Office‎ > ‎

Quality Assurance

Quality Assurance Directorate

1. የጥራት ማረጋገጫ ዳይሬክቶሬት አጭር ታሪክ

መደ ላቡ ዩኒቨርሲቲ የካቲት 1997 . ተመስርቶ 1999 . . በጥቂት መምህራንና የድጋፍ ሰራተኞች ጥቂት ተማሪዎችን ተቀብሎ ስራውን የጀመረ ሲሆን መዋቅሩን ከጊዜ ወደ ጊዜ እያስፋፋና እያጠናከረ የመጣ ተቋም ነው፡፡ ዩኒቨርሲቲው በአሁኑ ጊዜ በመማር ማስተማር፣ በጥናትና ምርምር እና በማህበረሰብ አገልግሎት አሰጣጥ ረገድ በሀገር አቀፍ ደረጃ ብቃት ያለውና ተወዳዳሪ ለመሆን እየሰራ ይገኛል፡፡ የዩኒርሲቲውን የመማር-ማስተማር ስራውን ጥራትና አግባብነት ባለው ሁኔታ በማካሄድ ይህንን ተቋማዊ ተልዕኮውን ለማሳካትም እንዲያስችለው ዩኒቨርሲቲው 2003 . . ተጠሪነቱ ለአካዳሚክ /ፕሬዚደንት የሆነ የትምህረት አግባብነትና ጥራት ማረጋገጫ ዳይሬክቶሬትን አዋቀሯል፡፡ ይሁን እንጂ የክፍሉን የስራ ሁኔታ በድጋሚ እንዲጠና በማድረግ 2006 . . ክፍሉ የመማር-ማስተማር ስራውን ጥራትና አግባብነት ብቻ ሳይሆን አጠቃላይ በዩኒቨርሲቲ ውስጥ የሚሰጡ አገልግሎቶች ጥራታቸውን የጠበቁና ለመማር-ማስተማሩ ስራ የሚያግዙ ሆነው አንዲታቀዱና እዲከናወኑ በማድረግ የዩኒቭርሲቲውን ተልዕኮና ራእይ የማሳካት ትልቅ ኃላፊነት ተስጥቶት ተጠሪነቱም ለፕሬዚደንት /ቤት የሆነየመደ ወላቡ ዩኒቨርሲቲ የጥራት ማረጋገጫ ዳይሬክቶሬት  ተብሎ ተዋቀረ፡፡ ዳይሬክቶሬቱ በስሩ ሁለት አስተባባሪዎችን ማለትም የትምህርት ጥራት ማረጋገጫ አስተባባሪ እና የጥናትና ምርምር እና ደጋፊ የስራ ሂደት ጥራት ማረጋገጫ አስተባባሪ ይገኛሉ፡፡ ባሁኑ ጊዜ በጎባ ሪፌራል ሆስፕታል ጥራት ማረጋገጫ አስተባባሪ የተዋቀረ ሲሆን በሁሉም /ቤቶች ጥራት ማረጋገጫ አስተባባሪ እንዲመደብ/እነዲዋቀር ጥረት በማድረግ ላይ ይገኛል፡፡

The Directorate’s major Activities of 2007

1.     Workshop on Students Assessment and Cheating

This workshop was held with school directors and course team leaders for one day with the aim of identifying the main manifestations of cheating or academic dishonesty and suggesting the means of minimizing it. The discussion on the workshop focused on the following major areas.

1.1. Features of Cheating: The main purpose of cheating is to achieve higher score than they deserve. Cheating/academic dishonesty, which causes a serious problem in establishing academic quality in universities, takes different features. These include bribing to obtain or stealing un-administered test, substituting for another student or permitting one to substitute for oneself on exam, sharing answers for a take-home exam unless specifically permitted, storing, receiving, accessing subject matter in paper or electronic device unless permitted, and intentionally impairing concentration of other students and/or the instructor in exam hall.

1.2. Conditions that encourage cheating

It is widely agreed that authorities’ less measure to discourage such behavior, technological progress and popularization of the Internet, desire for good grades, lack of preparation, and time pressure and compromising  with cheating are the major conditions that encourage cheating.

1.3. Effects of Cheating/Academic Dishonesty

Effect of cheating or academic dishonesty is long-lasting and disastrous in many instances and its hindrance for growth is largely looming. It also adversely affects the accuracy of the evaluation process which ultimately impairs the quality of education.

1.4. Prevention Mechanisms

Cheating prevention mechanisms should aim at students, teachers and testing procedures so as promote a culture of academic integrity. Means of preventing cheating include responding for the entire class not for individuals if it is believed that an item needs clarification, avoiding doing other activities (reading books, reading exam itself, doing personal activities) during exam, using special seating arrangements, letting students know that cheating is unforgivable, communicating institutional rules, taking attendance, and informing the student that his/her behavior will be reported.

Academic Quality Assurance Coordinator making presentation on Academic Cheating

2. Pedagogical Induction Training for Instructors

The other activity carried out by the directorate in the foregoing year was the training held in collaboration with Academic Program Directorate on Pedagogical Induction Training for Instructors. The main focus of the directorate on this training was giving insights into concepts and management of Quality in Higher Education Institutions. Specifically, the role of higher education in the society, quality in higher education (historical background, conceptual issues and quality dimensions), importance of quality in higher education, managing quality in higher education (international practices and Ethiopian trends) were treated.

3. University Performance Survey and Panel Discussion

The directorate undertook University Performance Survey that was carried out in collaboration with specially designated committee. The targets of the survey were academic directorates, learning facilities, student services and infrastructure. The survey focused on examining the internal structure of the university, teaching-learning process, physical facilities and learning resources, student services, and continuing education. Based on the result of the survey, the directorate arranged a one-day panel discussion which involved top managers, academic directors, course team leaders, support staff directors/officers and support staff unit leaders.

Academic Vice President Making an opening speech

Management bodies leading the Discussion

The main aims of the panel discussion were:

        i.      To create awareness on the contribution of higher education to the national development and societal welfare;

      ii.      To create awareness on importance of quality in higher education institutions;

    iii.      To identify the major achievements and limitation/challenges of our university;

    iv.      To maximize the leadership role of the university management bodies at different levels using the identified achievements as inputs;

      v.      To reinforce the managerial role of the leaders to reverse the challenges and plan for improvement.

 University council on the Panel Discussion

Quality Assurance Directorate Director making presentation

Management bodies leading the Discussion

4. Formulation of University Quality Assurance Policy

The directorate office has designed framework for the quality assurance systems. The formulation of the policy involved institutionally established committee for examining the appropriacy of the inclusion of important elements in the document. The main objective of the policy is to provide the ground principles upon which the quality of teaching and learning process, research and community services will be enhanced and maintained. The policy also lays out the provisions for a systematic and regular quality assessment, enhancement and assurance systems for the University.

This policy is necessitated by the need for a quality assurance mechanism to ensure the relevance of all academic programs to the mission of the University through periodic reviews and summative evaluation (internally and externally) of all their elements such as curricula, courses/modules, instructional materials, teaching and learning effectiveness etc. The policy applies to both undergraduate and graduate programs at regular and continuing basis across the university unless arrangements of autonomy limit or restrict its application in certain academic units.

The policy addresses all areas of the University’s activities focusing on their contribution to and in alignment with the University’s Strategic Goals. It consists of eleven codes of practice, sets of procedures, and standards. Different documents of universities and other documents both local and abroad with good practices in academic governance were looked through to chart these codes of practice.

5. Institutional-Self Evaluation

As the name indicates a self evaluation is an assessment carried out by a university itself. A university’s Self Evaluation Document is a product of this self evaluation and is a principal reference source used by the HERQA team undertaking an institutional quality audit that will seek to verify claims made in a Self-Evaluation Document.

The Self Evaluation is carried out and the document is presented to HERQA so that HERQA plans, carries out and reports on an institutional quality audit of the university. Self Evaluation Document, which should present a balanced mix of description and self-analysis, is an essential requirement for a HERQA quality audit.

An institution's Self Evaluation Document is the principal reference document considered by a HERQA external audit team undertaking an institutional quality audit. It is a crucial document that informs the institutional quality audit and arises from a HEI’s self evaluation.

In line with institutional self-evaluation, a separate team of seven members was nominated by the President Office. The taskforce composition comprises one representative from higher management, one representative from support staff, one representative from academic staff, one representative from students and three members from the directorate. The team has prepared an action plan for the accomplishment of the evaluation, identified the focus areas to be addressed during the evaluation, developed various evaluation tools and collected data from various university community. In the data collection process, higher managers, middle level leaders, and lower level leaders (both academic and support) were targeted. Further, the academic and support staff as well as students were the participants of the evaluation.   

The Self Evaluation Document was approved by the university top management and submitted to HERQA. This Self Evaluation Document is believed to allow our university to set the context for the HERQA institutional quality audit by providing information on such aspects as university’s mission, vision, management, facilities and the nature and extent of its programs. It also help reflect on its strengths and weaknesses and make clear how it is taking steps to build on strengths and remedy weaknesses.

The university is expecting HERQA to plan and carry out an External Quality Audit.


Madda Walabu University, Quality Assurance Directorate