View full section - Introduction, Aim & Objectives [PDF]

Introduction

This document defines the principles, purposes and procedures that underpin the University of
Malta (UM)’s academic programme reviews and monitoring.

The following four principles for quality assurance (QA) in the European Higher Education Area
(ESG, 2015) are considered here:

1. Higher education institutions have primary responsibility for the quality of their provision and its assurance;
2. QA responds to the diversity of higher education systems, institutions, programmes and students;
3. QA supports the development of a quality culture;
4. QA takes into account the needs and expectations of students, all other stakeholders and society.

The Periodic Programme Review (PPR) is an integral component of the UM Internal QA. It is a rolling system of peer review, in which all academic programmes of the UM are reviewed on a five-to-six-year cycle. This policy and procedures do not preclude the Rector from calling for review of an academic programme for other purposes not covered here.

Institutional responsibility and pride inspire us to evaluate our academic programmes. This will lead to critical reflection of the relevance, appropriateness and utility of what we teach in relation to academic progress, the changing needs of the local economy as well as the global context in which the UM exists. QA also provides a platform for continuous enhancement through both internal and external stakeholders’ feedback which in turn contributes to improvements in content, learning outcomes, means of delivery, as well as mode/s of assessment.

The PPR process draws on Malta’s National Quality Assurance Framework for Further and Higher Education (NCFHE, 2015) and adheres to Internal QA standards as well as the principle of ongoing monitoring and periodic review of programmes to ensure objectives are met and respond to the needs of the students and society. Underpinning the PPR process and a prerequisite for success is continuous enhancement as embodied by the quality cycle.

Aim

The aim of the PPR is to monitor the quality and standards of the provision of the University’s
educational programmes, qualifications and courses. It provides the basis for ongoing quality
enhancement to assist in achieving excellence in learning, teaching and research at UM.

It is intended that PPRs are carried out in a spirit of open, collegial discussion through a developmental approach with the overarching aim of continuous enhancement. They are not only an auditing of past performance, but rather opportunities for transparent professional dialogue and meaningful reflection that steer forward planning to ensure that UM’s programmes are relevant, current and effective in providing a high-quality learning experience for all students and to equip them for success as graduates.

Objectives

The objectives of the PPR are to:

• Monitor the academic currency and relevance of the programmes within a societal perspective.
• Monitor the quality of the students’ learning and teaching experience.
• Identify, encourage and disseminate good practices.
• Identify challenges and areas for improvement and how to address them.
• Provide an opportunity for Faculties, Institutes, Centres and Schools (FICS) to evaluate the effectiveness of their academic practices and procedures for monitoring and enhancing quality and standards.
• Encourage the development and enhancement of these academic practices, in the context of current and emerging provision.
• Provide a report with robust evidence to guide continuous enhancement.
• Address and inform the University’s strategic planning process.
• Adhere to the National Quality Assurance Framework for Further and Higher Education in Malta as required by Subsidiary Legislation 607.03 and the European Standards and Guidelines (2015).

All FICS are reviewed systematically on a five-to-six-year cycle. A schedule of reviews is agreed by the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) and will be published on UM’s website.

FICS with programmes accredited by foreign professional, statutory and regulatory bodies are encouraged to explore appropriate ways of aligning the external activities with the PPR process. This might include the use of common documentation or joint processes which meet the needs of both the PPR and the external accreditation and evaluation.

The latest PPR schedule is available here: PPR Schedule (October 2025) [PDF]

Disclaimer: The PPR schedule is subject to change depending on the exigencies of the QAC and the FICS concerned. The QSU will inform FICS of their scheduled PPR at the start of the academic year and will likewise notify them should any postponement occur.

View full section - PPR Timeline [PDF]

The key stages of the PPR process revolve around the Quality Collaboration Visit (QCV) since it is the main highlight of this process that empowers professional dialogue and the exchange of experiences. The main stages are outlined below with indicative timeframes.

Prior to the Quality Collaboration Visit

6 months prior to Quality Collaboration Visit

• FICS are informed about the upcoming Periodic Programme Review (PPR).
• The Rector appoints two external Deans and/or Directors to contribute to the PPR process as members of the Internal Quality Review (IQR) panel (refer to Section 8 p. 7).
• The Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance appoints an IQR panel (refer to Section 8 p. 7) to oversee the PPR process.
• The Dean/Director, in consultation with the FICS Board, sets up a PPR Committee (refer to Section 9 p. 8) and identifies a person who will drive the process for the compilation of the Self-Evaluation Document (SED) (refer to Section 12 p. 12) and act as Chair.
• The IQR panel hold an initial meeting (refer to Section 13 p. 13) with the Dean/Director and the PPR Committee to discuss the PPR process and agree on a date for the Quality Collaboration Visit (refer to Section 14 p. 13).

6-8 weeks prior to the Quality Collaboration Visit

• The PPR Committee Chair submits the SED to the IQR panel.
• The documentation is reviewed by the IQR panel. Feedback on the SED will be provided to the PPR Committee Chair and where necessary, additional information and/or clarification may be requested by the panel.

The Quality Collaboration Visit

As agreed upon with FICS during initial meeting

• The IQR panel, in liaison with the Dean/Director, will schedule and organise meetings with:
  1. The Dean/Director and the PPR Committee;
  2. Group/s of staff;
  3. Group/s of student representatives on the FICS Board, Board of Studies, and Student Societies.
• During the meeting, the IQR panel discusses with the PPR Committee the identified key themes, challenges and good practices.

After the Quality Collaboration Visit

2-4 weeks after the Quality Collaboration Visit

• FICS, in liaison with the QSU, schedule and organise the Stakeholders’ Meeting (refer to Section 14 p. 14)

4-8 weeks after the Stakeholders’ Meeting

• The IQR panel drafts a final PPR report (refer to Section 15 p. 15) for each programme reviewed, to collate the commendations and recommendations for enhancement. This draft report is subsequently forwarded to the PPR Committee for feedback. The PPR Committee, in liaison with the FICS Board and/or the Board of Studies, draws up an action plan indicating how the recommendations will be addressed.

4-8 weeks after the receipt of the PPR Report

• The IQR panel reviews the action plan and finalises the PPR report, in liaison with the PPR Committee if necessary. The report is then presented to the Senate at its subsequent meeting.

One year after the PPR Report and action plan are approved by the Senate

• The PPR report and action plan as approved by the University Senate is to be presented to the FICS Board and/or the Board of Studies.

One year after submission of action plan

• The QAC through the QSU will request FICS to provide year-on updates on the implementation progress of the action plan. These updates are also reflected in the subsequent Annual Programme Reviews.

View full section - The Role of the IQR Panel [PDF]

The Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance will appoint an IQR panel which will normally comprise:

1. One or more members of staff from the Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) and/or Quality Support Unit (QSU);
2. Two student representatives external to FICS undergoing the PPR process;
3. Two Deans or Directors nominated by the Rector and who are external to FICS.

The primary role of this panel is to drive the PPR process and ensure that the quality and standards of all UM programmes are maintained. The IQR panel shall organise an initial meeting with the FICS PPR Committee to discuss and clarify the PPR process as well as provide guidance on how the information will be collected, analysed, interpreted and used for the purpose of continuous enhancement. The role of the IQR panel will also include:

1. ensuring that the PPR process follows a genuinely developmental approach which provides an opportunity for FICS to review and, in partnership with the PPR Committee, identify ways of enhancing current practices, systems and structures;
2. ensuring that UM’s policies and procedures are operating as intended to safeguard academic standards and are providing a high-quality learning experience for all students;
3. meeting in a timely manner with FICS for an initial meeting to discuss the PPR process;
4. keeping the FICS PPR Committee informed and providing guidance as required throughout the whole PPR process;
5. reviewing the effectiveness of the FICS self-evaluation mechanisms in sustaining quality enhancement of the programmes;
6. reviewing and evaluating the SED submitted by the FICS;
7. providing feedback on learning, teaching and assessment practices;
8. identifying good practices and areas for improvements;
9. participating in the Stakeholders’ Meeting (SM);
10. preparing the PPR report with clear commendations and recommendations;
11. reviewing and evaluating the FICS enhancement action plan.

View full section - The Role of the PPR Committee [PDF]

Upon being informed about the upcoming PPR, the Dean or Director will need to establish a PPR Committee. This may be an already established Board of Studies. The decision on the composition of the PPR Committee shall be driven by practical considerations, such as the number of programmes for review, the size of the FICS, etc. The PPR Committee will be chaired by a person who shall be tasked with driving this process in a timely manner. The Chair of the PPR Committee will act as a point of reference and coordinate the collection of data and material. The Chair is responsible for compilation of the SED with input from colleagues. Students should also be consulted and the Faculty Board/Board of Studies should be given the opportunity to comment on the SED prior to submission.

The PPR Committee shall be responsible for:

1. drawing up a list of persons who may contribute towards and who may have an interest in the quality of the programme in view of their relationship to its subject matter;
2. engaging with all members of staff associated with the delivery and management of the programmes;
3. identifying the type of information to be collected from various stakeholders. The data collection needs to be wide enough to allow for a fair and balanced evaluation of the strengths and areas for enhancement of the identified programme;
4. deciding upon the relevant various stakeholders and the various modes of data collection (such as focus group interviews or discussions, peer collaboration, surveys, etc.);
5. planning a timeline for the effective collection of data in a timely manner;
6. analysing the data collected and eliciting pertinent findings;
7. collating data and information in the form of a SED.

View full section - PPR Evidence Data [PDF]

1. Idealised images of the programme & intended outcomes

Each programme has documented evidence of its focus, intended competency achievements, and learning outcomes. This documentation – often fragmented in the Stage One/Stage Two proposal forms which are submitted to the Programme Validation Committee (PVC) with respect to any new and substantially revised programmes of study, the prospectus documents, and other informational materials – present an idealised vision of what the programme intends to achieve. A synthesis of this documentation provides a starting point for any gap analyses and actions that may be undertaken during the determination of the merit and worth of the programme.

2. Board of Studies minutes & outcomes from Annual Programme Reviews

As per UM Regulations, every programme (both undergraduate and postgraduate) must have a Board of Studies. This BoS oversees the day-to-day management of the programme including distribution of study-units, delivery of instruction, results, etc. At the end of each academic year the BoS will carry out an Annual Programme Review (APR), to formalise evaluation of and feedback about the programme for the previous year. This material, together with the minutes, discussions, and recommendations of the BoS could be used by the PPR Committee as a brief historical background of the programme highlighting achievements and/or issues and concerns.

3. External Examiners’ reports & Board of Examiners’ minutes

A summary of the issues arising from External Examiners’ reports and Boards of Examiners’ meetings provides information about accomplishments, problem identification and assessment from both an internal and external perspective. Any action identified as a result of such reports and comments should also be outlined here.

4. Current students’ reactions & feedback including study-unit evaluations

Students are major stakeholders of any academic programme. Their reflections on experiences, taken judiciously within context, can offer a number of useful pointers, indicating both strengths and areas for development. A summary of the issues raised through the student feedback exercises (both at study-unit level and prgramme level), together with issues raised by student representatives on the BoS and the FICS Board, represent further evidence of programme operation. The PPR Committee should consider whether the feedback was satisfactory, what strengths and areas for development were identified, whether any issues for concern were raised, and what action has been or should be taken as a result of feedback. Focus groups with current students can enrich knowledge about programme implementation. Furthermore, when possible, representative examples of student feedback could strengthen the documentation of student reflections on experiences.

Student beneficiaries of our programmes are often a heterogeneous group. Some attend a programme of study-units as their main area of study while others take a subset of the study-units as their main ordinary area, their subsidiary area or even as optional units. When collecting information from students, it is advisable to keep these motivational differences in mind.

5. Alumni reactions within the past 5 years (dissertations, employment, further studies, etc.)

Alumni of the programme contribute a long-term perspective of the merit and worth of a programme. What kind of employment do graduates of the programme enter upon leaving the programme? What career paths have they taken and how long does it take alumni to progress in their career? Do the knowledge and skills acquired during the degree match the jobs they obtain? Do any students proceed to create their own enterprise? What proportion of students proceed to read for further studies and what proportion is unemployed over time? How does this compare with unemployment rates for graduates of other programmes? Is there any evidence of a mismatch in what is being taught to students and the demands and needs of the labour market and, if yes, what action is planned to address such a discrepancy?

Honours undergraduate programmes normally require a dissertation in partial fulfilment of the degree requirements. The dissertations themselves can be evidence of rigour, academic stature and quality. A brief overview of the topics covered and their respective reports can provide ample evidence of student work in a particular programme. This is even more the case for taught postgraduate programmes which also include a dissertation. One might consult the dissertations with their respective reports (especially those of the external examiners) as further evidence of the type and quality of work generated by the programme.

6. Resident & visiting lecturers’ reactions

Academics, whether resident or visiting, can also provide their perception and experience of the programme. They can speak of their own involvement with students, the support they receive from the University and the FICS involved. They can address the quality of interaction among faculty and students.

7. External Stakeholders (business, industry, beneficiaries, professional associations, etc.)

External stakeholders such as professional associations (where relevant), beneficiaries and employers offer another set of perspectives and reactions to the programme. Although one should not expect employers to make a clear distinction between education and training, they contribute pivotal information about the programme. Similar caveats need to be present when collecting information from beneficiaries. The experience and perceptions of these groups could be collected through reports or focus groups as appropriate.

8. Data about students' profiles and life-cycle

An overall summary of the applicants’ profile and numbers at entry point provides evidence of the target audience of the programme. Details such as age, gender, full-time/part-time status and students declaring a disability can point to gaps that require remedy when determining worth. Other indicators of student behaviour in the programme include a summary of progression and attrition rates, based upon the percentage of those enrolled who are subsequently successful at each stage of the programme. This data is now available to FICS through the Microsoft Power BI software.

The data collection exercise provides a collage of perceptions, attitudes and experiences of the programme’s stakeholders. It is the PPR Committee’s responsibility to capture the richness of nuances and reactions presented together with the motivations expressed by the different stakeholders. The main goal is to analyse the incoming information, interpret it and use it in meaningful ways to address any identified gaps by proposing actions to be taken to steer continuous enhancement.

It is highly probable that, in collecting such diverse information, the PPR Committee encounters conflicting information about the programme arising from the different interests involved. The PPR Committee, while being loyal to the diversity of voices, should exercise its judgement in the presentation of the overall academic picture of the programme.

View full section - The Self-Evaluation Document (SED) [PDF]

The document should aim to be around 12-15 pages and should not exceed 20 pages (excluding
appendices). A full SED template is available here [Word], and the Assessment Brief template is available here [Word].

The key document produced by the PPR Committee is the SED. The preparation of the SED is a very important part of the PPR and should include ‘core’ information presented in a structured way. The SED should go beyond a mere description of the programme, providing an analytical and evaluative perspective on the programme under review. It is also the key document through which the FICS conveys a snapshot about itself. The preparation of the SED also serves as a starting point for critical reflection by the FICS about the way it is organised and managed, the mechanisms used to evaluate its activities and how these are sustaining continuous enhancement. It is an opportunity for the FICS to trigger an open professional dialogue with internal and external stakeholders about what is working well, less well, and what might be done to address areas for development.

It is essential that the SED is discussed at FICS Board or Board of Studies level, to ensure a collaborative approach that involves student representative/s sitting on such boards. The Chair of the PPR Committee or BoS should also share the SED with all the academic staff involved in the programme under review for their feedback and comments.

Once the SED is finalised and submitted to the QSU, it is shared with the IQR panel members who will read through it and start analysing the main good practices and areas for development of the programme. Following this analysis, the IQR panel holds a meeting to share their feedback on the SED and further discuss their thoughts on the programme through an open dialogue. This analysis and discussion of the SED paves the way for the Quality Collaboration Visit.

It is customary for the SEDs to be shared with the external stakeholders together with their invitation to attend the Stakeholders’ Meeting, for them to better understand the current situation of the programme upon which their feedback is being sought. However, in certain exceptional circumstances FICS may elect not to share SEDs with external stakeholders. In such cases, a reasonable justification should be provided to the QSU.

View full section - The Initial Meeting [PDF]

The QSU on behalf of the IQR panel, in liaison with Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance, schedules an initial meeting with FICS Dean/Director and the relevant Heads of Departments and/or programme coordinators. The aim of this initial meeting is to discuss, clarify any queries and plan ahead for the PPR process. It also serves as the first point of contact between members of the IQR panel and the FICS undergoing a PPR.

Initial meetings for all PPRs scheduled for a particular academic year should take place at the beginning of that academic year. During this meeting, the main points of discussion will be as follows:

• Explaining the PPR’s rationale within the context of UM’s QA framework
• Introducing the members of the IQR panel
• Outlining the PPR process throughout the academic year
• Sharing the SED template and briefly explaining the various sections
• Presenting the draft list of programmes for review as prepared by QSU, to be discussed with the Dean and finalised
• Enquiring whether a separate meeting with academic staff involved in the programmes should be organised
• Discussing with the Dean to agree on a date for the following:
  • Deadline for SED(s) submission
  • Quality Collaboration Visit(s) (academics)
  • Stakeholders’ Meeting(s)
• Requesting the contact details of the student representatives on the FICS Board / Board(s) of Studies to be contacted by QSU for the student meeting as part of the Quality Collaboration Visit
• Requesting the FICS to start identifying and preparing a list of external stakeholders (to include name & surname, designation and email address) that will be invited to attend the Stakeholders’ Meeting(s)
• Sharing the relevant PPR links on the UM website

View full section - The Quality Collaboration Visit (QCV) [PDF]

The Quality Collaboration Visit (QCV) is normally held over one day. Exceptions to this may be made when a large number of programmes are being considered and this will be discussed and agreed upon with FICS. The QCV is intended to be a positive and valuable process for the FICS. It aims to recognise and commend good practice, and support the enhancement of provision and the student learning experience. Colleagues will be encouraged to discuss the operation of their FICS, reflect on issues and challenges, and highlight examples of good practice worthy of dissemination across the University. Colleagues are warmly encouraged to contribute as fully and openly as possible in meetings. Aspects evidenced as routinely going well may not be discussed during this visit but may feature in the final PPR report. The IQR panel will focus on innovative activities and areas of interest identified in the SED as the key themes. Other discussion topics of interest may emerge during the course of the visit. Practical arrangements for the visit may be found here [PDF].

To reap the most benefit from the QCV, it is organised in two sessions:

Academic meeting: The academic members of the IQR panel (i.e., the External Deans/ Directors and the QAC/QSU members) meet with the FICS Dean/Director and relevant academic staff. For this meeting, the FICS Dean/Director is encouraged to invite members of staff involved in the PPR process, which generally includes the relevant Heads of Departments, the respective programme coordinators and the FICS Manager/Officer-in-Charge. The meeting is usually chaired by one of the External Deans on the IQR panel, who should ensure that the meetings focuses on professional dialogue, and that all the participants are given an opportunity to share their views. During the meeting, the IQR panel presents its preliminary comments regarding the good practices identified from the SED(s), as well as the main lines of inquiry that would merit further discussion and clarification.

Student meeting: The student members of the IQR panel hold a separate meeting with a representation of students of the programmes(s) under review to collect their feedback. The QSU assists the student members of the IQR panel in the organisation of this meeting, which essentially takes the form of a feedback session. Efforts are made to ensure that the meeting will involve a good representation of students from each programme under review, also taking into account students from different years and gender balance. The students attending this meeting may include the student representatives on the FICS Board and, Board(s) of Studies, as well as representatives from student societies relevant to the programmes.

The student meeting is a safe space for students to provide their honest feedback on the programmes under review, and in an effort to ensure that the students are comfortable in speaking their minds, no academic or administrative member of staff will attend the meeting, which will be overseen completely by the student members of the IQR panel. Furthermore, any views shared during this meeting are anonymised and governed by strict confidentiality. In fact, following the meeting, the student members of the IQR panel will compile a brief general report outlining the feedback received, without including any names. This report will form another important evidentiary document which will assist the IQR panel in its deliberations on the programmes.

View full section - The Stakeholders' Meeting [PDF]

The Stakeholders’ Meeting (SM) is to be organised and hosted in a timely manner by the FICS undergoing the PPR process in liaison with the QSU. This meeting should include all members of the IQR panel and will be chaired by the Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance or their delegate. The SM may be held in person, online or in hybrid form, although the first option is preferable. A 2-hour session is generally recommended for the SM.

The FICS will share the agenda with all participants prior to the meeting. The FICS will also share the finalised SED unless, for justified reasons communicated to the IQR panel, the FICS opts for not providing the document to the stakeholders. If the PPR concerns multiple programmes, the agenda should allow for an equal period of time to discuss each programme. Time management is critical, and the Chair should ensure that each and every participant has the time and opportunity to offer their observations.

By way of introduction, the FICS Dean/Director may make a short presentation to briefly set the backdrop for the meeting and present the SED. This should not take more than fifteen minutes, since the main purpose of this meeting is to receive feedback from the stakeholders through a healthy discussion. The QSU shall take minutes of the proceedings, which will then be shared with the FICS Dean/Director.

During the meeting, participants are encouraged to provide three main forms of feedback:

1. Commendations highlighting good practice on the part of the FICS;
2. Recommendations and suggestions for enhancement on current practices; and
3. Remarks and suggestions that look at the wider picture and may involve new initiatives, or any situations requiring immediate action through the imposition of conditions.

Participants may base their observations both on their personal experience stemming from their relationship with the FICS, as well as with regard to the content of the SED prepared by the FICS.

View full section - The PPR Report [PDF]

The final PPR report will be prepared by the IQR panel and will include the summary of findings and outcomes emerging from the SED, the Quality Collaboration Visit and the Stakeholders’ Meeting (SM). The PPR report is submitted to the FICS Dean/Director to be discussed internally at FICS Board and/or Board of Studies level, and to prepare an action plan as to how it shall be addressing the recommendations in the PPR report. Should the FICS not agree with any of the tabled recommendations, a clear justification is required by its PPR Committee.

The PPR report and action plan is submitted to the IQR panel, which may revert to FICS for further discussions or clarifications if required. The finalised PPR report is submitted to the Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance and the Pro-Rector for Academic Affairs for their consideration, and then presented to the Senate.

FICS are responsible for the implementation of action plans arising from the PPR. However, in cases where urgent action is required, the Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance and/or the Pro- Rector for Academic Affairs, in consultation with the Rector, may reserve the right to execute and/or monitor such implementation.

The PPR report will include the following:

1. The summary of the findings emerging from the SED, the Quality Collaboration Visit and the
Stakeholders’ Meeting will be organised as follows:

Commendations: these are the areas identified as good practice or strengths of the programme. Good practice may be defined as effective practice beyond that defined by regulations or policy such as any innovations that enhance learning and teaching, the student experience in general or any practice which was developed to meet a particular need. Strengths of a programme may be identified as any particular positive features of that programme and that may be sustaining the UM’s Strategic Plan 2020-2025.

Recommendations: key recommendations for enhancement of the programme under review expressed in terms of actions to be taken by FICS against a realistic timeframe. In some instances the PPR report may also include suggestions from the IQR panel for the Board of Studies to consider incorporating in its future planning.

Conditions: where required, measures and conditions may be specified to fully support quality and standards. Such conditions must be addressed through immediate action and/ or in a short timeframe, as they may seriously affect the quality of the programme as well as overall student experience and/or wellbeing.

2. Action Plan

The FICS will be asked to submit an action plan to outline intended actions and timescales to address the recommendations in the PPR report. The action plan should be discussed with the FICS Board, members of staff, the BoS and where possible, the students prior to submission. The action plan should include a statement on the steps taken to share with staff and where possible with students.

The action plan is to follow SMART criteria (i.e. the action should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound). A SMART action plan is a structured approach which outlines specific objectives and the steps required to achieve them. Incorporating SMART criteria into an action plan provides a roadmap that is clear, measurable, realistic, and timebound, increasing the likelihood of achieving the set goals effectively and efficiently.

The IQR panel will review the plan to ensure that the recommendations have been adequately addressed, and that staff and students received feedback on the outcomes of the review and were consulted on the production of the plan.

The action plan for the areas of enhancement identified through the PPR report must feature in the FICS Annual Programme Review and will be followed up by the Pro-Rector for Quality Assurance and the Pro-Rector for Academic Affairs as deemed appropriate.