AN NAJAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION REPORT

Transcription

1 AN NAJAH NATIONAL UNIVERSITY FOLLOW-UP EVALUATION REPORT May 2014 Team: Tove Bull, Chair Erazem Bohinc, Elena Dumova-Jovanoska Jethro Newton, Team Coordinator

2 Contents 1. Introduction Vision, Mission, and General Context Governance, Management and Strategic Planning Research, Third Mission, and Community Service Developments in Learning and Teaching Quality assurance, quality management, and quality culture Conclusion and Recommendations Envoi

3 1. Introduction This report is the result of a follow-up evaluation of An Najah University (ANU). The European University Association s (EUA) Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP) originally evaluated An Najah University in 2011 with the report submitted to the university in July In 2013, the university subsequently requested that IEP carry out a follow-up evaluation. 1.1 Institutional Evaluation Programme and follow-up evaluation process IEP is an independent membership service of EUA that offers evaluations to support the participating institutions in the continuing development of their strategic management and internal quality culture. IEP is a full member of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and is listed in the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR). In line with the IEP philosophy as a whole, the follow-up process is a supportive one. There is no prescribed procedure, and it is for the institution itself to set the agenda in the light of its experiences since the original evaluation. The institution is expected to submit its own self-evaluation report, which will describe the progress made, possibly indicating barriers to change. The rationale is that the follow-up evaluation can assist the institution in evaluating the changes that have been made since the original evaluation: What was the impact of the original evaluation? What use has the institution made of the original evaluation report? How far has it been able to address the issues raised in the report? The follow-up evaluation is also an opportunity for the institution to take stock of its strategies for managing change in the context of internal and external constraints and opportunities. As for the original evaluation, the follow-up process is also guided by four key questions, which are based on a fitness for (and of) purpose approach: What is the institution trying to do? How is the institution trying to do it? How does the institution know it works? How does the institution change in order to improve? 1.2 Profile of An Najah National University (ANU) As a public university, ANU is subject to the national law relating to higher education organisations in Palestine. ANU is therefore largely autonomous for budgetary and planning purposes and in the operation and functioning of the university. The involvement of the Ministry of Education and Higher Education (MoEHE) relates principally to the accreditation of new academic programmes. Government financial 3

4 support is relatively limited. The origins of ANU can be traced back to the establishment, in 1918, of An Najah Nabulsi School, and by 1977 the institution had evolved to become what is known today as An Najah National University. At the same time ANU became a full member of the Association of Arab Universities. Today, it plays a leading role in the Palestinian community and society, and has established itself as a leading provider of higher education in the Arab world. Since the 2011 IEP evaluation, student numbers have risen from 20,459 (including graduate studies students) to 21,832 (including graduate studies students) in the autumn of The evaluation process In accordance with the IEP methodology and guidelines, and in advance of the evaluation team s visit, a 20-page Self-Evaluation Report (SER) of the university was sent to the evaluation team in March The SER described the university s development since the 2011 IEP evaluation, and also analysed how the recommendations made by the 2011 team had been received and addressed. The SER was structured in accordance with the 2011 recommendations and this was helpful to the evaluation team in following progress and changes at the university and also in making an assessment of each of the 2011 issues and recommendations. In instances where a recommendation was not fully implemented the university explained the reasons. Where this was the case, the justification was noted and, following full consideration, was accepted by the team. The SER presented information on adjustments made to ANU s governance, management, and strategic planning arrangements since 2011, and also major changes introduced since the 2011 evaluation in respect of the curriculum. The SER provided a good illustration for the evaluation team of the university s capacity for change and development. The appointment, in 2013, of Dr Maher Natseh to the position of Acting President of An Najah, during the term of office as Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority of the University s President, Professor Rami Hamdallah, was also noted. The SER was accompanied by seven annexes, including a summary of ANU s Strategic Plan ( ). Other annexes provided information on revised organisational structures and functions; changes to faculties and departments; student and staff numbers; funding and finance; and infrastructure. In advance of the team s visit, further information on points of clarification was made available by the university. The self-evaluation process was directed by an IEP Follow-up Committee appointed by the President, and coordinated by the ANU Deputy President for Planning, Development and Quality, Professor Allam Mousa. The team included senior staff with management positions in education, research, and administration areas, but did not include a student member. The self-evaluation methodology adopted by the team involved an assessment of the university s response to the 2011 recommendations 4

5 and identification of areas for further improvement. The draft SER was published on the ANU intranet (Zajel) to enable all employees to provide feedback comments. Faculties were also invited to discuss the draft SER and to provide feedback, as necessary. The evaluation team formed the view that the SER and the issues it addressed were well known and understood by the participants of the meetings that were held during the evaluation visit. The team greatly appreciated the work done in the SER and the accompanying documentation, and found them to be of great assistance in enabling them to undertake their deliberations. The self-evaluation report of ANU, together with the appendices, was sent to the evaluation team in March The visit of the evaluation team to ANU took place from 13 to 16 April. 1.4 The evaluation team The visit of the evaluation team (hereinafter team) to ANU took place from 13 to 16 April The team consisted of: Tove Bull, former Rector, University of Tromsø, Norway, team chair Elena Dumova-Jovanoska, former Vice-Rector, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia Erazem Bohinc, ESU QA pool member, Master of Laws student, European Faculty of Law, Slovenia Jethro Newton, former Dean of Academic Quality Enhancement, University of Chester, UK, team coordinator The team would like to express its sincere thanks to the Acting President of An Najah University, Dr Maher Natsheh, for the welcome and hospitality provided during the IEP team s visit. Special thanks are offered by the IEP team to Professor Allam Mousa, Chair of the IEP Follow-up Committee and IEP Liaison Person, for his excellent work in ensuring the smooth running of all aspects of the process. 5

6 2. Vision, Mission, and General Context The vision and mission of the university remain unchanged since The vision remains focused on the aspiration to achieve a global reputation, to be prominent in scientific research, and to provide community service and leadership. In turn, the mission continues to emphasise the importance of the scientific knowledge and skills of students and graduates, and their ability to compete in the labour market. Underpinning all of this is An Najah s fundamental commitment to Palestine and its people. It was evident to the team that all members of the ANU academic community are paving the way for future generations and are engaged in a process of nationbuilding. 2.1 Main changes since 2011 The team notes with great interest the changes that have taken place at ANU since 2011, the main one being the appointment of the acting president. Other senior management changes have also taken place. New positions of deputy president for planning, development, and quality, and vice-president for international and strategic affairs, have been established, and new appointments have been made to some deans positions. The responsibilities of the now defunct position of vice-president for community affairs have been subsumed within the portfolio of the vice-president for academic affairs. Other governance changes include the establishment of a new Strategic Planning and Monitoring Committee, a Facilities and Students Services Committee, and a Board of the Quality Assurance Unit. In response to one of the key recommendations of 2011, the team noted with interest that the university has taken steps to streamline organisational structures by reducing the number of faculties from 17 to 10, and the number of scientific centres from 16 to six. The underlying rationale for such changes is to achieve greater organisational efficiency and effectiveness and to contribute cost savings. The SER also drew the team s attention to the work that has been undertaken on strategic planning. The ANU Strategic Plan ( ) has been taken further forward since the 2011 evaluation. It is underpinned by four strategic goals and accompanying objectives. The principal areas of the Plan are presented in four activity groups: academic; administrative; research; and community service. The goals and objectives act as reference points for operational and strategic planning at all levels of the university, academic and administrative. This has enabled the university to address that recommendation from 2011 which advised ANU to consider how the vision and mission could be translated more clearly into measurable goals. These matters regarding the development and implementation of the ANU Strategic Plan ( ) are discussed more fully in section 3. 6

7 A further area of significant change that drew the attention of the team, was the work done on curriculum reform. Here, the team learned that all curricula and all study programmes have been reviewed and a learning outcomes-based approach introduced. This has been complemented by an emphasis on competency-based learning approaches. This curriculum design and development work, which is discussed in detail on page 16, has enabled ANU to take good account of the relevant recommendation of 2011, and in the IEP noted that this has entailed a major project for the University. While it is too soon to come to firm conclusions about the impact of such changes introduced by the university, the team wishes to acknowledge the attention paid by ANU to the recommendations of 2011, and the actions taken to address and/or implement them. The university is in a period of transition and there is ongoing debate about this. The team was impressed by the extent to which the university has engaged in internal discussion and dialogue for the purpose of identifying future directions and believes that ANU is to be congratulated for this. There was an open atmosphere in all meetings held during the evaluation visit. Moreover, faculty and department leaders confirmed to the team that while there have been initial difficulties, they viewed the changes and restructuring as important for the university. Where there were concerns over matters such as possible shortfalls in student recruitment, the team heard that actions were being taken to address them. 2.2 Addressing future challenges: strategic priority areas ANU faces continuing challenges in areas such as finance, human resources, and internationalisation. There are also ongoing political factors that constrain the development and operation of the university. Nevertheless, in looking to the future, the team recognises the progress made in a number of important areas since 2011 and has observed a university community hard at work. In addressing future challenges, the team presents this summary of their 2014 findings in the same priority areas as the 2011 IEP report; these are: Governance, management and strategic planning Research, third mission, and community service Developments in learning and teaching Quality assurance, quality management, and quality culture 7

8 3. Governance, Management and Strategic Planning 3.1 Governance and management The changes to the organisational structure, referred to in section 2, were made relatively recently, in some cases as recently as the academic year 2013/2014. Consequently, as is acknowledged in the SER, these changes to the faculty structure, to the scientific centres, and to senior management positions, had not been formally evaluated by the time of the visit. Indeed, as the university s senior figures recognised, insufficient time has elapsed to enable proper measurement and assessment of the outcomes and impact of these new structures, including curriculum reforms. Even so, a number of anticipated impacts are listed in the SER, and the team was able to undertake a preliminary exploration of the changes, including how well they have been received to date, and also perceptions of any gains in terms of organisational efficiency and effectiveness. From their enquiries, and from meetings with staff and students, the team formed the view that, while there has been a degree of understandable opposition and scepticism in some quarters, the rationale and the changes themselves had gained broad acceptance within the university community. Amongst the specific gains that were anticipated by the changes to the faculty structure were: direct entry to study programmes following changes to the organisation of first-year studies; integration of professional courses into the curricular; and better fit with external accreditation requirements. On a more substantive level, the university intends that there should be cost savings, such as reduced overhead costs; and more efficient use of facilities. It was also acknowledged that there may be a loss of students at the point of admission amongst those potential students who were unable to gain admission to their first choice of study programme. It is also intended that a more streamlined Deans Council, which was reconstituted in August 2013 with reduced membership due to fewer faculties, would lead to greater effectiveness through more efficient decision-making. At the time of the team s visit, the university had yet to decide on a methodology and timescale for reviewing and measuring the impact of the changes that had been introduced, including other governance matters such as the changes in committees. In reflecting on these changes, it was apparent to the team that there was scope for taking some of this a step further. For example, while the number of faculties had diminished, those faculties which had lost their faculty status had been retained as departments and, in turn, those departments that had lost their department status had become divisions. There appeared to be little, if any, streamlining of study programmes. In the view of the team, there remains further potential for change and integration in the number of academic units at the level of department and division, and also the curricular and the range of subjects and study programmes. The team advises ANU to put in place arrangements for the review and evaluation of the outcomes, impact and effectiveness of the reduction of the number of faculties and 8

9 scientific centres and to consider opportunities for further streamlining and additional efficiencies and cost savings through reducing the number of departments and divisions and through curriculum integration. In considering the university s governance arrangements, the team took the opportunity to re-visit matters relating to student representation, an issue that had been a subject of comment in the 2011 IEP report. In 2011, the evaluation team was told that ANU was beginning to make changes by being the first university in the Arab world to include students as members of academic councils. At that time, the team heard that faculties and departments had commenced the introduction of student representation on faculty and department quality councils. However, during the present IEP evaluation, while the team noted that faculties and departments allowed student participation in meetings of councils, this was restricted to participation only where an item designated as relevant to students was being discussed. Moreover, not only were these students not elected by fellow students, and attended with no voting rights, student participants were selected by staff from those students deemed to be the best students academically. Therefore, as in 2011, student representation was not a formal, unconditional, entitlement for students. And, from discussions at meetings, it appeared to the team that students do not have voting rights on all faculty and department councils. As in 2011, the current team took the view that good student involvement in committees is important, particularly to enable effective discussion of learning, teaching, and assessment matters to take place and, more broadly, as an important dimension of the overall student learning experience. Having discussed these matters extensively with students and staff of the university, including senior managers, and having taken account of established practice in European countries, where full student representation has become the norm, the team wishes to put forward a recommendation on this matter. In doing so, the team acknowledges that this is a highly sensitive area for the university, since student representation and student governance are influenced heavily by political factors. Moreover, the team also recognises that the officially elected student bodies, the Students Council and the Students Union, are characterised by strong political affiliations. Nevertheless, taking all these factors into consideration, the team recommends that, to support the aspiration to create a quality culture in which students are partners, the university might wish to review its regulations regarding students and governance matters, to enable student to formal representation on faculty and department councils, and to include elections of student representatives by students themselves together with full voting rights at meetings of the councils. In making this recommendation, the team notes that where matters of a confidential nature are to be discussed such items can be designated as reserved business, and need not involve student participation, but that in general, student involvement should extend across the full business agenda of a council. 9

10 3.2 Strategic planning The team paid close attention to the university s strategic planning processes. A key issue for the team was the extent to which there was involvement in these processes and ownership of the ANU Strategic Plan itself. The team noted that the university has adopted a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) system to enable achievements regarding the ANU vision and mission to be measured. This KPI project has been used by the university to try to achieve close alignment between the implementation of the Strategic Plan ( ) on the one hand, and institutional quality monitoring processes on the other hand. This is focused on the use of a KPI-based approach to self-evaluation, for both quality and planning purposes, whereby all individuals, courses, departments, faculties, and administrative units are required to undertake an annual self-assessment and to identify KPIs and planning targets appropriate to their relevant area of responsibility. Information is then used to measure and monitor performance at all levels of the institution. This approach commenced in June 2012, and the decision was made to begin the process at faculty and programme levels, with benchmarks and KPIs being decided locally using the ANU Strategic Plan as a reference point. Although only one full cycle has been completed (for 2012/2013), through reading documentation made available to them and through discussions in various meetings with staff groups at all levels of the university, the IEP team sought to test the degree of progress made with such an approach, and how it was being received by the users of the methodology. The team also wished to be reassured that such an approach to strategic planning, linked as it is to quality monitoring, was not too bureaucratic, burdensome, or over-elaborate. This had been a potential concern to the 2011 evaluation team. From their deliberations the team formed the view that progress to date has been good. The team noted the degree of engagement with strategic planning processes at all levels, and the benefits derived from the KPIs Project. It was evident that the KPIs system has good potential for enabling better decision-making and monitoring in all contexts, from course level upwards to the top of the organisation. Meetings with staff provided evidence that this integrated approach to the implementation of strategic planning and to quality evaluation was gaining acceptance across the academic community. Moreover, as the KPI system has been computerised, heads of department, deans, and senior managers are now able to gain easy access to relevant institutional planning and evaluation data through their own Zajel portal account. The team heard that staff viewed this system as one which provided accessible information and also saved them time. Whereas forms and templates previously had to be completed by hand, this was now done electronically. The team also noted that there have been benefits arising from the emphasis that has been placed to date on a bottom up approach to the identification of KPIs. 10

11 While noting these encouraging aspects of the university s planning and quality monitoring processes, the team advises caution in this area. The team noted that the university does not yet have in place any institutional-level performance indicators. In the view of the team, the identification of institutional KPIs is commonly accepted good practice in strategic planning since it provides the wider university community with clear reference points for planning purposes regarding institutional priorities. The team was encouraged to hear that the university intends to look into this matter with a view to using the balanced scorecard approach as a possible means of identifying institutional-level priorities. Accordingly, the team recommends that as the university begins a consultation process for preparing its next Strategic Plan, and as it seeks to learn from its present strategic planning arrangements, it should take the opportunity to simplify its use of performance indicators by identifying a limited set of priority institutional KPIs to guide it through the next planning period. The team also considered matters relating to the oversight of planning processes. This had been a matter which had been of interest during the 2011 IEP evaluation, and which had prompted a recommendation that consideration might be given to the merits of establishing a University Executive Management Group to monitor and review the implementation of university strategy, policies, and priorities. During the present evaluation the team heard that close consideration had been given to this advice. However, the university had opted for a different approach that, in the view of senior managers, better reflected the governance and organisational changes that have been put in place, as described in section 2. The team noted that a high-level committee has been formed to monitor strategy. This group, the Strategic Planning and Monitoring Committee, has a remit to follow up and direct the implementation of the ANU Strategic Plan ( ). In the view of the team, this group, which includes all vice-presidents, the deputy president (as chair), and the dean of scientific research, is well placed to exercise oversight of institutional planning and policy. It is complemented by the reconstituted Deans Council, and also by Faculty Councils. In summary, the team endorses the steps taken to address the 2011 recommendation. 3.3 Finance and resourcing The team took the opportunity to examine the current situation at ANU on financial matters. During the 2011 evaluation it had been noted that there was a high dependency on student fee income, uncertainty in receiving state income installments, and limited opportunities for diversification of income. Taken together, these circumstances placed a heavy burden on the university, not least in strategic planning and implementation. Alongside this, the 2011 evaluation had considered the issue of fundraising, a particularly important consideration in respect of capital projects. A recommendation was put forward that members of the ANU Board of Trustees, the principal governing body and highest decision-making body, could be more directly involved in supporting the president in the external work necessary for fundraising purposes. In broad terms, the same financial challenges remain today. 11

12 Nevertheless, the team was encouraged to learn of positive steps that were being taken in an effort to address these challenges. In the course of this follow-up evaluation, the team learned of progress made with external fundraising and noted that the current approach is for a small fund-raising group to be established, consisting of the president and members of the Board of Trustees, for the purpose of attracting external donations. The team noted the successful outcome of one such initiative that had resulted in obtaining $4.5 million that had been used for campus development and to support the university s teaching hospital. In addition, the team was interested to learn of other plans underway to address university s financial challenges through reducing the deficit, and the efforts being made to diversify income. In addition to using reserves to offset the running deficit, the strategy for reducing the deficit includes making small investments over time and using university facilities (such as agricultural and hospital facilities) to generate income. Some funds were also being drawn from external projects such as those funded by FP7, the World Bank, and by the Erasmus programme. The university has also raised fee levels in engineering and social science, and has accredited new programmes for which there is more flexibility in setting fee levels. Though currently at modest levels, in the view of the team such initiatives are to be applauded. 12

13 4. Research, Third Mission, and Community Service The team was again impressed by the continuing centrality of Third Mission activities and the community and societal role of ANU. The team noted that, since 2011, a planned approach has enabled the university to explore ways in which it can further raise its profile and promote its corporate image regionally, nationally and beyond. Though the post of vice-president for community affairs has been discontinued, the deputy president has worked with external parties on various activities to enhance ANU s social profile, including initiatives that have led to several prestigious international awards (these are listed in section 6 (p. 19). An important aspect of this determination to strengthen the Third Mission and applied research dimension of the university has been the action taken to address the 2011 IEP recommendation relating to the opportunities for clustering the activities of the 16 scientific centres that existed at that time, and to bring them together into fewer units. The team was impressed with the progress made in this area. The university has taken steps to reduce the number of centres to six. In pursuing their enquiries in this area, the team met with several staff groups and external stakeholders. These meetings enabled the team to form a clear view of the impact so far of this re-structuring, and of how the change has been received. It was evident that the rationale for the change had gained broad acceptance. The shared view of the representatives from these centres with whom the team met, and of the wider staff body, is that there have been notable efficiency savings and that previous areas of overlapping and duplication have been reduced. In turn, this has afforded additional benefits, such as greater critical mass itself an advantage for undertaking research or investigation work and doing project applications. In summary, the team commends the progress made in re-structuring the scientific centres, and is pleased to note their continuing importance in developing projects that impact on the region, and provide significant services of value to the local and regional community. Indeed, in reflecting on the university s track record in applying for external project funding, across all areas, including conventional research and Third Mission activities, the team noted that ANU s success rate was over 30%, representing an impressive success rate. The team took the opportunity to consider the broader picture of research at ANU, beyond Third Mission and community-oriented activity, to include both knowledge transfer and more conventional scientific research. The latter is under the direction of the dean of scientific research, who chairs the Scientific Research Committee and also has regular contact with the Faculty of Graduate Studies, the scientific centres, and individual researchers. The university continues to publish two peer-reviewed journals, in the sciences and the humanities respectively, and research is also enhanced by the activities and outputs of its 45 graduate study programmes. The team noted that the dean works closely with the research staff of the faculties, where research activity is generated through the expertise and specialisms of individual staff 13

14 and the research centres. Faculty research facilities are shared with the scientific centres. The team formed the view that the deanship of scientific research plays a key role in advising researchers on various activities, such as how to get published, proposal writing, research ethics, and conference submissions, and that steady progress is being made to enhance the university s overall research profile. This includes plans to obtain more advanced research equipment in the next academic year and ongoing efforts to recognise and encourage staff research. However, the team noted that activity in doctoral programmes remains modest, with two accredited programmes for physics and chemistry, the latter of which currently has no students due to MoEHE restrictions on admissions. Another aspect of research that attracted the attention of the team is that of knowledge transfer activity. To some extent, this is reflected in the Third Mission activity described above. Even so, the team was particularly interested in the recently established Innovation and Partnerships Centre (IPC) which has been in existence for 18 months. The team took the opportunity in several meetings to discuss its role. Though fully acknowledging the big challenges facing ANU in taking forward its knowledge transfer aspirations, given the depressed nature of local and regional industry and business, the team formed to view that the IPC had good potential to contribute to the future development of applied research, including in the area of knowledge transfer for income generation purposes through better links with industry. It was evident to the team that some progress is being made to stimulate knowledge transfer activity and to grow links with the private sector. The IPC has already built a comprehensive database of Palestinian businesses and enterprises and has plans to help the university to develop capacity for innovation through incubator projects. Though not undertaking research itself, acting under the direction of the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, the IPC has a remit to follow up ideas of student researchers in the scientific research areas and to act as a catalyst for developing the ideas into projects that can be commercialised, even on a global basis. ANU remains a prominent research institution in Palestine. Nevertheless, the team learned that the percentage of the university s overall operating budget that is set aside to support research remains rather modest at 3%. In general, the team observed the important efforts being made to improve the internationalisation of research through successfully pursuing opportunities for partnerships and links in project work. For example, some progress has been made in increasing the number of bilateral agreements for research, with several new agreements having been concluded recently, with universities in Japan, Uzbekistan, Italy, and Russia. However, during their visit the team was unable to meet with the vice-president for international affairs and was therefore unable to fully consider the role of the international office in contributing to institutional capacity building for research. Nevertheless, the team was able to explore current university arrangements for 14

15 providing support for working up and writing project proposals for submission to external bodies. Discussions with various staff groups, including researchers and their representatives, while helpful, did not present the team with a consensus view regarding the most suitable and productive arrangements for providing all necessary support for those individuals and teams wishing to apply for external funding for research projects. Different individuals with whom the team met gave varying examples of where they received help internally with project applications. Of particular note from the perspective of the team was the view that what would be particularly welcome to potential applicants is support on technical aspects of bid-writing. In the view of the team, the university has at its disposal the necessary expertise but this needs to be drawn together and coordinated to produce a more effective arrangement and systematic process, on a one-stop/shop basis, perhaps in the form of an advisory group for project applications. This does not require any additional bureaucracy, but would be helped by some supporting information, perhaps in the form of a series of leaflets on topics such as Key ingredients of successful project applications, or Project applications: frequently asked questions. Reflecting on these matters, the team notes the role of the Projects Unit, the International Office and the special committees formed to provide advice on research proposals. But the team recommends that the university should integrate these activities in order to strengthen central support (both technical and practical) for individuals and teams preparing proposals and applications for external project funding. 15

16 5. Developments in Learning and Teaching The team was pleased to hear of the success, to date, of the curriculum reform project undertaken since the team s visit in 2011, and in response to their recommendation on curriculum design and development. Though it was too early to judge fully the longer term impact, the evidence available pointed to an extensive corporate effort having been made across the ANU academic community. The team observed that a learning outcomes-based approach has been introduced across 77 study programmes and that this is aligned to assessment. Credit hours have also been reduced. Teachers are now required to demonstrate that learning outcomes have been achieved by students. The team was also impressed by the progress made in introducing competency-based learning into study programmes, together with a community-based focus on courses. Though this will take some time to become fully embedded, the staff groups with whom the team met were committed to making these arrangements work, and had a shared view of the rationale for change and the potential benefits to both staff and students. For example, the team heard from teaching staff that the emphasis now placed on individual learning outcomes made it possible to assess the quality of student achievement with greater transparency than had previously been possible. This curriculum change project, which commenced in January 2013, and involved weekly meetings of deans, has been a substantial project for the university s academic community. In the view of the team, the combined actions and leadership of the Deans Council, in drawing up faculty plans, and the Quality Assurance Unit, in reviewing all curricula and providing guidance and a template for ensuring a common format for introducing learning outcomes, provided strong central direction for this institution-wide curriculum change project. This change initiative was complemented by significant contributions from the Competency Development Board (CDB), the team of pedagogy specialists drawn from the Faculty of Education, and the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching (CELT). This ensured that the necessary expertise was available to provide a programme of training on a range of academic and student-focused matters, such as course design, writing learning outcomes, the use of modern learning, teaching, and assessment methods, student employability, and e- learning. The team took the opportunity to consider progress being made in delivering courses through the medium of the English language. The team noted that, while this remains a priority for ANU, it was evident that there is much progress yet to be made with the language capabilities of staff and students, and that while the tendency is for some learning materials, including books and journals, to be made available in English, the language of instruction remained Arabic. The team also noted that the ANU intranet is in Arabic only, as are student transcripts. These are matters upon which the university will wish to reflect going forward. 16

17 The team also explored other important learning and teaching issues that had been prominent in the 2011 IEP evaluation, some of a strategic nature. The team was pleased to note that a set of institutional learning and teaching objectives has now been adopted and were used to inform the changes described here. These objectives commit the university to making a transition from teacher-centred to learner-centred approaches to learning and teaching, and academic practice generally. The objectives place strong emphasis on student soft skills, work-related capabilities, and introducing students to a culture of scientific excellence. The team noted that, to support the ANU academic community in taking forward its learning and teaching enhancement agenda, the university had taken on board the recommendation of the 2011 team that steps should be taken to secure the sustainability of the CELT. The team learned that the activities of the centre are focused on workshop delivery, dissemination symposia, the work of the CELT Teaching Fellows, who provide important links to ANU faculties, and professional development oriented towards student-centred learning. These activities are complemented by the work programme of the E-Learning Centre (ELC) and by the focus of the Practical Training Centre (PTC), whose remit is to enhance the employability of the ANU graduate. The team was encouraged to note the progress being made by the ELC in supporting blended learning approaches, and by the introduction of a practical dimension into all study programmes, including opportunities for placements and internships and the emphasis on student employability. Regarding the latter, even though the regional and national labour market is relatively weak, in the view of the team this emphasis on work-based learning is important in order to go forward. As part of their studies, some 90% of students are now able to benefit from a semester long placement either in or outside of Palestine, and this is organised by the PTC. In reflecting on all of the foregoing developments, the team endorses the steps taken by ANU towards using some of the principles of the Bologna Process, including curriculum re-structuring, the transition to a more student-centred learning paradigm, the use of e-learning, and a competence-based approach to student learning. Though the team noted that Bologna matters remain under review by the national government, it was encouraging to note the outward-looking perspective that informs the university s approach to academic matters. However, the university fully acknowledges that in-house research and reflection will be needed at the appropriate time to properly assess the impact and improvement potential of the new approaches to the curriculum and to learning and teaching. In the view of the team, the growing maturity of the CELT and QAU, and of the ELC and CDB, make the university well placed to undertake such internal investigation and self-evaluation. With this in mind, the team recommends that, at the end of the second year of implementation, the university should take steps to review and evaluate the impact of changes introduced through recent curriculum reforms, paying particular attention to progress made in 17

18 introducing new approaches to learning and teaching and the transition to studentcentred learning. In concluding their deliberations in the broad area of learning and teaching, the team was encouraged to see the use being made of scholarships to support capacity building in the area of human resources development. The best ANU graduates are able to undertake Masters and doctoral studies abroad and to return to the university as faculty members. This goes some way towards addressing the constraints faced by the university in attracting well qualified professors from outside Palestine and, in some cases, the challenges of retaining staff who might otherwise be hired in other countries. The team also noted that arrangements reported in the 2011 IEP report, whereby the Faculty of Graduate Studies makes teaching grants available for up to 10 graduate students in science fields, to assist with payment of tuition fees, remain in place. Similarly, up to 10 additional grants are available with the finance being drawn from external project funding. In broad terms, this represents no overall change from The team also learned that, as in 2011, students find the level of fees challenging. The university seeks to offset this through its administration of the MoEHE student loans scheme, whereby some 70% of students receive financial support for up to 40% of their fees. 18

19 6. Quality assurance, quality management, and quality culture The university continues to make progress in developing its quality assurance arrangements and quality management system. This was evident to the team in a number of ways. For example, the team commends the university for its externally recognised achievements in quality assurance, as illustrated by European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Committed to Excellence certificate in 2012, and by successful outcomes to ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) accreditation for a number of university programmes in Other accolades include the International Palestine Award for Excellence and Achievement (2013) and the Yasser Arafat Award for Achievement (2013). In addition, ANU continues to pursue opportunities for taking forward quality improvement through involvement in international projects such as those funded by the World Bank Quality Improvement Fund (QIF). Taken together, all of these developments signify the university s commitment to working towards the development of a quality culture. The team also noted that an advisory board has been established to advise the ANU Quality Assurance Unit on quality assurance matters and the effectiveness of policies and systems. Further, since 2011, the post of deputy president has been established, with the post-holder assuming senior management responsibility for quality assurance. As discussed in section 2 (pp ), the team noted the use made of annual self-evaluation at various levels (course/programme/faculty) for monitoring quality and performance and for development planning, in line with the requirements of both the ANU strategic planning process, and the quality assurance and review cycle. Having tested this in various meetings, members of the team formed the view that procedures have been well received by those who use the systems for quality review and institutional planning. The QAU exercise oversight of this by assessing and reporting on the quality of reporting and self-evaluation undertaken by faculties. In summary, the team came to the conclusion that university staff is well attuned to the developments in quality assurance and quality evaluation. This growing openness to self-analysis and self-reflection was also evident in other ways. For example, the team noted the steps taken to address the high drop-out rate, and the positive results this has generated to date. The allowance for the period of study and registration has been extended, and additional arrangements have been made to support students in attaining improved levels of academic performance. The team was also encouraged to learn that, as had been the situation in the 2011 IEP evaluation, the good formal and informal relations of staff with students and the accessibility and responsiveness of staff, remained as prominent features of the academic experience at ANU. Even so, though these circumstances enable students to raise with staff any concerns they may have, and though the team noted the opportunities to provide feedback, both formally (electronically) and informally, there are matters upon which the university will need to reflect with a view to introducing improvements. 19

20 The team noted the use made of two feedback surveys. One evaluation survey provides students with an opportunity to give feedback on their course and on teaching. This is compulsory, since in order to obtain end of semester grades, a student must complete the survey online. The other survey is optional and invites feedback on student satisfaction on general matters relating to university services. The team noted that the response rate for the latter survey is a creditable 30% or more. The team also heard from students that a proportion of respondents to the course-level survey routinely completed only the first part of the survey, and did not take the opportunity as seriously as the university might wish them to. Essentially, it appeared to students with whom the team met, and to team members themselves, that a significant number of students responded primarily to obtain their grades, as opposed to viewing this as a contribution to a quality improvement process. Indeed, this raised the question for the team as to overall reliability, quality, and robustness of data obtained from this survey. The team explored these matters further with students and learned that, while students might have a general awareness that actions would or could be taken by the university Council or Deans Council in response to their feedback, it was evident that this was at best ad hoc. There is no formal mechanism whereby feedback can be provided to students on issues raised in either of the evaluation surveys. Essentially, the surveys functioned as management information not as student-oriented improvement tools. In the view of the team, it would not be difficult for the university to put in place some simple procedures to address this matter. For example, messages or summaries on the Zajfel portal, or summaries in leaflets or on notice boards with some simple statements along the lines of You said We did. With this in mind, the team advises the university to reflect on the use made of student evaluation and student satisfaction surveys with a view to ensuring that mechanisms are put in place for ensuring that students are informed of actions taken to close the loop, at all levels, in response to their concerns and the feedback they provide. In view of the importance of student engagement as an indicator of progress towards building a quality culture, the team also considered other aspects of student involvement in quality assurance matters. As noted in section 2, this attracted the attention of the 2011 team, which had invited the university to make further progress in widening the opportunities for student involvement in quality processes. The specific issue of student representation is addressed earlier in this report (page-9). For present purposes consideration is given to the broader issue of student involvement. In pursuing their enquiries, the team noted that the SER provided helpful information on several matters. For example, the coordination of various activities by the dean of student affairs, in conjunction with the Students Council; the participation of students in numerous subject, professional, and vocational associations; and the opportunities for students to discuss university decisions and policy with the dean of student affairs or with the president or vice-president, are all to be welcomed. However, in general terms, this is largely the situation that prevailed 20

21 in From the perspective of the team, the present challenge for ANU is to find ways in which to engage students with the evolving processes of curriculum modernisation, the reasons for the transition to student-centred learning, and the rationale for the university s pursuit of improved systems for quality evaluation and quality management. The challenge here is to enable students to gain better familiarity with such developments. Here, the team formed the view that the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching and the Quality Assurance Unit are well placed to make progress with these matters. The team therefore recommends that, to improve student engagement with university quality assurance processes, arrangements should be made for student representatives, elected by students themselves, to receive training in student representation through workshops run jointly by the QA Unit and the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. These activities should focus on learning and teaching enhancement and on quality improvement. 21

22 Institutional Evaluation Programme/An Najah National University/May Conclusion and Recommendations The team was impressed by the capacity for addressing change, and by the willingness to improve and to modernise approaches in education, research and community service. The team s recommendations relate to matters that are important for the university s future success and strategic development. Governance, Management and Strategic Planning The team advises the university to put in place arrangements for the review and evaluation of the outcomes, impact and effectiveness of the reduction of the number of faculties and scientific centres and to consider opportunities for further streamlining and additional efficiencies and cost savings through reducing the number of departments and divisions and through curriculum integration; The team recommends that, to support the aspiration to create a quality culture in which students are partners, the university might wish to review its regulations regarding students and governance matters, to enable student entitlement for formal representation on faculty and department councils, and to include elections of student representatives by students themselves together with full voting rights at meetings of the councils; The team recommends that, as the university begins a consultation process for preparing its next Strategic Plan, and as it seeks to learn from its present strategic planning arrangements, it should take the opportunity to simplify its use of performance indicators by identifying a limited set of priority institutional KPIs to guide it through the next planning period. Research, Third Mission, and Community Service The team notes the role of the Projects Unit, the International Office and the special committees formed to provide advice on research proposals. But the university should integrate these activities in order to strengthen central support (both technical and practical) for individuals and teams preparing proposals and applications for external project funding. Developments in Learning and Teaching The team recommends that, at the end of the second year of implementation, the university should take steps to review and evaluate the impact of changes introduced through recent curriculum reforms, paying particular attention to progress made in introducing new approaches to learning and teaching and the transition to student-centred learning. 22

23 Institutional Evaluation Programme/An Najah National University/May 2014 Quality assurance, Quality management, and Quality Culture The team advises the university to reflect on the use made of student evaluation and student satisfaction surveys with a view to ensuring that mechanisms are put in place for ensuring that students are informed of actions taken to close the loop, at all levels, in response to their concerns and the feedback they provide. To improve student engagement with university quality assurance processes, arrangements should be made for student representatives, elected by students themselves, to receive training in student representation through workshops run jointly by the QA Unit and the Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching. These activities should focus on learning and teaching enhancement and on quality improvement. 8. Envoi It has been a pleasure for the team to discuss with all staff, students, and external stakeholders, the progress made in taking forward the agenda set out in the 2011 EUA report and recommendations. The team notes the high value attached to higher education by staff and students of the university, and the essential regional role of An Najah National University through service to the community. There is a strong sense of loyalty to the university and its mission amongst staff and students. Despite the challenges it faces, the team believes that ANU has in place the necessary arrangements to enable it to face the future with determination and confidence. The team hopes the university finds our comments and suggestions helpful and supportive. Special thanks are extended to the President and Acting President for inviting the team, and to Professor Allam Mousa and his team for ensuring the smooth running of all aspects of the evaluation process and follow-up visit. 23

24 Abbreviations ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology) ANU (An Najah National University) CDB (Competences Development Board) CELT (Centre for Excellence in Learning and Teaching) EFQM (European Foundation for Quality Management) ELC (E-learning Centre) EUA (European University Association) KPI (Key Performance Indicator) IEP (Institutional Evaluation Programme) IPC (Innovation and Partnerships Centre) MoEHE (Ministry of Education and Higher Education) PTC (Practical Training Centre) QAU (Quality Assurance Unit SER (Self-Evaluation Report) 24