrative examples. The HEP is expected to provide appropriate
inormation with evidences that support and best illustrate their specic case. The HEP is
also welcomed to urnish additional inormation that may not be specically covered by
these guidelines.
The inormation provided by the HEP or its submission should be brie, concise
and succinct.
3.1 The Documentation Required
HEPsare required to submit the Self-ReviewPortfolio (SRP)orMQA-03, for an
institutional audit in the prescribed ormat below:
- PartA:GeneralInformationAbouttheHEP
This is an institutional prole o the HEP.
- Part B: Inormation on the Nine Areas o Evaluation or Quality
Assurance
This provides the inormation pertaining to the nine areas o evaluation
and the standards in each o them.
- PartC:Self-ReviewReport
In preparing the portolio, HEPs are encouraged to use bullet points, diagrams
and fow charts as much as possible. In support o the inormation provided in the
portolio, HEPs may append relevant and signicant documentations. The HEP maybe requested to provide additional inormation beore or during the institutional
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
56/160
44
auditvisit.Further,theHEPmayalsoberequiredtoallowtheauditorsaccessto
condential inormation or verication purposes.
The HEP is expected to send to the MQA:
HardcopiesoftheSRPasperrequired;
Hardcopiesofothersupportingmaterialsasperrequired;and
SoftcopiesoftheSRPasperrequired.
UponreceiptoftheSRP,theMQAwillvetthroughthedocumenttoensurethatthe
submissioniscomplete.IncaseswheretheSRPisincomplete,theMQAwillrequest
theHEPtocompletethedocumentation.TheSRPisthenforwardedtothepanel
o auditors.
The remaining pages o this section consist o descriptions o templates or Part A
and Part B, aswellastheguidelinestoaSelf-ReviewReport(PartC).
8/8/2019 COPIA 2nd Edition
57/160
45
PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE HIGHEREDUCATION PROVIDER
PartAoftheSelf-ReviewPortfolioofthisCodeofPracticeforInstitutionalAu