SITE VISIT GUIDELINES FOR PANEL MEMBERS. 1 Last updated 2016/03/31

SITE VISIT GUIDELINES FOR PANEL MEMBERS 1 Last updated 2016/03/31

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP A SITE VISIT 5 Communication of decision to conduct a site visit 5 Duration of the site visit 5 Site visit panel 5 Format of a site visit 6 Documentary evidence 7 Inspection of physical infrastructure 9 Interviews 9 WRITING THE SITE VISIT REPORT 11 Preliminary site visit report discussions 11 Writing the site visit report 11 POST SITE VISIT REQUIREMENTS 12 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHAIRPERSONS 12 RESPONSIBILITIES OF PANEL MEMBERS 13 RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSTITUTIONS 14 CONFIDENTIALITY AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES 16 2 Last updated 2016/03/31

ACRONYMS CAT Credit Accumulation and Transfer CHE Council on Higher Education DHET Department of Higher Education and Training HEI Higher Education Institution HEQC Higher Education Quality Committee NQF National Qualifications Framework PQM Programme and Qualifications Mix RPL Recognition of Prior Learning SAQA South African Qualifications Authority SETA Sector Education and Training Authority 3 Last updated 2016/03/31

INTRODUCTION The Site Visit Guidelines are intended to assist site visit panel members, including the subject expert(s) and the chairperson in preparation for site visits 1 linked to application for accreditation, re-accreditation, application for new sites of delivery, relocation of sites, extension of programmes to sites (new or existing sites), deferrals, representations and complaints. The document serves merely as a preparation guide for panel members and it is important to note that the chairperson of the evaluation panel has the discretionary authority and ultimate responsibility to decide on the format and nature of the visit. The purpose and value of the site visit as well as the processing of the report are outlined in the Guidelines. The Guidelines includes only the key general aspects of the organization and administration of site visits to enable panel members to prepare for a site visit. Specific information relating to particular site visits may be clarified, where necessary, with the Programme Accreditation Directorate (henceforth the Directorate). THE PURPOSE OF SITE VISITS The Higher Education Quality Committee (HEQC) of the Council on Higher Education (CHE) is responsible for the accreditation of higher education learning programmes by virtue of provision of the Higher Education Act, 1997. Linked to the accreditation function are applications for accreditation of new programmes and for re-accreditation of programmes by private providers for registration purposes. Site visits are also related to applications for approval of sites of delivery, the verification of an institution s capacity to offer higher education programmes and the investigation of complaints. All or a selection of the relevant criteria for programme accreditation of the HEQC are applied in the evaluations conducted (Criteria for Programme Accreditation, November 2004). Site visits have become a valuable means of confirmation of the capacity of an institution to offer a particular programme on the particular site of delivery and specific mode of provision. It is increasingly being used by the Directorate, the Accreditation Committee, and the HEQC to confirm the quality of programme provision where there are concerns, to verify the information provided by institutions in their applications or to investigate 1 According to the Regulations for the Registration of Private Higher Education Institutions, 2016 (Government Gazette No. 39880; Notice No. R. 383, Published 31 March 2016), a 'site' means any physical space such as a campus, satellite campus, tuition or learning centre controlled and administered by an applicant or an institution. 4

complaints. The findings of the most recent site visit(s) will be considered in all future applications of an institution. A site visit is conducted by a site visit panel as appointed by the Directorate that consists of academic peers and could include a member/s of the Directorate. The Accreditation Committee or the HEQC may request the Directorate to organise a site visit to be conducted. The Directorate may also conduct a site visit in the case of special requests for urgent approvals of relocation of sites or in the investigation of complaints. THE PROCESS OF SETTING UP A SITE VISIT Communication of decision to conduct a site visit An institution applies online via the HEQC online system or electronically to accreditation@che.ac.za, depending on the type of applications submitted. All applications go through a similar process of internal screening, peer evaluation, recommendation by the Accreditation Committee and a decision by the HEQC. The decision to conduct an institutional site visit is communicated to the institution in writing with an indication of the purpose and date by which the site visit is to be undertaken. Duration of the site visit The duration of a site visit varies according to its purpose but is generally one full day. Additional days will be required in the event of a multi-site visit. Visits to learning support centres may be of a shorter duration. Site visit panel The HEQC will appoint a panel to conduct the site visit to a site of delivery on its behalf comprising generally of a minimum of three people, one of whom serves as chairperson and, among other things, acts as the official conduit between the panel and the institution during a site visit. Members of the panel use their specialist knowledge and evaluation training to make judgments about one or more of the programme(s) being evaluated 5

taking into consideration the institutional context. Members of the panel have the responsibility for using their specialist knowledge and evaluation training to make objective judgments in relation to all aspects of the programme(s) being evaluated and the institutional context which supports the programme(s). The Institution is informed by the Directorate about the members of the panel prior to the visit being conducted, thereafter the institution is given the opportunity to accept or raise an objection to the suggested panel members. Demonstrated conflict of interest is the only valid ground for objection that the Directorate will consider. If adjustments are made to the composition of the panel in this connection, or if any member of the panel withdraws for any reason, the Directorate will replace panel members and notify the panel and the institution accordingly. Once a the composition of the panel has been finalized, and at an appropriate time before the site visit, the CHE will communicate with the panel members and, among other things, will provide for each: Travel and accommodation details. The names and contact details of other panel members. A schedule for the site visit. A list of conditions against which the programme(s)/ institution will be evaluated. A copy of the letter, concerning the site visit, sent to the institution. A travel claim form. A copy of the Code of Ethics Relevant programme specific information related to the site visit Any other necessary documentation connected with the specific site visit. Format of a site visit The format of a site visit will depend on its purpose. Typically a site visit schedule, comprising a series of varying time slots, might include any or all of the following: 6

Meeting between the site visit panel and the management team of the institution Presentation by a member of management Tour of the site and review of infrastructure and facilities such as libraries, lecture venues, laboratories and computer facilities Perusal of documents such as policies and evidence of practices Interviews with academic staff members, administrative and support staff, students and/ or alumni A concluding session with the management team On the day(s) of the site visit the institution should be prepared to host the site visit panel. On the day(s) of the site visit(s) the panel should arrive at the site of delivery/learning support centre prior to or at the agreed upon time per the site visit schedule. During the site visit the institution s site visit coordinator is the first point of liaison with the chairperson of the evaluation panel. Documentary evidence The institution is required to provide materials and documents for perusal by the panel. These materials and documents should be appropriately filed and catalogued, and preferably linked to the various accreditation criteria. A list of the materials and documents (an evidence map ) must be available for the panel. In general, the materials and documents on display should include all those to which reference was made in the institution s submission, any additional information and documentation required by the HEQC, additional information and documents judged to be important by the institution to inform the evaluation of its programme(s), and any additional documentary evidence required by the chairperson of the panel during or prior to the site visit. It is absolutely essential that the display of materials and documents should be organized in such a way as to facilitate ease of access and location, and that mechanisms employed for this purpose are made clear to the panel. While the specific coverage of the document display may vary from site visit to site visit 7

and in terms of the specific requirements of the HEQC for any given visit, the following list provides an indication of the key documents that should be displayed: Prospectuses, faculty handbooks, academic calendars and student learning guides Strategic plans of the institution/unit Learning and teaching materials, curriculum module packs (per module/ mode of delivery), assessment materials Institutional reports, committee meeting minutes etc. Results of surveys and copies of survey instruments A report of any changes made to any programme outcomes from the original programme application/s submitted to the HEQC. Assessment tasks and instruments, internal moderation and external examiners reports Programme completion rates (if applicable), module performance and assessment records Admission policies, RPL practices and student records Examples of application of CAT and RPL Tuition and fee structures Examples of formative and summative assessments and moderator reports Evidence of programme and module reviews, if applicable, and examples of changes implemented based on an analysis of assessments and moderator reports Staff members and moderator curricula vitae List of facilities, equipment and supplies Library catalogues and library budget for the previous year, current year and new year Records of students complaints and grievances and actions taken to deal with complaints and grievances Summary of staff accomplishments and publications Advertising materials, promotional materials, information brochures etc. HR policies, samples of contracts and other personnel data Course/module and lecturer evaluation responses and summaries Student tracking mechanisms post programme completion Any relevant policies or documents that support the institution/unit s mission, 8

goals and objectives. Inspection of physical infrastructure Another source of potential evidence for the panel is the physical infrastructure of the institution and its potential in supporting the needs of the programme(s) under review. As and if appropriate, the site visit schedule will include an opportunity for the panel, either collectively or individually, to inspect such infrastructural facilities as teaching venues, libraries, laboratories and IT facilities. In such cases, the institution will have been required to ensure ease of access to such facilities, to ensure that panel members are guided to each facility and to ensure that appropriate members of staff in each facility are present to answer questions. Interviews Interviews constitute arguably the most important and intensive activity during a site visit. In order to achieve the objectives of the interviews, with a range of interviewees, in an effective and efficient manner, panel members are advised to give attention to the following guidelines. a) Guidance for panel members The successful management of the interview sessions is the responsibility of the chairperson and panel members should defer to the chairpersons directives. Before the beginning of each interview, the chairperson should ensure that panel members know what questions are to be asked. In respect of interviews, in general, panel members should bear in mind the following: Interview sessions are not a forum for discussion and interviewees are not permitted to ask questions except, as the need may arise, to seek clarification. The panel s questions should be linked consistently to issues of quality at the institution and be about the institution s programme(s). Questions to be asked are best discussed and agreed upon by the panel prior to interviews. Questions asked should be direct and uncomplicated. Panel members should 9

avoid giving long explanations as introductions to questions or drawing comparisons with other institutions and programmes. Only one question should be asked at a time. Panel members should ensure that all interviewees have an opportunity to respond and participate. No individual should be allowed to dominate responses. Panel members should not ask inappropriate questions or pursue personal agendas. It is important that panel members should maintain a professional distance from members of the institution during the visit. Discussions and comment on the evaluation must be avoided. Panel members must not editorialise, comment, praise or commend, criticize, advise, explain, correct or recommend and to ask questions that have no response or compare the institution with any other. b) Induction for interviewees At the beginning of each session, the chairperson: Welcomes interviewees and thanks them for participating in the evaluation process. Ensures, as appropriate, that those being interviewed understand the role of the panel and the decision-making process. States clearly that the purpose of the interviews is to help the panel to validate information and evidence contained in the institution s submissions and other documentation that has been supplied by the institution, and to gain a detailed understanding of how the institution has met the Criteria for Programme Accreditation. Encourages the interviewees to provide concise answers. Reminds the interviewees that all comments made to the panel will be treated in strict confidence, and that their names will not be used in the final report, even though the issues raised with them might be included. Reminds the interviewees that interviews should not be coached, briefed or 10

debriefed. Reminds the interviewees that no video or audio recording is permitted of the interview and its participants. c) Concluding the interview At the end of each interview, the chairperson will thank the interviewees for their participation, informing them that the CHE will produce a report which will be sent to the Directorate. WRITING THE SITE VISIT REPORT The process of an accreditation site visit, from the point of view of the panel, is concluded through the writing and submission to the CHE of a Site Visit Report on the programme(s)/site(s)/condition(s) under review. Such reports, which are constructed using a reporting template provided by the CHE, typically are completed in two stages as indicated below. Preliminary site visit report discussions While it is recognized that accreditation site visits usually have to be completed within a single day, it is expected that, either before the panel disbands at the end of the site visit or using email/telephonic communication post the site visit, key elements for the writing of the Site Visit Report are discussed and decided upon by the panel. Writing the site visit report The site visit report, based on agreements reached in the preliminary site visit report discussions, is written by the designated report writer who, in the case of Accreditation Directorate site visits, usually is the chairperson for the particular site visit. The report writer, using the CHE reporting template, assembles a coherent, evidence-based report which ensures consistency of arguments across the criteria and ensures even-handedness and fairness of critical comments, and adequacy of evidence, which could include photographic evidence. Furthermore, the report writer plays an editorial role in ensuring a factually accurate, 11

error-free, stylistically acceptable report that has a suitable tone. The report is then sent electronically to the other panel members, who scrutinize it for accuracy and fidelity and may offer suggestions or corrections. (In the case of any dispute among panel members, individual comments related to differing opinions must be sent directly to the CHE.) The completed report should then be loaded on the HEQC online system by the agreed upon date. At this point, the work of the panel is complete and further processing of the report falls under the aegis of the Accreditation Directorate. POST SITE VISIT REQUIREMENTS The panel is required to do the following post the site visit: Complete the post site visit evaluation form and return to the Directorate. Complete travel claim forms and return to the Directorate. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHAIRPERSONS During site visits, the chairperson serves as the representative of the HEQC. A chairperson is selected on the basis of demonstrated and recognized expertise relevant to chairing a site visit, and is a trained evaluator. The roles and responsibilities of a chairperson are defined by the HEQC as follows: 1. The chairperson acts as the official conduit between the panel and the institution during a site visit. 2. It is the duty of a chairperson to ensure that all panel members are present at the designated times and are fully conversant with the documents, processes and procedures for a site visit. 3. The chairperson should ensure that all panel members have studied the institution s submission and accompanying documents distributed in advance, and have identified issues that need further investigation during the site visit. 4. The chairperson must ensure that all panel members are aware of the Code of Ethics and are aware of the confidentiality clause. 5. In the case of any panel member demonstrating unbecoming behaviour or being unprepared, or being involved in any incident which may bring disrepute to the HEQC, the responsibility of the chairperson is to bring this to the attention of the HEQC immediately and to document the incident. 12

6. In the case of any incident that may take place in the institution during the site visit, which may involve staff members accessing or tampering with panel members evidence, notes or documents, the chairperson must report the incident to the HEQC immediately. 7. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that, during panel briefing meetings and all other sessions, there is optimal usage of time and that tasks are allocated to all panel members on the basis of their expertise. 8. The chairperson is responsible for ensuring that changes to the site visit schedule during the visit are communicated to the institution in sufficient time for necessary arrangements to be made. 9. In formal interactions with the institution, staff members and other constituent groups, the chairperson must ensure that the purpose of the visit and the objectives of any given session are communicated clearly. 10. Requests for additional documentation or viewing of facilities must be made through the chairperson. 11. If the chairperson, for any reason, is not the designated report writer then he/she must ensure that the designated report writer for the panel receives the cooperation required to accomplish the task. To this end, the chairperson must ensure that the panel members discuss the report and contribute to the writing of the report 12. In relation to accreditation and re-accreditation recommendations, the chairperson should aim for consensus among the panel members on the capacity of the institution to offer a higher education programme/s on that site of delivery in relation to the HEQC s criteria for accreditation. In cases where consensus is not reached, the comments and differing views of all panel members need to be recorded. The same applies to the overall recommendation for the programme/site of delivery/learning support centre as a whole. RESPONSIBILITIES OF PANEL MEMBERS Panel members have a responsibility to undertake the following tasks: 1. Acknowledging receipt of documentation from the CHE. 2. Preparation for the site visit. 3. Advising the CHE if other documents are required. 13

4. Ensuring that relevant documentation of the institution is read in detail. 5. Evaluation as required during the site visit. 6. Contribution to the site visit report. 7. Post-site visit consultation and signing off of the final report which will be sent to the Directorate In carrying out its work, the panel as a whole will: 1. Defer to the chairperson throughout the site visit. 2. Approach its work within the context of the CHE s quality assurance mandate. 3. Attempt to gain first-hand knowledge of the institution and the programme(s) concerned. 4. Attempt to establish the general correctness of the information supplied by the institution in its accreditation submissions. 5. Evaluate aspects of programme quality. 6. Identify and evaluate evidence of aspects of quality which were not available in the paper- based submission by, for example, visiting the physical facilities (such as libraries, laboratories, studios, lecture rooms etc.) and interviewing staff, students and others. 7. Formulate clear questions within the framework of the purpose of the site visit. 8. Understand that it will make recommendations and not provide outcomes In summary, in carrying out its work, the panel will be required to make fair and objective professional judgments, based firmly upon hard evidence, obtained from a variety of means and from a variety of sources. Such sources of evidence comprise, for example, the institution s paper- based submission, other documentary sources made available during the site visit, inspection of the physical infrastructure and resources and the products of interviews with a range of interviewees. RESPONSIBILITIES OF INSTITUTIONS 1. It is the responsibility of each institution to facilitate a thorough and objective appraisal of its programme(s)/site(s) of delivery/learning support centre(s) under review by the HEQC. 14

2. Institutions have the right to disagree to a particular site visit panel member/s only if it can be demonstrated, in writing, that a potential conflict of interests exists. Such a veto must be exercised with due responsibility. Any perceived inadequacies of HEQC procedures or processes should be reported by the institution at the time of their occurrence. This applies to the conduct of the Programme Accreditation Directorate staff member or a panel member/s and details of the incident need to be provided. 3. Institutions are not permitted to make contact with panel members prior to the site visit and after the site visit on issues related to the accreditation/re-accreditation process. All such communication should be through the CHE. 4. Staff members of the institution are not allowed to attempt to influence the outcome of a site visit by making offers to panel members which may include the offering of gifts, awards or financial incentives. 5. There should be no attempt to record proceedings of the panel or to tamper with documents belonging to panel members. 6. Once a site visit date is finalized, the institution is bound to host the site visit. In the eventuality of any unforeseen circumstances that may require a rescheduling, it is the responsibility of the institution to make contact immediately with the Directorate and the Institutions will be liable for all the costs incurred. 7. It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that staff and students required to be present for the HEQC site visit are available at the relevant times and have been properly apprised of all the arrangements, venues, purpose and intent of the site visit. However no coaching or debriefing relating to what to say or what was said is allowed and any evidence of manipulation of interviewees will be reported to the HEQC and will influence the outcome of the visit 8. Institutions must ensure that panel members are afforded access to all facilities and resources relevant to the programme(s). Arrangements in this regard must be made with the relevant personnel. Panel members must receive communication of these arrangements at the time of the site visit. 9. Guidelines for the institutional information display must be adhered to by the institution. The institution has a responsibility to ensure that additional documentation requested by the HEQC prior to the site visit/ during the site visit, 15

and in exceptional circumstances after the site visit, is made available. 10. It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that information provided to the public and the HEQC is accurate and adequate. It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that all staff members and students are aware of the accreditation/re-accreditation processes and possible outcomes of these processes. Information pertaining to accreditation/re-accreditation must be made available to the public and internal staff and students. 11. It is the responsibility of the institution to ensure that information is not withheld from the panel or that there is no inadequate disclosure of information which compromises the work of the Panel. 12. All information submitted for accreditation/re-accreditation purposes or made available to the public/ staff/ students must be accurate and reflect the actual programmes and practices of the institution. 13. No photographs may be taken of panel members or the procedures of the panel during the site visit. CONFIDENTIALITY AND ETHICAL GUIDELINES Programme evaluations, including site visits, provide the HEQC and its panels with important and confidential information about the institution. Such information should be used only for the purpose for which it was obtained in relation to the evaluation. All material, including institutional submissions, should be treated as confidential by the HEQC and its panels. In order to ensure that confidentiality is preserved, the HEQC monitors strictly the dissemination and filing of information obtained, as well as making the necessary arrangements for the destroying of confidential information from institutions, when it is no longer required by the HEQC. Panel members and other evaluators are required to sign an undertaking that they will treat all evaluation documentation as confidential and will return all specified documentation to the HEQC by a stipulated date. In addition, all evaluators and panel members are required to abide by the CHE s Code of Ethics and are required to sign both a legally-binding confidentiality agreement and a disclosure form. The Code of Ethics may be accessed on the CHE s website 16

(http://www.che.ac.za). Any inappropriate behaviour on the part of any member of the Panel should be reported to the Manager of Site Visits, Mr. Denver Grigg (grigg.d@che.ac.za) or the Director: Accreditation (Naidoo.K@che.ac.za). All other communication to these CHE staff members must be directed through accreditation@che.ac.za or the communication will not be responded to. 17