Annual Programme Monitoring Report (APMR)

Quality Assurance Documentation

The Programme Board of Examiners (PBoE) is a formal committee responsible for overseeing the assessment processes of each academic programme. Its primary duties include reviewing provisional marks submitted by examiners, ensuring the integrity and fairness of assessments, and making final decisions on student progression and award classifications. The PBoE ensures that assessments are conducted appropriately and is accountable for the quality and standards of the programme’s evaluations.

Annual Programme Monitoring Report (APMR) Handbook – Updated 2022

Summary:

The APMR Handbook outlines RUB’s process for systematic monitoring and evaluation of academic programmes. It provides templates, timelines, roles, and quality indicators used for annual reviews.

Importance:

It ensures consistency, quality assurance, and continuous improvement in programme delivery. GCIT uses it to monitor curriculum effectiveness and make data-driven enhancements.

RUB Annual Statistics Report (2022–2023 & 2024–2025)

Summary:

The APMR Handbook (2022) outlines the Royal University of Bhutan’s framework for continuous academic quality enhancement through annual monitoring of programmes. It mandates systematic data collection, reflective reviews, stakeholder feedback, and improvement planning. The process involves all levels—module tutors, programme committees, College Academic Committees (CAC), and the Programmes and Quality Committee (PQC). Each Annual Programme Monitoring Report (APMR) documents performance, identifies strengths, addresses concerns, and proposes action plans. The APMR ensures academic rigour, responsiveness to student needs, and alignment with national goals and RUB standards, making it a central component of quality assurance in RUB colleges, including GCIT.

Importance

• Ensures ongoing programme relevance, effectiveness, and academic integrity

• Supports data-driven decision-making and stakeholder accountability

• Encourages student and employer feedback integration

• Promotes good practices sharing across RUB colleges

• Provides a structured mechanism for programme improvement

• Aligns with RUB’s Wheel of Academic Law and national development goals
  
  

Highlights

• Annual Programme Monitoring Reports (APMRs) required for all programmes

• Based on factual data, student results, and external examiner input

• Focused on reflection, quality improvement, and actionable planning

• Utilizes a SMART action plan structure

• Module and programme-level monitoring linked to college-wide and RUB oversight

• Addresses full-time, part-time, and hybrid delivery modalities

• Emphasizes student engagement, resource effectiveness, and feedback analysis
  
  

Main Parts

1. Objectives & Aims of APM – Enhancing quality, addressing issues, evaluating outcomes

2. Data Collection – Student feedback, examiners, employer input, student performance

3. Reflection – On effectiveness, delivery, assessment, and enhancements

4. Opportunities for Development – Planned improvements at module, college, and RUB levels

5. Good Practices – Identifying and sharing across colleges

6. Programme & Module Monitoring – Semester plans, mid-/end-term reviews

7. APMR Templates – Reporting formats, performance analysis, and documentation

8. Committee Oversight – Review by CAC and PQC to ensure quality and consistency
   
   

Standard 7.1.2 – QA Monitoring and Evaluation, tailored for GCIT’s Institutional Self-Assessment Report:

7.1.2 QA Monitoring and Evaluation

Description:

Gyalpozhing College of Information Technology (GCIT) implements a structured Quality Assurance (QA) monitoring and evaluation system to ensure continuous improvement across academic, administrative, and support functions. The system is aligned with the Royal University of Bhutan’s (RUB) Quality Assurance Framework and is operationalized through a series of scheduled evaluations, performance tracking mechanisms, and stakeholder feedback loops.

Key Components:

• Annual Programme Monitoring Reports (APMR): Each academic program undergoes annual review based on student performance, faculty feedback, graduate outcomes, and external examiner reports. The APMRs are submitted to the Academic Committee and serve as the foundation for curriculum adjustments and pedagogical improvements.
  
  

• Individual Work Plans (IWP): Faculty and staff prepare and review IWPs each semester, outlining deliverables and goals aligned with strategic objectives. Performance is evaluated through mid-year and year-end reviews, ensuring accountability and development.
  
  

• Internal Audits and Compliance Checks: The QA team conducts internal audits of academic delivery, assessment practices, and administrative services. These are benchmarked against RUB’s standards and GCIT’s strategic goals, identifying areas for correction and improvement.
  
  

• Student and Stakeholder Feedback: Formal feedback is gathered through online forms and evaluation surveys covering academic delivery, services, facilities, and ICT support. Feedback results are presented in leadership meetings and used to inform decision-making.
  
  

• Tracer and Employability Studies: Graduate employability is tracked annually to assess the relevance and impact of GCIT programs. These findings guide curriculum reform, internship placements, and industry collaboration strategies.
  
  

• Reporting and Review Cycles: Monitoring outcomes are compiled into QA Progress Reports submitted to the college leadership and RUB’s Office of the Vice Chancellor. Corrective action plans are formulated and progress is tracked through a QA dashboard maintained by the QA team.
  
  

Supporting Evidence:

• Annual Programme Monitoring Reports
  
  

• Individual Work Plan templates and evaluations
  
  

• Internal Audit Reports (Academic & Services)
  
  

• Student and Industry Feedback Forms and Summaries
  
  

• Tracer Study Reports
  
  

• QA Dashboard and Progress Logs
  
  

GCIT’s QA monitoring and evaluation system ensures data-driven decision-making, transparency, and a culture of accountability. By regularly assessing performance and stakeholder satisfaction, the institution reinforces its commitment to delivering high-quality education and achieving continuous institutional improvement.