Evaluation and Monitoring of a Sample of Regulated-Access Programmes Accredited for the 2017 Session

IScope of the mission

The National Agency for the Evaluation and Quality Assurance of Higher Education and Scientific Research (ANEAQ), established under Law No. 80-12 promulgated on 31 July 2014, launched its first evaluation round for public and private training programmes in 2017. The monitoring mission presented in this report concerns regulated-admission university programmes accredited during the 2017 session.

The initiative was undertaken within the framework of Law No. 01-00 on the organisation of higher education, the 2015–2030 Strategic Vision for Reform and the 2017–2021 action plan of the department responsible for higher education and scientific research. Ministerial memoranda dated 8 September and 29 December 2017 reiterated the requirements for transparency in programme admission and the importance of facilitating experts’ visits.

IIMission objectives

To assess the implementation and operation of a representative sample of university programmes accredited in 2017 after their first semester.

• Examine the actual operating arrangements of the programmes and their specific characteristics.
• Identify qualitative and quantitative comparative evidence based on strengths and areas for improvement.
• Identify good practices that can be replicated at other institutions.

IIIMethodology followed

The Agency used proportionate stratified sampling by university and institution. The report mentions 493 regulated-admission programmes accredited in 2017, of which 158 were selected for monitoring, representing 32%. The visits covered 51 institutions organised into eight regional groups, based on the number of programmes per university and their geographical proximity.

Distribution of expert teams by regional group

The committees’ work was based on an evaluation grid developed by the Agency. The experts compared accredited programme descriptions with notices, timetables, admission lists, entrance-examination documents, attendance records, minutes, agreements and other available administrative and pedagogical records. Discussions with willing programme coordinators supplemented the document review.

• Initial scoping meeting with the management of each institution.
• Review of documents and joint completion of the evaluation grid.
• Feedback and clarification meeting, with missing documents submitted subsequently where necessary.

IVConduct of the mission

At the universities concerned, the eight expert teams began with meetings bringing together university presidents, deans and directors, and pedagogical and administrative managers. The objectives were explained: to gather information about the operation of programmes in order to support organisational, material, pedagogical and teaching improvements.

The report highlights the engagement of stakeholders and the cooperation of the officials involved. The availability of documents and support from university presidents, institutions and ANEAQ facilitated the visits. Difficulties included certain limitations of the chosen approach and the occasional unavailability of documents, notably minutes of meetings, transcripts, entrance-examination files or lists of enrolled students.

VEvaluation findings

1. Compliance with pedagogical standards

The programmes examined appear broadly compliant with the CNPN and their accredited descriptions, although certain discrepancies call for corrective action and more formalised management methods.

• The lack of standardised procedures, dashboards, information systems and official documents hinders consistent programme monitoring.
• Some programmes are managed independently, without sufficient consultation with the institution’s management.
• Admission criteria or the appointment of teachers and module coordinators do not always match the approved descriptions.
• Module content, actual teaching hours and assessment arrangements may differ from the accredited arrangements.
• Tutorials (TD) and practical work (TP) are sometimes insufficiently organised or documented, even when provided for in the descriptions.
• Some programmes were not launched because of late accreditation or insufficient applicants.
• Difficulties involving teaching supervision, coordination, internship arrangements and financing of field visits were reported.
• Lists of scholarship students and certain monitoring information remain of limited availability.
• Positive practices were also identified: minutes documenting changes in teaching staff, internal regulations and decisions governing programme openings.

2. Compliance of management with programme descriptions

VIPartnership and cooperation

The report identifies a structural weakness in socio-economic partnerships directly benefiting accredited programmes. Several institutions have academic or professional agreements, but these are sometimes old and rarely translated into operational actions or agreements specific to each programme.

According to the report, professionally oriented programmes require greater involvement of socio-economic stakeholders, from programme design through internships to graduates’ entry into employment. Diversifying and strengthening these partnerships is therefore a priority for improvement.

VIIConclusions and recommendations

To improve the evaluation mission

• Further formalise the evaluation mission: terms of reference, specifications, ethics, methods, resources, expected results and data management.
• Ensure the availability of final signed programme descriptions, accreditation letters and all supporting documents from the relevant bodies.
• Review the administrative records of teachers and other contributors, especially external staff, and verify that lectures, tutorials and practical work have actually taken place.
• Visit laboratories and teaching facilities to assess pedagogical resources.
• Involve teachers, other contributors and students more closely in monitoring and evaluation.
• Refine the evaluation grid and questionnaire, particularly concerning human resources and technical and administrative aspects.
• Arrange interviews with coordinators, heads of department and students, and prepare complete files for each programme before every visit.

To strengthen institutional management

• Assign administrative management of programmes more rigorously to the relevant academic services.
• Standardise, circulate and update timetables, teaching calendars and examination-board procedures.
• Improve monitoring of module components, teaching hours and knowledge assessment arrangements.
• Inform students transparently about objectives, content, teaching hours and evaluation procedures.
• Strengthen human resources and equipment and provide continuing professional development for teachers.
• Verify that the partnership agreements cited in accreditation files are genuinely operational.
• Prepare an evidence file for each programme ahead of any new mission.
• Clearly define responsibilities among institution heads, coordinators, departments and academic services.

General recommendations on programme quality

• Review and clarify the CNPN and programme specifications, particularly arrangements for organisation and management.
• Harmonise standards, scientific content, programme descriptions and the teaching resources actually used.
• Ensure appropriate numbers, academic ranks and specialisations of the teachers delivering each module.
• Re-examine the role of oral examinations in Master’s admission and centralised admission procedures.
• Develop transferable skills (“soft skills”) and language learning.
• Establish performance indicators and consolidated programme maps at institutional and national levels.
• Strengthen multidisciplinarity, mobility, pathways between programmes and resource sharing.
• Involve students, university partners and socio-economic stakeholders in improvement initiatives.
• Develop internships, final-year projects, entrepreneurship and graduate employment monitoring.
• Monitor student entry and exit flows: success, repetition, dropout and employment.
• Improve student living conditions: libraries, study areas, transport, health, cultural and sporting activities.

Specific recommendations

• Recognise coordinators’ work and provide appropriate incentive mechanisms.
• Facilitate professionals’ participation in Master’s and professional Bachelor’s teaching through suitable financial arrangements.
• Formalise monitoring of attendance and teaching hours actually delivered.
• Rank successful applicants by merit and have final admission lists signed by the head of the institution.
• Diversify and update communication channels for students and institutional websites.
• Hold periodic meetings with students to gather their observations and complaints.
• Involve students in self-evaluations carried out for accreditation renewals.
• Adopt a formal internal quality assurance system covering each programme’s entire life cycle, from development to monitoring.

VIII.aAnnex I — Evaluation grid and form

Annex I of the report presents a detailed evaluation grid with criteria, response boxes, comment areas and a summary form. The following sections reproduce its elements without introducing new results or presuming any answers.

VIII.bAnnex II — Programmes evaluated by university

Annex II of the original document (pages 27–38) lists the programmes evaluated, giving the institution, degree, titles in French and, in some cases, Arabic, as well as options. To make the information easier to read online, clearly legible French-language titles are grouped by university below. Arabic titles, options and untranscribed rows remain available in the complete source document.

The annex also mentions programmes whose titles appear only in Arabic. These include programmes in law, humanities, Islamic studies, management, natural sciences and other fields that are not fully transcribed in the abbreviated lists above.