EXTERNAL EVALUATORS’ REPORT
ON THE INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION
FOCUSED SITE VISIT AND PROGRESS REPORT
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS COMMITTEE
JUNE 27, 2014
What Was the Focused Site Visit?
• The Focused Site Visit (FSV) was a pre-arranged visit
to the UWI, St Augustine by ACTT evaluators evaluated UWI’s institutional progress since Institutional Accreditation was conferred by the ACTT on February 5, 2011.
• The FSV evaluation team made critical observations
and judgments of UWI’s institutional effectiveness following an examination of a FSV Report which was submitted by the Campus in January 2014 to the ACTT.
Who Visited the UWI, STA?
1. Dr. John Randall (UK)- Evaluation Team Chair
2. Dr. Vernon Andrews (Caribbean)- Evaluator
3. Mr. Curtis Floyd- ACTT Director of Accreditation
and Quality Enhancement
4. Mrs. Jennifer Doyle- ACTT Registration Manager
5. Ms. Yasmin Mohammed- ACTT Accreditation
Officer
6. Mrs. Sherma Joseph- ACTT Accreditation
Officer
Who Was Interviewed and Why?
• Staff Representatives (TOTAL= 100):o Campus Principal and Senior Management (4) o All Faculty Deans (8)
o Focused Site Visit Convenors (Chairs of FSV Teams) (6)
o Quality Assurance Unit (QAU), Centre for Excellence in Teaching
and Learning (CeTL) and Institutional Effectiveness Unit (IEU) (5)
o Academic Staff (Professors, Senior Lecturers, Lecturers) (21) o Administrative, Technical and Support Staff (25)
o Students and Guild Representatives (32)
• Purpose:
o To obtain independent perspectives from different Campus
stakeholders about what they see as progress being made in the Focused Areas and how the institution might be addressing quality improvements
FSV Programme
1. Orientation Meeting2. ACTT/Evaluators’ Review Meeting 3. Interviews with FSV Convenors
4. Interviews with Deans
5. Interviews with CeTL and QAU 6. Interviews with Academic Staff
7. Interviews with Administrative, Technical and Support Staff
8. Interviews with Students
9. ACTT/Evaluators’ Final Review Meeting 10. Exit Meeting
What Was Evaluated?
1.
Staff and Space Shortfalls
2.
Inter-Disciplinary
&
Trans-Disciplinary
Teaching and Research
3.
Tension of Teaching Versus Research
4.
Student Learning, Assessment & Evaluation
5.
Continuum of Learning Modes (Blended
L
earning developments)
6.
Non-Academic Operational Quality
What Information Was Consulted?
1.
FSV Progress Report
2.
Strategic and Operational Plans
3.
Annual Accredited Institution Reports
4.
Statistical Reports (Annual, Surveys etc)
5.
Organisation Charts
6.
Faculty and Administrative Proposals
7.
Minutes of Meetings
8.
Departmental and Office Progress Reports
FSV Progress Report Structure
1.
Executive Summary
2.
Background
3.
Institutional Accreditation Monitoring
o Institutional Effectiveness Committee o Institutional Effectiveness Unit
o Focused Groups/Teams
4.
Analysis of Evaluators’ Recommendations
o Assurance Section o Advancement Section
5.
Preparatory Work for Reaccreditation
Comments: Peer Review Commitment
1.
Comprehensiveness –
o no shortcomings
o need to plan well for future reviews
2.
Integrity –
o comprehensive report
o relevant and verifiable information
o considerable context and future activities under consideration o Principal’s opening session was succinct and relevant
3.
Adequacy –
o suitable
Comments: UWI As An Organisation
1.
High quality institution
2.
Significant Capital Investment
3.
Caliber and standings of
ALL
levels of
teaching and research staff
4.
Positive role of quality assurance from initial
registration through accreditation to the
FSV
5.
Well on its way to setting and achieving
world class standards
Staff Shortfalls: Their Evaluation
1. General Financial Constraints- General decline in finance affected human asset growth but there has been increase in academic and support staff 2. Compensation- Packages for senior academic
staff has limited growth
3. Recruitment- Professional disciplines such as medicine, engineering and law have had difficulties
4. Workload Management – Evidence that steps are being taken to manage teaching loads
Space Shortfalls: Their Evaluation
1. General Observations- Progress has been made with increasing space despite financial considerations, attested by staff and students
2. Accommodation – New Teaching and Learning Complex, Social Sciences offices, South Campus, DCFA
3. Rental Space Rationalization- Rented
accommodation is being reviewed and
owned/leased buildings being acquired
4. Space Audits- Mechanism for efficient use of space 5. Study Spaces– Students want 24/7 access to study
Inter-Disciplinary & Trans-Disciplinary
Teaching & Research: Their Evaluation
• Track Record- Has already demonstrated the potential and
capability to deliver multi-disciplinary work through
o SALISES
o IGDS etc
• Funding- The RDI Fund encourages inter-disciplinary research in
6 priority themes across the Campus
• Undergraduate Teaching- Range of electives, options,
major/minor combinations for cross-disciplinary study in areas such as
o Environmental studies
o Cultural studies
• Commitment- Deans, academic staff, CeTL and quality
assurance reviewers support inter-disciplinarity in teaching and research
Tension of Research Vs Teaching:
Their Evaluation
Research Informs Teaching- Academic staff regarded research-led teaching as relevant to instructional practice and their promotion Review of Metrics – There is an effort to review the metrics for career
advancement looking at balance of time spent on teaching and research. Faculties are leading the charge to develop campus-wide metrics
Tenure and Academic Tracks- 4 career tracks are under consideration:
1. Conventional- teaching, research and service 2. Teaching
3. Research
4. Professional/clinical
Publications – Research-led pedagogy is being encouraged
Global Standing- International standards should be embraced for recruitment and promotion of researchers but a balance of research and teaching capability is important for advancement
Student Learning, Assessment and Evaluation: Their Evaluation
• Oversight of Evaluation and Assessment –
o Wide range of assessment methodologies, without reliance
on 100% summative assessment
o Linkage to learning outcomes
• Response to Quality Assurance Reviews –
o Departments are following up on recommendations
o AQAC oversees these processes on the Campus
o Improved reception to and cooperation with QAU
• Faculty-led Quality Assurance Activities-
o Faculties are supportive of QA reviews and evaluations
o Departments are establishing appropriate QA systems
• Broaden Quality Assurance Activities-
The Continuum of Learning Modes:
Their Evaluation
• Compartmentalization of Distance Education–
Blended learning approaches overcoming risks/barriers
• CeTL– Advocates for more strategic and targeted
approaches to incorporate BL
• Role of Academic staff- BL viewed as a good enabler
for enhanced student learning experience
• Students’ Concerns-
o Internet connectivity via Wifi is a challenge o Blind spots challenges students’ access
o New buildings had better connectivity .
Non-Academic Operational Quality:
Their Evaluation
Philosophy
- TQM as management approach
Non-Academic Quality Systems-
Several
initiatives have since 2011 been established
to address
Processes-
Evaluation and mapping of processes is helpful to staff in performance of
work
Automation for First Contact Services
Service Excellence-
Service excellence standards for personnel and operations are being done. Staff fully engaged in development of service charters
Major Changes since 2011
Development of Teaching and Learning Complex South Campus
General Final Comments
1. Met all Requirements2. No further Action Needed
To contact us further:
Institutional Effectiveness Unit
Office of the Campus Principal
Extension: 84550
