Content uploaded by Batoul Khalifa
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Batoul Khalifa on Apr 13, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article was downloaded by: [Professor Batoul Khalifa]
On: 10 February 2012, At: 15:24
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Quality in Higher Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cqhe20
Small Steps Lead to Quality Assurance
and Enhancement in Qatar University
Asma Al Attiyah a & Batoul Khalifa a
a Qatar University, Qatar
Available online: 24 Feb 2009
To cite this article: Asma Al Attiyah & Batoul Khalifa (2009): Small Steps Lead to Quality Assurance
and Enhancement in Qatar University, Quality in Higher Education, 15:1, 29-38
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13538320902731609
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-
conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, April 2009
ISSN 1353-8322 print; 1470-1081 online/09/010029-10 © 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/13538320902731609
http://www.informaworld.com
Small Steps Lead to Quality
Assurance and Enhancement in
Qatar University
ASMA AL ATTIYAH & BATOUL KHALIFA*
Qatar University, Qatar
Taylor and FrancisCQHE_A_373330.sgm10.1080/13538320902731609Quality in Higher Education1353-8332 (print)/1470-1081 (online)Original Article2009Taylor & Francis1510000002009BatoulKhalifa
batoul@qu.edu.qa
ABSTRACT This paper presents a brief overview of Qatar University’s history since it was started in
1973. Its primary focus is on the various small, but important, steps taken by the University to
address the needs of quality assurance and enhancement. The Qatar University Reform Plan is
described in detail. Its aims are to continually improve the quality of instructional and educational
services, and promote administrative efficiency at the University. The paper also discusses changes
made following the report of the University’s participation in the United Nations Development
Programme/Regional Bureau for Arab States review of the Graduate Diploma in Special Education
in the College of Education.
Keywords: Qatar University Reform Plan; United Nations Development Programme;
quality assurance and enhancement; Gulf States
Introduction
Major global changes have encouraged higher education systems around the world to be
more responsive to local needs, national concerns and global issues. In this context, higher
education systems need to be accountable and consider rapid policy changes to meet the
realities of the changing world.
The higher education system in the State of Qatar comprises nine universities divided
into two systems; national and international universities. The only national university is
Qatar University (QU) and there are eight international universities. QU was established in
1973. QU has focused on ensuring quality education in all its programmes. The University is
internationally recognised with strong ties to other institutions of higher education. It is an
active member in several prestigious regional and international associations, including the
Union of Arab Universities, the League of Islamic Universities and the International Associ-
ation of Universities. As a result, QU has been successful in attracting a large number of
distinguished scholars, researchers and staff members from other Arab countries and
*Corresponding author. Psychological Sciences Department, College of Education, Qatar University, Qatar.
Email: batoul@qu.edu.qa
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
30 A. Al Attiyah & B. Khalifa
beyond. QU is supervised by a Board of Regents and offers bachelor’s degrees in all of its
colleges and postgraduate diplomas in some selected programmes.
‘Traditional higher education programmers have been required to demonstrate more
explicitly their quality and effectiveness’ (El –Khawas, 2006, p. 23). However, new forms of
higher education such as borderless (transnational) higher education, which includes
educational provision that crosses conventional boundaries of time, space and geography,
are expected to demonstrate their quality with more transparency and higher accountabil-
ity. As noted, such programmes, when combined with information and communication
technology developments, may require more fundamental changes in quality assurance
arrangements (Middlehurst, 2002). In other words, the free-market economy and globalisa-
tion of educational provision have made quality assurance in higher education an impera-
tive worldwide.
In this regard, the question is not whether there is a need for quality assurance systems in
higher education, but to what extent the quality assurance system in a given country is
functional. Different countries have been taking different steps towards this end (Bazargan,
2007). Therefore, establishing quality assurance systems, especially in transnational higher
education in developing countries, is an urgent need. In 2003, QU embarked on an ambi-
tious Reform Initiative that aims to continually evolve the quality of instructional and
educational services, and promote its administrative efficiency.
QU aims to be a model national university that offers a high quality, learner-centred
education. All members of the University, both academic and administrative staff and
students, are expected to advance the scholarly and social values that the University
embodies. Three fundamental principles guide the QU reform process: autonomy, decen-
tralisation and accountability; each contributing uniquely towards a balance of steady and
effective reform. New policies and procedures are required for staff and administrative
evaluation and budget controls, as well as for processes to review personnel, policy and
procedural decisions. Furthermore, accountability requires new compensation policies to
implement the results of assessments and evaluations.
The Board of Regents, chaired by the Heir Apparent, His Highness Sheikh Tamim Bin
Hamad Al-Thani, the University President, and the newly established Office of Institutional
Research and Planning are leading the implementation of the Reform. A Senior Reform
Committee, made up of QU and international experts on university management and oper-
ations, has been formed to provide consultation to the leaders of the Reform. Also involved
in this initiative is a staff project that comprises members of the QU academic and adminis-
trative staff as well as researchers from the RAND-Qatar Policy Institute. (The RAND
Corporation is an independent American research institution that aims to help improve
policy- and decision-making through research and analysis.)
Based on the experiences of different countries, the process of building a quality manage-
ment and assurance system, within a national higher education system may be divided into
six stages (Bazargan, 2004, p. 154). These are summarised as follows:
1. Reflecting on national needs for quality assurance and the trends of evaluation and
accreditations around the world;
2. Conducting pilot studies and experiments in relation to quality assurance;
3. Conceptualising appropriate quality management and assurance systems for the country;
4. Developing a sense of ownership for the quality management and assurance system
among academic staff, higher education managers and promoting an evaluation
culture;
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
Quality Assurance and Enhancement in Qatar University 31
5. Developing the quality management and assurance system;
6. Implementing the quality management and assurance system.
In Qatar, attempts have been made to implement the above-mentioned steps and develop a
quality management and assurance system. Research activities to establish local needs for
quality assurance in higher education have been started. The outcomes of the study reveal
that there is a need for broad reforms in governance, administration and organisational
structure if the University is to serve the nation adequately in the coming decades. The
University must have autonomy to manage its own affairs, provide a more rigorous educa-
tion for its students, and enhance the quality of staff instruction and scholarly endeavours.
Through the accomplishment of these goals it is hoped that through decentralisation the
University can successfully assume its authority, and the consequent responsibility for
managing its own affairs. The University is developing new mechanisms for governance,
financial control and personnel management in order to enhance the quality assurance of
higher education in line with international standards.
The Reform and students
Part of the QU Reform has included the development of a core curriculum for all
programmes. The new curriculum is intended to provide a broad foundation of knowledge
and skills that prepares students for multiple professional careers and social roles. The
Reform also provides students with better systems of advising and registration, as well as
academic support services available at the Student Learning Support Centre. The Centre is a
supportive environment where students can seek assistance with course assignments,
instructors, transitioning to college academic life or other academic issues. The Student
Learning Support Centre programmes include: peer tutoring; the Writing Lab; writing
workshops; and the ‘Academic Success Workshop Series’. Students may also seek confiden-
tial, individual academic counselling from the professional staff at the Centre. All Centre
programmes are designed to help students become independent and successful learners by
improving their study skills and self-confidence, increasing their knowledge of course
material, encouraging a positive attitude toward education and preparing them for lifelong
learning. All services are free of charge to QU students.
An Office of Staff and Instructional Development has also been established in order to
assist academic units in devising and administering programmes to support the profes-
sional and pedagogical development of staff. The University provides its non-academic
staff with suitable training to develop their knowledge, skills and abilities. Therefore, the
participation of students in developing an environment of academic excellence through
their performance in classes and participation in research is critical to the success of the
Reform.
College of Education experiences with the United Nations Development Programme/
Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS)
In 1973 His Highness, The Emir of Qatar issued a decree proclaiming the establishment of
the College of Education. Fifty-seven male and 93 female students were admitted in the first
year. In later years, rapid development in the country made it necessary for the College of
Education to be expanded to accommodate new areas of specialisation. At present, as per
the new structure, QU consists of seven colleges namely the College of Education, the
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
32 A. Al Attiyah & B. Khalifa
College of Arts & Sciences, the College of Sharia & Islamic Studies, the College of Engineer-
ing, the College of Business & Economics, the College of Law and the College of Pharmacy.
The Graduate Diploma in Special Education in the College of Education was opened to
students in 2002 with a segregated class of 42 postgraduate students, both female and male.
It was then developed over three years in response to a formal request from the Supreme
Council for Family Affairs: a civil society institute which proposes and lays out plans,
programmes and projects to ensure the family’s development and the prosperity of its
members. In 2003–2004 the programme was revised in light of the evaluation and a new
programme was implemented in 2004–2005 (Lazarus et al., 2004).
The Graduate Diploma in Special Education programme is particularly important for
development of quality assurance at QU because it was selected by the United Nations
Development Programme (UNDP) to take part in its ‘Enhancement of Quality Assurance
and Institutional Planning’ project at the Regional Bureau for Arab States (RBAS) (Al-
Attiyah & Khalifa, 2006, pp. 7, 14, 73). Thus, in 2005–2006, the UNDP/RBAS carried out the
review of the Graduate Diploma in Special Education. The UNDP/RBAS project’s develop-
ment objective is the introduction in Arab universities of independent systems of quality
assessment of programmes with reference to internationally-accepted criteria, procedures
and benchmarks. The method used for review is a modified version of Academic Subject
Review as developed for implementation in 2000 by the Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education (QAA) in the United Kingdom. This method is itself a direct development
of the earlier Subject Review method used to review academic disciplines at UK universities
over the period 1992 to 2001 (UNDP, 2006b, pp. 11, 19). The review cycle as structured and
implemented by the project included training workshops for representatives of participat-
ing universities and reviewers recruited from among the trained representatives and from
the UK (UNDP/RBAS, 2006a, p. 3).
The reviewers reached the following judgements in relation to the Graduate Diploma in
Special Education. They found that the academic standards and the intended learning
outcomes were developed within a framework of significant external references, and in
response to the changing needs of Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision in the
country. The close match between the programme aims and the programme and course
learning outcomes, provides an effective basis for the development of the curriculum and
the assessment of student achievement. The programme has been developed within a
strong collaborative partnership between the special needs community and the College of
Education. The design and structure of the fieldwork component provides well-planned
progression in the curriculum, and facilitates the structured application of professional/
academic knowledge to practice (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c). The Report results also showed
that: research is related to teaching and learning through student and staff input to confer-
ences; and the use of IT effectively enhances student learning (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c).
The Report’s recommendations for improvement have to take place in the next QU
project. It will need to focus on: reviewing the continuing development of the learning
outcomes and preparation for further study at master’s level or professional engagement at
senior levels. Academic staff should consider which types of examination might be most
effective in measuring analysis, synthesis and evaluative skills. There is a need for an
agreed formal system of moderation of marking students’ work to ensure equity and stan-
dards (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c).
Report results also showed that the quality of student progression is good. The Report
concludes that admission processes are transparent and fair. The programme Handbook is
an excellent example of good practice worthy of further dissemination. Academic and
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
Quality Assurance and Enhancement in Qatar University 33
professional support is freely available both formally and informally. The practical fieldwork
components of the programme are supported by named and experienced support staff from
both the University and placement centres such as: the Shafallah Centre for students with
disability; the Al-Noor Institute for Blind Students; and inclusion schools in Ministry of
Education and independent schools (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c).
The Report gives a few recommendations for improvement, such as: mature students
would benefit from guidance and support in academic and learning skills, including infor-
mation research skills (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c); the provision, organisation and take-up of
professional development opportunities are excellent and staff should continue take-up
of these opportunities; current work to enhance academic standards and quality assurance
of the programme by using appropriate external reference points is encouraged; implemen-
tation of formal and systematic institutional level systems for quality assurance and
enhancement within the University should have clear pathways and reporting mechanisms
from programme level (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c).
The report closes on a note that quality assurance and enhancement is satisfactory
(UNDP/RBAS, 2006a).
In accordance with the above results, steps and actions have been introduced for changes
in quality assurance at the University. The UNDP/RBAS project report recommended
establishing a formal system for periodic review of provision at programme level and
implementing formal and systematic institutional level systems for quality assurance and
evaluation within the University (UNDP/RBAS, 2006c).
In the autumn of 2006, one of the first actions taken to address the recommendations of
the Report was to establish the Student Learning Outcomes Assessment System (SLOAS).
This is run by the Academic Evaluation Office (AEO) at QU. The system is meant to estab-
lish evidence, analyse information and utilise the outcomes to enhance the entire educa-
tional process, and is based on providing feedback to stakeholders: students; staff members;
and partners (AEO, 2007b). It is also based on systematic and well-designed processes for
evaluating plans and is conducive to improvement and effective development.
The SLOAS aims to provide feedback and guidance for individual students and to
present them with information about their progress in meeting learning expectations, an
integral part of higher education. It assists the University and staff members to improve
programmes and courses. By establishing the assessment system, QU can now evaluate its
students’ success at achieving learning goals and can use the measures to plan improve-
ment efforts (AEO, 2007b).
Before introducing the SLOAS, it was reviewed by the Quality Group, staff members in
QU, as well as by an expert from the United States of America to ensure its validity and reli-
ability. In the spring of 2007, the AEO with the Quality Group announced two seminars for
QU staff to prepare them to utilise the SLOAS. Three workshops were held to determine
and verify the policies and procedures of the system and the timeline to conduct the annual
outcomes assessment progress report. In 2007–2008, AEO also held several workshops to
train staff members and coordinators of the programme on how to select the learning
outcomes and its assessments.
Also in the spring of 2007, each college in QU was asked to establish a committee or,
failing that, responsibility would be assigned to an existing relevant committee, for
general oversight of the system, review of the programmes’ submitted results, and coordi-
nation with AEO (2007b). A mission statement has been drawn-up along with derivative
goals and students’ learning outcomes. Measurements for students’ learning outcomes
were selected and a timeframe for gathering and reporting data was formulated. The AEO
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
34 A. Al Attiyah & B. Khalifa
was eager to help in the development of these assessment designs and constructive feed-
back by providing workshops and individual assistance to each programme (AEO, 2007b).
According to the timeline for submitting the annual outcomes assessment progress report
to the AEO, 21 programmes plus the foundation programme at QU were asked to finalise
their report by the end of June 2007 and submit it to the AEO (2007a). In July 2007, the AEO
submitted an individual report for each programme and college and an overall report to the
University management. These results showed that student learning outcomes are not writ-
ten for some programmes. Those programmes’ review processes were not formally
informed by the assessment of student learning outcomes.
The AEO and the Quality Group evaluated the programmes’ annual outcomes assess-
ment progress report. Reviews of programme reports about the learning outcomes assess-
ment results showed that 63.4% of the 22 programmes had used the mission statement
briefly, memorably and distinctively. It clearly supported the Department’s, College’s and
University’s missions. It pinpointed who the stakeholders are and 36.6% of the 22
programmes stated the purpose of these stakeholders in the mission.
The findings indicated that 54.5% of the 22 programmes’ student learning outcomes were
consistent and supported the programmes’ objectives in clear and definite terms, describing
the: abilities; knowledge; values; attitudes; and performance expected of the students.
Some 50% of the 22 programmes actually used assessment methods and instruments to
assess student learning outcomes. At the time results of the other 50% of the 22 programmes
showed that the assessment methods and instruments they used were not well aligned to
what they intend students to learn. They tend to assess what students say about the topic.
These assessments were not appropriate for assessing learning outcomes. Recommenda-
tions were made to focus on learning results not learning processes in addition to merging
more than one learning outcome. It was clear that too much information and detail were
included in the learning outcome statements.
Again 50% of the 22 programmes’ assessment methods of students’ ability and learning
outcomes were not clear. Recommendations were made to have ‘external measures’ such as
standardised tests to provide validity for the internal measures.
In the spring of 2008, programme assessment plans provided the University administra-
tion with the tools of assessment for all students in the programmes being assessed.
Additional information on indicators of student progression, such as: enrolment, attrition,
attendance, survey results, and evaluations of students’ performances (for example, writing
samples, student teaching or internships, research or honours projects) were also collected
to provide useful data which programmes in QU can interpret to determine whether
students have achieved particular learning outcomes in order to meet the expectations of
students, employers and stakeholders, and the international standards of quality assurance
and evaluation of higher education (AEO, 2007a).
The Development and Quality Assurance Stage after implementing the SLOAS
After submitting the annual outcomes assessment progress report the system’s cycle was
completed and the results were utilised to address developments of the programme.
Development and improvement were achieved through changes in learning methodolo-
gies and strategies, and sharing of outstanding performance of academic staff members.
Furthermore, the results of the SLOAS are communicated to stakeholders, including:
students; college management; and programme partners through annual reports (AEO,
2007a).
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
Quality Assurance and Enhancement in Qatar University 35
In 2006–2007, the College of Education established a Quality Assurance Committee
(QAC). The aims of the committee are to review all programme learning outcomes and
syllabi and to review and modify the syllabi of the College of Education in order to meet the
expectations of QU staff, students and stakeholders (College of Education, 2007a).
All the core courses and requirements were reviewed and modified according to the
criteria of QAC in the College of Education, and then the reviewed syllabi were sent to the
external reviewers from the American University of Beirut and Texas A&M University
(TAMU). The reports showed that some courses needed to be revisited because the content
needed to be made more general. For example, social psychology should provide students
with an introduction to the field of social psychology, its key concepts and methodologies
(College of Education, 2007b).
In autumn 2007, the QAC implemented the QAC Peer Observation System in the College.
The main objective was to improve practice through giving staff constructive feedback that
ensures the quality of student learning within the strategy of the College and to work
towards attaining accreditation (QAC, 2008).
Braskamp and Ory (1994) list the following suggestions for adopting peer observation
to train observers. It is highly recommended by educational experts and it is used by
QAC.
1. Training helps instructors focus on desired criteria and learn how to observe correctly.
2. Alternatively, academic officers can select several observers from the list of recom-
mended potential observers nominated by the instructor.
3. Observations by more than two colleagues are recommended, since all staff, quite natu-
rally, rely on their own experiences, values, and definitions of effective teaching in
making their assessments.
4. Each observer can highlight similarities and differences by writing summary reports.
5. Descriptive reports, focusing on agreed-upon tools and behaviours including specific
examples of instructor and student behaviours are recommended.
6. The summary is more balanced and fair if it contains both positive and negative
observations.
Methods and procedures
Within the first two weeks of the spring 2008 semester, each programme in the College of
Education provided the QAC with a list of all the courses taught by staff members in that
programme. The list contained course titles, names of the teaching staff, lecture room
numbers, dates and times.
The QAC used a clear procedure for determining the courses and staff members visited in
the spring semester with the goal of visiting all staff members at the College by the end of
the next year, 2008–2009. This supports the College of Education’s quest to provide high
quality teaching and learning experiences in all its programmes and to attain international
accreditation and recognition (College of Education, 2008a, pp. 2–3, 4).
The process was started by the QAC announcing when the peer observation visits would
begin. They also referred staff to a published manual and held meetings with staff members
in each programme to explain the system. The use of course portfolios in the observation
process was clarified at these meetings. Academic staff were told that every attempt would
be made to visit each of them at least once a year. This is all set out in the Manual of Peer
Observation (College of Education, 2008b).
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
36 A. Al Attiyah & B. Khalifa
Pilot study
A pilot study ran from March through May in 2008. A total of 12 staff members from
different programmes in the College of Education participated in the pilot study. At the
beginning of the spring 2008 semester, the QAC determined the master list of all the staff
members to be observed that semester (College of Education, 2008b).
Peer observation visits were conducted by two observers. They consisted of one QAC
representative ideally from the same programme as the staff member to be observed and
another member of academic staff who may or may not have been a member of the QAC. In
the process of appointing observers to conduct a peer visit, the QAC made every effort to
ensure that there was no conflict of interest between any of the ‘observers’ and the
‘observed’ (College of Education, 2008b).
Peer observers arrived at the class 10 minutes prior to scheduled lecture time. Observers
sat down in a neutral area during the lecture. They made notes and collected information,
observations and evidence on a Peer Observation Form. Peer observers prepared a
confidential joint report on the class visit. They met the observed staff member at the agreed
time to discuss pertinent observations. Then they invited the observed staff member to
comment on the observation report before it was submitted to the Chair of the QAC. A copy
of the completed joint report went to the staff member within 48 hours of completing the
discussion session.
The Peer Observation Checklist was a collaborative work by a team from QAC. It is
divided into five areas: Educational Objective; Presentation Skills; Running the Learning
Environment; Instructional Strategies; and Assessment Techniques (College of Education,
2008a, pp. 9–12).
The results of the Peer Observation Checklist showed that 83% of teaching staff provided
an introduction and clarified class objectives, provided the main elements of the lecture and
related knowledge with its practical applications, used varied activities, used suitable and
varied instructional techniques for class (such as, discussion, cooperative learning, ques-
tioning to check students’ comprehension and networking). In addition, 75% of staff started
class on time and motivated students to learn and used suitable communication skills,
verbal and others. The highest results the Peer Observation Checklist showed were that
100% of the teaching staff summarised the lecture’s main points (individually or collabora-
tively with students), ended class on time and asked different types of questions to check
students’ comprehension during class.
According to the results of the Peer Observation forms, 92% of academic staff members
explained information and ideas in a clear and comprehensible manner, used suitable tech-
nological tools, attracted students’ attention constantly during class, used suitable reinforce-
ment techniques and treated students with respect (accepted the opinions of others openly).
The lowest result of the Peer Observation Checklist showed that 67% of staff members
asked summative questions to ensure the acquisition and achievement of objectives.
The results of the class observation notes showed that academic staff think classrooms are
not well-prepared for teaching group work or discussion panels and that the seats and
tables were not sufficiently comfortable for the three-hour classes. They also noted that they
had shortages of technology and materials especially in the art classes. QU has taken these
results into consideration and set a plan to maintain all the facilities in QU, such as fit a new
video projector and other new technology to be used in the classroom.
The College of Education enhances quality assurance by following up students and
alumni through their participation and involvement in all areas of the College. The Alumni
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
Quality Assurance and Enhancement in Qatar University 37
Student Support Committee was started in 2006–2007. Its first remit was to work with the
students at risk (low achievement students) through regular meetings and workshops. The
second was to work with distinguished students (high-achievement students) through
supporting their performance and rewarding them. The third focused on peer support for
students in postgraduate programmes by arranging different experiences, such as sharing
evaluation of graduate projects. Another scheme, in collaboration with the alumni commit-
tee, focused on continued communication with College alumni through offering them
chances to be partners with the College’s different activities and annual conferences, also to
become a part of other QU students’ services.
Conclusion
There is still room for considerable improvement in Quality Assurance and Enhancement in
QU, in particular, the processes need to address the sustainability of efforts to self-evaluate
and manage improvement plans. There is a definite need to establish coherent systems at
the University, faculty, programme and course levels. These include: 1) an annual evalua-
tion to monitor and make provision to anticipate problems and deal with them as and
when, and before they arise; and 2) to enhance quality through regular programme reviews
to maintain and ensure its currency. Specifically designated persons or committees need to
be identified to account for quality assurance and enhancement. Processes and procedures
need to be established to ensure the timely identification of problems.
More interactive use of feedback from all stakeholders, including: students, staff, schools,
professional bodies and Ministry officials, where relevant, would be helpful in this process
as well. The point of feedback is not to gather data and return ‘results’; it is a process that
starts with the questions of decision-makers, that involves them in the gathering and inter-
preting of data, and that informs and helps guide continuous improvement. This leads to
developing a culture in which increased awareness and commitment to quality assurance
and enhancement becomes the norm. Lastly, it is also critical that the Qatari community
engage with the University to ensure it fulfils its vision in serving the needs of Qatari society.
References
Academic Evaluation Office (AEO), 2007a, Final Review Report of Students Learning Outcomes (Qatar
University).
Academic Evaluation Office (AEO), 2007b, Handbook of Students Learning Outcomes Assessment (Qatar
University).
Al Attiyah, A. & Khalifa, B., 2006, Self Evaluation Document of Special Education Diploma Program, Qatar
University, Enhancement Of Quality Assurance and Institutional Planning at Arab Universities (United
Nations Development Programme/Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS)).
Bazargan, A., 2004, ‘Enhancing institutional capacity for evaluation and quality: A case study from Iran’,
Prospects, 23(3), pp. 265–371.
Bazargan, A., 2007, ‘Problems of organising and reporting internal and external evaluation in developing
countries: the case of Iran’, Quality in Higher Education, 13(3), pp. 207–14.
Braskamp, L. A. & Ory, J. C., 1994, Assessing Faculty Work (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass).
College of Education, 2007a, Annual Report, unpublished.
College of Education, 2007b, Final Review Report on Educational Psychology and Educational Sciences, Elective
Courses at Qatar University (American University in Beirut).
College of Education, 2008a, Manual of Peer Observation System (Qatar University).
College of Education, 2008b, Final Review Report of Peer Observation (Qatar University).
El–Khawas, E., 2006, ‘Accountability and quality assurance: new issues for academic inquiry’, in Forest, J. I. &
Altbach, P.G. (Eds.) International of Handbook Higher Education (Amsterdam, Springer).
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
38 A. Al Attiyah & B. Khalifa
Lazarus, B., Baker, A., Al Attiyah, A., Denning, E. & Fakieh, G., 2004, Proposed Modifications to Graduate
Diploma Program in Special Education (Qatar University).
Middlehurst, R., 2002, ‘The developing world of borderless higher education: markets, providers, quality
assurance and qualifications’, Proceedings of the First Global Forum on International Quality Assurance,
Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education, Paris, UNESCO, pp. 25–38.
Quality Assurance Committee (QAC), 2007, Annual Report, College of Education, unpublished.
Quality Assurance Committee (QAC), 2008, Annual Report, College of Education, unpublished.
United Nations Development Programme/Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS), 2006a, Quality
Assessment in the Field of Education in the Arab World, a Regional Overview Report (New York, UNDP/
RBAS).
United Nations Development Programme/Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS), 2006b, Quality
Assessment of Education Programmes in Arab Universities Regional Overview Report (New York, UNDP/
RBAS).
United Nations Development Programme/Regional Bureau for Arab States (UNDP/RBAS), August 2006c,
Education Program Graduate Diploma in Special Education, QU, Final Review Report (New York, UNDP/
RBAS).
Downloaded by [Professor Batoul Khalifa] at 15:24 10 February 2012
