You are on page 1of 18

Appendix 1: Template for Department Self-review Report

Academic

FACULTY OF <insert name of faculty > DEPARTMENT OF <insert name of department>

SELF-REVIEW REPORT: CYCLE 1 (2011 2015)

Self Review Panel: <list names and portfolios where applicable>

<insert month> 2011 Table of contents <Provide the table of contents> Executive summary <Without giving details, provide a brief summary by introducing the report, outlining

review process, the key findings and recommendations.> 1. Introduction Brief analysis of the self-evaluation process: The methodology and process used to undertake the self-review, including the respondents, instruments and methods used to collect the data, and time schedule Who are the self-evaluation group members? With whom did they collaborate? To what extent was the report discussed across the Department? What were the positive aspects, as well as the difficulties, encountered in the selfevaluation process? 2. Departmental context Brief presentation of the institution in its context: Brief the Departmental overview A brief analysis of the current regional and national labour-market situation
3

A brief overview of four main activities or core functions of the Department (i.e. leadership & management, teaching, research, and community engagement) Academic programmes housed within the department Number of laboratories (where applicable), academic and administrative staff and students 3. Body of the report The body of the self-evaluation report strives to strike a balance between description and critical analysis (i.e., identify the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats) and should have the following sections, which follow the four sections in the checklist: Section I: Norms, values, goals and objectives of the Department: What is the institution trying to do? Section II: Execution of four main activities (leadership & management, teaching, research, community engagement: How is the Department trying to do it?
4

Section III: Quality assessment practices: How does the Department know it works? Section IV: Strategic management and capacity for change: How does the Department change in order to improve? The body of the self-evaluation report should not be simply descriptive, but analytical, evaluative and synthetic as well. It should assess strengths (commendations) and weaknesses identify threats and opportunities and show how the various elements of strategic and quality management are interconnected. In addition, the analysis should take into account changes that have taken place in the recent past as well as those that are anticipated in the future. 4. Conclusion The conclusion summarises the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and offers a specific action plan (recommendations) to remedy weaknesses and to develop strengths further. A useful conclusion has the following characteristics:
5

Since the goal of the evaluation is to promote on-going quality and strategic development, the report should be honest and self-reflective. Therefore, strengths and weaknesses need to be stated explicitly; specifically, it is best to avoid playing down or hiding weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses that are not discussed in the body of the report should not appear in the conclusion since they would be unsubstantiated. Strengths and weaknesses that are discussed in the main part of the report are summarised again in the conclusion. Plans to remedy weaknesses are offered in the conclusion in the form of a specific action plan or recommendations. 5. Appendices Appendices will typically include the following: A brief Facts and figures sheet, including a broad description of the Department through some key figures (number of students and staff...)
6

The current Departmental Management Plan (if one exists) or preferably, an Executive Summary An organisational chart of the departments faculty and any other relevant units of teaching/research An organisational chart of the central administration and support services (rectors office staff, libraries etc.) Student numbers for the Department the last five years; student/staff ratio (lowest, highest and mean ratios); time-tograduation; drop-out rates; gender distribution by faculty; demographic trends in the wider target population. Academic staff numbers (by academic rank and faculty) for the Department, over the last five years, with a breakdown by level, discipline, gender and age Funding: funding (amount and percentage of total budget), other funding sources (type and percentage of total budget) and research funding (percentage within total budget); amount of institutional funding for
7

teaching and research within the department over the last five years. Infrastructure in relation to the number of students and staff: number and size of buildings, facilities, laboratories, and libraries; their location (e.g., dispersed over a large geographical area or concentrated on a single campus); condition of the facilities. Handbook for prospective international students (if one exists). These data should be analysed within the Faculty, institutional, national and institutional context. Some of the suggested appendices above may not be relevant to some departments. Beyond these appendices, the Department is free to add other information, but the number and length of appendices should be limited to what is strictly necessary in order to understand the statements and argumentation in the self-evaluation report.

Appendix 2: Template for Self-review Report of Administrative/Support departments

DEPARTMENT: <insert name of department>

10

SELF-REVIEW REPORT: CYCLE 1 (2011 2015)

Self Review Panel: <list names and portfolios where applicable>

<insert month> 2011


11

Table of contents <Provide the table of contents> Executive Summary Key findings and recommendations 1. Introduction The methodology and process used to undertake the self-review, including the respondents, instruments and methods used to collect the data, and time schedule. Who are the self-evaluation group members? 2. Overview of Department under Review A brief summary of descriptive material provided in the self-review report 3. Scope of the Review Priorities and limitations identified by the review panel 4. Services and linkages

12

Evaluation of the quality of the services and linkages with other sections of the university Evaluation of the departments professionalism including professional development afforded to staff Evaluation of the quality of the departments capacity to manage continuous improvement and transformation. 5. Social Responsiveness Evaluation of the departments capacity to develop and fulfill its own social responsiveness agenda 6. Quality Management Systems Evaluation of the leadership capacity in the department, and the departments collective capacity to manage professionally both recurrent activities and continuous improvement; Appraisal of the role of the institutional context (including senior management) in supporting the development and activities of the department.
13

Appraisal of the systems in place to facilitate the alignment with the universitys strategic objectives and policies and performance management Mechanisms in place to periodically monitor and evaluate the quality of the mandated activities with reference to international best practices The use the findings form monitoring and evaluation and benchmarking activities to continually improve the quality of the mandated activities of the department. 7. Staffing Evaluation of the strength and qualifications of the staff against the goals of the unit, and the professional development activities undertaken 8. Commendations Examples of good practice 9. Recommendations for improvement.

14

Commentary on the development proposals contained in the self-review portfolio, and any additions to these. Recommendations for forms of support needed to assist the unit to fulfill its goals Appendices Any additional relevant data or documentation that can serve as evidence to support claims made in the report

15

Appendix 3: Template Improvement Plan

for

Quality/Self

16

FACULTY OF <put faculty (or department in the case of administrative departments) name> DEPARTMENT: <put department name in case of academic department> QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN for Cycle 1 Self-review: 2011 2015 Reco mmen datio ns What are the areas in which Enha nce ment activi ties What are the actio ns to Resou rces requir ed What huma n, physic al & financ By Timefr whom ame who for will be comple respo tion nsible By struct when ure/pe will the rson enhanc to Monito ring how will the Depart ment monito r the effectiv eness Eviden ce for compl etion What are the expect ed output s and
17

enhan ceme nt is neede d?

be take n to impl eme nt the reco mme ndati on?

ial resour ces are neede d to imple ment enhan cemen t activiti es?

ement activiti es be fully implem ented?

monit or or sign off?

of change s arising from the enhanc ement activiti es?

outco mes of these enhan cemen t activiti es?

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Etc.

18