QA Policy

Preface:

Universities are seats of higher education dedicated to learning and personal development of their members, sources of expertise in various disciplines and sites for evaluation and application of new knowledge. With globalization and internationalization, the demand for accountability and transparency in higher education has increased. The biggest challenge in this regard, is to ensure that the quality of educational programs offered by a higher educational institution are meeting the local and international standards.

Sohail University has a comprehensive Quality Enhancement (QE) policy along with explicit processes that act as a driver to achieve excellence in higher education

OBJECTIVE:

The basic aim and objective of the quality Enhancement policy is to ensure that relevant and appropriate academic standards are achieved, maintained and continuous efforts are instituted to further improve the quality of the higher education deliverables

Policy Statement:

Sohail University is committed to continual enhancement of quality of education, training, research and service to the community and nation, through firm commitment to its vision and mission.

Some important aspects of this policy are:

Scope:

This policy is embedded in the university learning culture and embraces all the institutions/ faculties/centers/departments, students, faculty members and staff and all the teaching learning resources and facilities of Sohail University.

Mechanisms for implementation of QA Policy:

Internal Quality Assurance:

PREE of all Programs

QEC undertakes internal Quality Assurance of Academic programs by utilizing Program Review of Effectiveness and Enhancement (PREE) process and produces PREE Reports. These reports provide feedback for enhancing the quality of the programs and are presented for review by External Accrediting bodies.

PREE process:

Quality Enhancement Cell (QEC) is responsible for planning, coordinating, keeping in view all the 8 PREE standards and following up on the PREE activities. PREE is an annual cycle and once a program completes its PREE it has to undergo a complete review every year.

The steps for PREE are as follows:

The process of institutional internal quality assurance (institutional self-assessment) is illustrated in the Table and Figure below.

Table 1: Pre-visit activities

QEC Process Flow
Pre-visit activities
Step 1
Institutional Quality Circle (IQC) initiates the process for self-assessment and constitutes Institutional Performance Report (IPR) preparation/updating and a follow-up committee.
Step 2
IPR committee prepares/compiles IPR for current assessment year as per instruction of IQC.
Follow-up committee prepares follow-up report as per instruction of IQC.
Step 3
IQAE reviews IPR report to check that all the Standards and questions are addressed, and proper documentary evidence provided. If not, report will be sent back to Committee.

IQAE reviews follow-up report to check status of all observations and whether they all are addressed or not:

  • Current progress status against each finding/recommendation
  • Timelines defined for each corrective action is being followed
  • If not, then proper justification and revised timelines provided
  • Constraints affecting the progress are properly documented.

If anything is missing, the report will be referred back to the concerned committee. If not, move to step 6.

Step 4

IQC constitutes RIPE committee by meeting the conditions below:

  • Review committee shall consist of five to seven members (internal and external)
  • At least one external member shall be included from HEC’s pool of experts
  • The internal members should preferably comprise seasoned and senior academics and administrative heads.
Step 5

An orientation session will be organized by IQAE to brief the RIPE committee members, that include:

  • RIPE Standards
  • Expectations of HEC
  • Review process.
Step 6
Finalized IPR and follow-up report will be shared with all RIPE committee members.
Step 7
IQAE finalizes the schedule for RIPE after consent by RIPE committee and university’s administration.
On-visit activities

Review the documentary evidence against the claims made in IPR for validation and list the questions/probing questions to be asked of different stakeholders.

Hold separate meetings with:

  • Students (bachelor’s, master’s, PhD)
  • Faculty (senior & junior faculty members)
  • Academic heads (Deans/HoDs/Principals, and so on)
  • Administrative staff (Registrar, Controller of Examinations, Treasurer, Director of ORIC, Director of Research, and so on)
  • Directors of Campuses (in case of sub-campuses), Heads of selected affiliated colleges (in case of affiliated colleges) to have an insight on institutional performance in accordance with their respective domains and to get feedback about any issues that may be inhibiting progress.

Visit to assess classrooms, libraries, laboratories, studios, cafeteria, student accommodation, sports, auditoriums, transport, and so on, in order to get a clear picture of all the facilities.

Meeting of the RIPE committee members in a separate space for finalisation of findings before the visit ends.

Post-visit activities
Step 1
Based on observations finalised during visit, RIPE Committee prepares the report reflecting all the findings/suggestion/recommendations as per QAA guidelines.
Step 2
  • RIPE Committee submit reports to IQAE.
  • IQAE ensures that report is signed by all RIPE Committee members.
  • In case of any conflict, IQAE moderates to resolve the conflict and finalises report with mutual agreement of all members.
Step 3
IQAE submits report to IQC for signing off/review and approval.
Step 4
IQAE disseminates report to departments for implementation and IQAE will monitor the implementation through IQC as per institutional CQI policy.
Internal QA Process Flow

Figure 1: The process of institutional internal quality assurance

Pre-visit activities
IQC initiates
the process
IQC constitutes
IPR Preparation/
Update Committee
Prepare/update
IPR report
IQAE review IPR report
for completeness
YES/
No
IQC constitutes
Self-RIPE review
Briefing/
orientation of RIPE
Committee
members by IQAE
IQC constitutes
Follow-up
Committee
Prepare follow-up
report
IQAE check status of
observations in
follow-up report
YES/
No
IPR/Follow-up
report shared with
RIPE Committee
members for
review
IQAE finalises
schedule with
consent of RIPE
Committee
members
ON VISIT
1. Review of Documents
2. Meeting with faculty, students, administrative staff (Dean/HoD)
3. Meeting with Head of Institute, Registrar, Director of Finance, Controller of Examinations
4. Visit for assessing facilities and finalisation of findings
IQC: Institutional Quality Circle
IQAE: Institutional Quality Assessment and Effectiveness
RIPE: Review of Institutional Performance and Enhancement
IPR: Institutional Performance Report
Post-visit activities
RIPE Committee prepares
Self-RIPE report
IQAE reviews report
IQAE submits report to IQC for
review and approval
IQAE disseminates report to
departments for implementation

Institutional self-assessment criteria and source of information

The Quality Assurance Framework below is divided into four parts. Part 4 of the Quality Assurance Framework is concerned with internal quality assurance and is subdivided into programme-level quality assurance and institutional level quality assurance.

Quality Assurance Framework
1- PSG-2023

Precepts, Standards
and Guidelines for
QA in HE

2 - REQAAB

Reviewing
Effectiveness of
Quality Assurance &
Accreditation Bodies

3 - EQA

External Quality
Assurance at
programme and
institutional levels

4 - IQA

Internal Quality
Assurance at
programme and
institutional levels

Figure 2: The Quality Assurance Framework

Institutional level quality assurance is concerned with the RIPE Standards set out in the Quality Assurance Framework, against which each institution is required to align.

The RIPE Standards as set out in the Quality Assurance Framework are as follows. Higher education institutions are expected to use all RIPE Standards in framing the institutional approach to quality assurance.

Strategic Development

Academic Development

Institutional Development

Detailed information about the Standards, including what a higher education institution should do to meet each of the Standards and how to do so, as well as a contextual statement to explain the reasoning behind each Standard, are provided in Annex 3.

A wide range of information should be considered in the institutional self-assessment. The IQAE draws on the programme and departmental self-assessments, alongside the self- assessments from support, administration and managerial areas, as well as evaluations from students and stakeholders, in writing an institutional self-assessment that clearly represents the accumulation and distillation of institutional reflection and evaluation and involves all stakeholders from the Vice Chancellor and senior managers through faculty and administration staff to external stakeholders and students. In summary, all information included in the Figure below should be consider in developing the institutional SA document.

Institutional SA Diagram
Institutional
SA
Student
evaluation
SMT
SAs
Vice
Chancellor SA
Programme
and
Departmental
SAs
Admin
SAs
Support
SAs
Stakeholder
evaluation

External Quality Assurance:

External Quality Assurance also known as accreditation is carried out by regulatory/professional bodies at national level to ensure the minimum performance standards of academic programs of Higher Educational Institutions and promotes public confidence that the quality and standards of the award of degrees are enhanced and safeguarded.

QEC supports and facilitates external quality assessment to ensure continuity of the processes of the Quality Assurance and Enhancement. Baseline information provided through internal review of Academic programs helps in setting the standards for external review by peers or accrediting agencies.

Standards and Guidelines for Review of Institutional Performance and Enhancement (RIPE) for IQA and EQA is given in Annexure 3 in RIPE manual of HEC QAA. (https://www.hec.gov.pk/site/QAA

Quality evaluation and enhancement matrix and Judgement framework would be an accordance with annexure 5.

An extract of categorization standards is attached as under:

Categorisation of Standards

QEC Process Flow
Categorisation of Expectations and Standards (CES) criteria
Review categories
CES criteria
SIR/unclassified
  • RIPE Committee submit reports to IQAE.
  • IQAE ensures that report is signed by all RIPE Committee members.
  • In case of any conflict, IQAE moderates to resolve the conflict and finalises report with mutual agreement of all members.
AIR/average
IQAE submits report to IQC for signing off/review and approval.
LIR/progressive
IQAE disseminates report to departments for implementation and IQAE will monitor the implementation through IQC as per institutional CQI policy.
Effective
IQAE disseminates report to departments for implementation and IQAE will monitor the implementation through IQC as per institutional CQI policy.
Categorisation of Expectations and Standards (CES) criteria
Review categories
CES criteria
SIR/unclassified
  • RIPE Committee submit reports to IQAE.
  • IQAE ensures that report is signed by all RIPE Committee members.
  • In case of any conflict, IQAE moderates to resolve the conflict and finalises report with mutual agreement of all members.
AIR/average
IQAE submits report to IQC for signing off/review and approval.
LIR/progressive
IQAE disseminates report to departments for implementation and IQAE will monitor the implementation through IQC as per institutional CQI policy.
Effective
IQAE disseminates report to departments for implementation and IQAE will monitor the implementation through IQC as per institutional CQI policy.

Funding formulae may be linked with RIPE judgement

Quality Assurance Framework
Effective/EIR
Progressive/LIR
Average/AIR
Unclassified SIR