







































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Qualitative Review of Monitoring and Evaluation 

Practices in Higher Institutions in Uganda 

Roberts Wandera Otyola, John Bukenya, Proscovia Nalwadda, Edward 

Kamaga, Godfrey Bagamba Wamani, Suzan Bantebya &Mukisa 

Jonathan 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

31 
 

Qualitative Review of Monitoring and Evaluation Practices in Higher 

Institutions in Uganda 

Roberts Wandera Otyola2, John Bukenya1,3, Proscovia Nalwadda1, Edward Kamaga1, Godfrey 

Bagamba Wamani1, Suzan Bantebya1 &Mukisa Jonathan4 

1PhD student, East African School of Higher Education Studies and Development, College of Education 

and External Studies, Makerere University 
2Senior Lecturer, Department of Educational and Social Psychology, School of Education, 

College of Education and External Studies, Makerere University 
3Assistant Lecturer, Institute of Open, Distance and eLearning, College of Education and External 

Studies, Makerere University 
4Masters student of Education in Early Childhood Development in Makerere university 

 

Article history 

Submitted 11.09.2023 Revised Version Received 14.11.2023 Accepted 15.11.2023 

 

Abstract 

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to investigate 

how the practices employed in the Monitoring and 

Evaluation processes contribute to the overall goal of 

Higher Education Institutions in Uganda. It was 

carried out using a qualitative document review 

method. The study was guided by five objectives: to 

examine the legal framework of monitoring and 

evaluation in Uganda’s higher education institutions, 

to formulate monitoring and evaluation policy in 

higher education institutions, to assess the 

establishment of constituent colleges of Makerere 

university, to examine how monitoring and 

evaluation policy affects university teaching quality, 

and to assess how the M & E policies are performed 

at the university senates and council committees.  

Findings: The findings of the study show that the 

Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) 

has prioritized the concept of quality assurance in the 

sector at all education levels. Each college at 

Makerere University is administered as a semi-

autonomous entity within the larger university and the 

overall supervision of the college is the responsibility 

of the university council and it is the responsibility of 

College leadership to conduct regular M&E of 

services offered in their units to ensure that quality is 

not compromised. Student evaluation of teaching 

(SET) is used in Makerere university where 

questionnaires are given to students to evaluate the 

quality of instruction by their instructors at the end of 

every lecture, course or semester. There is also peer 

observation of teaching where colleagues from the 

same department, subject or discipline help in giving 

and receiving feedback from one another on the 

quality of teaching and effectiveness.  

Recommendations: However, the study 

recommends that monitoring and evaluation should 

be implemented even in the secondary and primary 

education, institutions should have both internal and 

external evaluations for consistency and 

transparency, more research should be done on the 

challenges facing the established policies in higher 

education institutions of learning in Uganda.  

Key words:  Monitoring, Evaluation, Higher 

education, Learning, Institutions 

 

 

 

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9264-9899
https://doi.org/10.47672/ejh.1653


European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

32 
 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

The last two decades have seen an ever-increasing number and variety of models, procedures and 

instruments used in quality management and quality assurance (QA) in higher education institutions 

(HEIs) (Leiber, Stensaker & Harvey, 2018). This is attributed to the fact that quality programmes are a 

central management function in all HEIs the world over. The European Standards and Guidelines, ESG 

(2015) attribute this increasing interest in quality and standards on the rapid growth of higher education 

and its cost to the public and private purse.  

HEIs in Uganda, just like in the world elsewhere, have realized that the provision of higher education is 

product-driven, influenced by competition both locally and internationally. Thus, the need for examining 

the quality of services offered in universities and other HEIs is expected to redefine the products (such as 

quality of graduates) and ultimately lead to customer satisfaction. The Ugandan government has also 

realized that its survival of the development agenda is dependent on the long-term survival of the quality 

of graduates from her universities (Government of Uganda, 2020).  

In response to this full understanding, the Ugandan government established the National Council for 

Higher Education (NCHE) and charged it with the mandate of, among others monitoring, evaluating and 

regulating higher education institutions (Government of Uganda, UOTIA, 2001). Consequently, all HEIs 

in Uganda are regulated, monitored and evaluated for compliance to academic standards by the NCHE 

with close involvement of institutional leadership, including the university Senate, Council and Quality 

Assurance directorate (Mayanja, 2020). 

NCHE (2018) shows that the increase in enrolment in the higher education sector in Uganda has created 

many problems including the drop in quality for higher education. Other authors such as Martin and Stella 

(2007) cite the globalization forces, privatization, the genesis of academic fraud, education marketization, 

increasing demand for accountability and internationalization as factors responsible for the urgent need 

for educational monitoring and evaluation in institutions of higher learning. 

The challenge with establishing a monitoring and evaluation system in Ugandan HEIs results from the 

fact that education services are often intangible and difficult to measure since the outcome is reflected in 

the transformation of individuals in their knowledge, their characteristics, and their behaviour (Hamzah, 

Purwati, & Kadir, 2018; Tsinidou, Gerogiannis & Fitsilis, 2010). The other factor that complicates the 

issues of implementing a monitoring and evaluation mechanism in Ugandan universities is linked to the 

failure to have a common accepted definition of quality that applies specifically to the higher education 

sector (Michael, 1998) and to compound all this, issues of autonomy in universities make the whole 

process complicated (Tsinidou, et al. 2010). A combination of the factors above, coupled with the infancy 

stage of the Ugandan higher education system, have compelled the NCHE to concentrate on institutional 

and programme accreditation based on reports from NCHE-appointed inspectors and assessors of HEI 

facilities and resources of the institution (NCHE, 2018) to conduct M & E.  

Definitions of M&E Concepts 

The term monitoring and evaluation, usually abbreviated as M&E, consists of two constituent words - 

monitoring and evaluation. Monitoring is defined as a continuous function that uses systematic collection 

of data on some specified indicators to provide management and the main stakeholders of an ongoing 

development intervention with indications of progress and achievement of objectives and progress in the 

use of allocated funds (Chirau, Tirivanhu, Waller, & Robertson, 2018). It is the systematic collection, 

analysis and subsequent use of information collected, so that policies and programmes/projects are 

effective and the management is results-based (Goldman, Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022; Vision, 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

33 
 

2020). Monitoring can be understood as regular collection of information and data to measure progress of 

projects and activities, to enable us track performance and resource utilisation over time (Goldman, 

Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022). Monitoring enables effective decision-making, learning from past 

actions and ensures accountability for resources being used (Chirau, Tirivanhu, Waller, & Robertson, 

2018). 

Evaluation, on the other hand, is the process of determining the worth or significance of a development 

activity, policy, programme or project (Goldman, Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022; Chirau, Tirivanhu, 

Waller, & Robertson, 2018). Evaluation tells us how well the project has achieved its objectives and how 

much change in outcome can be directly linked to project evaluation. Evaluation assesses the information 

collected through monitoring in an objective manner in order to demonstrate whether activities and 

outcomes are relevant, effective, efficient, sustainable and whether desired impacts are being achieved 

(Chirau, Tirivanhu, Waller, & Robertson, 2018). 

After defining monitoring and evaluation separately, we now need a joint definition of monitoring and 

evaluation or M&E in short. M&E refers to a continuous management function for assessing if progress 

is made in achieving expected results, to spot bottlenecks in implementation and to highlight whether there 

are any unintended effects, including the positive and negative effects from an investment plan, 

programme or project, and its activities (Chirau, Tirivanhu, Waller, & Robertson, 2018). M&E focuses on 

assessment of performance of the institution’s strategic plans, and the sector’s investment plans with the 

help of a balance score card framework, using and analysing data from the institution’s own surveys and 

performance reports (Vision, 2040). Thus, M&E is an embedded concept, and part and parcel of every 

project and program design. M&E is a critical part of programme management and implementation cycle. 

M&E are complementary, both are necessary to engage and satisfy the range of stakeholders in any 

monitoring and evaluation intervention. This process enables effective governance of projects and 

programmes, demonstration of value for money and outcomes from funded programmes, continued 

learning resulting in continuous improvement; and transparency from inception through to the realization 

of outcomes and benefits (Goldman, Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022). 

Baguma (2017) outlines three ways of conceptualizing M&E. These include compliance M&E which is 

conducted by external oversight entities such as the National Council for Higher Education and the 

Department of Higher Education in the Ministry of Education and Sports. Social Accountability M&E is 

anchored on public accountability while internal M&E focuses on learning. He advocates for strong and 

effective institutions for ensuring compliance to systems, standards and procedures which form a results 

culture thereby guaranteeing quality service delivery (Baguma, 2017, p.xi).  

He further advocates for initiatives aimed at providing information to clients (students) on what they are 

entitled to, so as to increase their participation in social accountability initiatives and contribute to quality 

service delivery (p.xi). These initiatives may include the appointment or election of student and staff 

representatives to such committees and boards where performance of staff is monitored and evaluated 

such as the college academic board, university senate and council (Makerere University, 2012). As a tool 

for learning, M&E improves organizational processes and performance thereby contributing to quality 

service delivery (Baguma, 2017). 

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 

Chirau, Tirivanhu, Waller, & Robertson (2018) have shown that a M&E plan is the basis for evidence-

based decision making. It helps organizations catch problems early since projects always do not go as 

planned. So, a well-designed M&E plan helps projects to stay on track. The M&E plan helps projects to 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

34 
 

define project scope, identify the risk and design mitigation measures. As monitoring is a regular activity, 

it helps to see problems early and we can accordingly devise solutions to mitigate them (Baguma, 2017). 

Secondly, M&E can help to ensure that resources are used effectively. The information collected through 

the monitoring process helps us to determine if the resources are being utilized efficiently or they are being 

wasted. If the resources are being wasted, it can be prevented. May be the project did not consider such 

circumstances or the wastage was not foreseen and it was unveiled only during the implementation phase. 

So, M&E helps in effective management of resources (Government of Uganda, 2020; Uganda Vision 

2040).  

M&E can help organisations learn from the mistakes. Whereas mistakes and failures are part of every 

project and programme, a good M&E evaluation process provides a good record of everything that went 

right and everything that went wrong within a project. So, with good M&E system, we should be able to 

point out specific failures as opposed to just guessing the problem. So, in a way, we can all learn from our 

mistakes. M&E improves data-driven decision making. The M&E process provides us with essential 

information needed to make the best possible decisions. A good M&E can help us to identify mistakes 

and record success, to avoid the mistakes and replicate the success in future. A good M&E system helps 

organisations stay organized. A good M&E system details all the desired impact, outcome and output. All 

the matters for collection, distribution and analysis of information are also covered. So, M&E plan can 

help the team or organisation to be more organized and focused in their job. Lastly, a good M&E results 

in better transparency and accountability. With a constant track of activities, analysis and reporting on a 

project during the monitoring phase, there is more transparency as stakeholders are well-informed about 

the project and are not kept in dark.  

Developing a Results-based M&E System for Higher Education 

The term system (the M&E system) connotes the various interconnected parts that help us to achieve our 

objectives. The system includes the what, why, how and when of M&E, that is, what (indicators of what 

we are measuring), why do we measure them? how do we measure them? and when do we measure them? 

(CSNM, 2022).  All these are illustrated in Figure 1 below. 

 

Figure 1: A Comprehensive View of a Monitoring and Evaluation System 

Source: CSNM (2022)   



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

35 
 

A results-based M&E system has got three key words that we need to first understand; these are results, 

M&E; and system. By results we mean the achievements that have been made as a result of a project’s 

intervention. They can be short-to-medium term, short term or long term. These are the things we want to 

measure to get an understanding of whether there has been any substantial change (CSNM, 2022). M&E 

tries to assess and track whether there has been any change as a result of the project’s activities. 

M&E systems are central in effective management of higher education projects and programs because 

timely M&E is the source of information for upholding accountability and compliance by determining if 

the planned work plans and schedules are being complied with in line with the institutional and donor 

standards/guidelines. As the project implementers reflect on and share experiences and lessons learned, 

M&E also contributes to organizational learning and knowledge -sharing, resulting in gaining of 

full benefit of what to do and how to do it (CSNM, 2022).  

M&E provides management with accurate, evidence-based reporting that guides their decision-

making for improved performance of the project or programme. M&E provides beneficiaries of 

educational projects, such as the students and employers, with an opportun ity to give feedback 

about the intervention, their perceptions and what needs to change. M&E highlights what has been 

accomplished (achievements), builds morale and contributes to resource mobilisation  (CSNM, 

2022). A detailed M&E plan is developed as the project starts, documented clearly and shared with 

project implementers. It should be monitored throughout the project’s life.  

Why M&E is a Crucial Function in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) Management 

Education systems are designed to achieve specific purposes for which public resources are invested. 

Government and other stakeholders demand for accountability and value for money from schools and 

educators that receive a large proportion of the annual national budgetary resources allotted to the 

education sector. Each stakeholder, both internal and external, has got specific expectations about the 

quality of education and type of graduates churned out from a hi8gher education institution into the job 

market.  Universities, Colleges, Institutes; and Vocational, Technical and Business Schools are constantly 

being monitored for compliance or defiance on some of the indicators for accessible and quality education 

by both internal and external quality assurance agencies (Government of Uganda, 2011; GOU, Uganda 

Vision 2040). 

There are basic and applied skills, knowledge, values, and competences expected from a university 

graduate of the twenty-first century. The public, government, employers, parents/guardians, development 

partners (donors), and students themselves are concerned with questions such as what kind of Medical 

Doctor or Surgeon does Medical School X or Y churn out into our health facilities? What skills and 

competences in an Electrical, Mechanical, Civil or Building Engineer does a University X or Y impart? 

What kind of Lawyer from a certain University is competent enough to manage and represent clients in 

different cases before the Judiciary?  These and other questions focused on the purpose of education, the 

quality of education, the kind of graduate desired, the learning experiences, skills, knowledge and 

competences in the content received by learners from the start to the end of educational programmes; the 

need for twenty-first skills in learners such as creativity, innovativeness, technology (ICT) literacy and 

others are the major reasons justifying the need for M&E in HEIs (Government of Uganda, 2011; Uganda 

Vision 2040). 

Theoretical Perspective  

This study adopted the Systems theory which was proposed in the 1940's by the biologist Ludwig (von 

Bertalanffy, 1968) and furthered by Ross Ashby (Ashby, 1956). von Bertalanffy was both reacting against 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

36 
 

reductionism and attempting to revive the unity of science. He emphasized that real systems are open to, 

and interact with, their environments, and that they can acquire qualitatively new properties through 

emergence, resulting in continual evolution. The Systems Theory is an approach used in evaluation to 

understand complex social systems. The key concepts and principles of Systems Theory including holistic 

perspective, interconnectedness and interdependence, feedback loops, boundaries, and multiple 

perspectives. These key concepts and principles of Systems Theory provide a useful framework for 

analyzing the relationships and interdependencies between different components of a program or 

intervention. Systems Theory can help evaluators identify areas of strength and weakness, and develop 

strategies for program improvement. This study will however adopt all the three components under the 

interconnectedness and interdependence 

1.  Network analysis which involves mapping the relationships between different components of the 

system to understand how they are interconnected and interdependent; 

2. Dependency relationships which involve understanding how changes to one component of the 

system can affect other components of the system. 

3. Cross-system interactions which involve understanding how the system interacts with other systems 

and external factors, and how these interactions may affect the system’s functioning. 

The systems theory is known provides a holistic perspective on complex programs and interventions, 

allowing evaluators to understand the system as a whole and the interrelationships between its 

components. It is also useful in evaluating dynamic and complex systems, as it allows evaluators to 

account for the various factors that influence program outcomes. This approach also encourages 

stakeholder engagement in evaluation activities to ensure that the evaluation is relevant and meaningful 

to stakeholders. Lastly, it emphasizes the collaborative and participatory approach which can help build 

trust and facilitate communication among stakeholders. Despite the strength of the systems theory, it is 

also known for some limitations which include issues with its complexity in analysis which is challenging, 

the significant data requirements which can be time-consuming and expensive to collect and analyze; 

specificity gaps in identifying specific causal relationships between system components and program 

outcomes and the limited generalizability gap.  

Purpose of the Study 

To investigate how the practices employed in the Monitoring and Evaluation processes contribute to the 

overall goal of Higher Education Institutions in Uganda. 

Specific Objectives 

1) To examine the legal framework of monitoring and evaluation in Uganda’s higher education 

institutions  

2) To formulate monitoring and evaluation policy in higher education institutions 

3) To assess the establishment of constituent colleges of Makerere university   

4) To examine how monitoring and evaluation policy affects university teaching quality 

5) To assess how the M & E policies are performed at the university senates and council committees. 

Specific Research Questions 

1) Examine the legal framework of monitoring and evaluation in Uganda’s higher education institutions.  

2)  Formulate a monitoring and evaluation policy in higher education institutions. 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

37 
 

3)  Assess the establishment of constituent colleges of Makerere university.   

4) Examine how monitoring and evaluation policy affects university teaching quality. 

5) Assess how the M & E policies are performed at the university senates and council committees. 

3.0 METHODOLOGY  

The study applied Document review method where many Government policies were reviewed. Most of 

the documents reviewed are for higher institutions of learning especially universities. 

4.0 FINDINGS  

Findings of the review shows the following results as per each reviewed policy 

(i) The Legal Framework on M&E in Uganda’s Higher Education Institutions 

Uganda National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy for the Public sector (2011) emphasizes the 

Government of Uganda (GOU)’s commitment to achieving results through efficient and effective delivery 

of key public services, a commitment embedded in the country’s National Vision that aims at a 

transformed Ugandan society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years 

(Government of Uganda, 2011). Monitoring and Evaluation is one of the various strategies suggested by 

Government for achievement of this Vision in management of sectors concerned with public service, 

including higher education. 

Additionally, the Uganda Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) has prioritized the concept of quality 

assurance in the sector at all education levels (Government of Uganda, 2004). In the Education Sector 

Strategic Plan 2004 – 2015, the MoES has one of its objectives as ensuring an effective and efficient 

education sector, through quality assurance and accountability. This is expected to be met through 

developing and maintaining a coherent and feasible system of standards and performance monitoring. It 

anchors its need for quality education into national purposes of Uganda’s education system articulated in 

the government White Paper (1992), aiming at promoting citizenship; moral, ethical, and spiritual values; 

promote scientific, technical and cultural knowledge, skills, and attitudes; eradicate literacy and equip 

individuals with basic skills and knowledge and with the ability to “contribute to the building of an 

integrated, self-sustaining and independent national economy.”  

Th Act regulating higher education in Uganda, known as the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions 

Act, 2001, gives mandate and powers to the university Senate to be in charge of teaching, research and 

the general standards of education and research and their M&E. The Senate can, however, delegate any 

of its powers or functions to a faculty/School, board of studies or Committee as it may deem fit. This 

mandate is reiterated by Mayanja, (2020) who emphasizes that universities have different organs that play 

an oversight function, including the university council, council committees, the senate, top management 

team, and staff associations among others.  

On top of that, different higher education institutions hold individual quality assurance policy frameworks 

that streamline their evaluation systems and frameworks. Makerere University for example, has a Quality 

Assurance Policy Framework (2007) with an aim of enhancing the effectiveness of the university’s core 

activities of learning, teaching, research performance, research training and management. All these 

frameworks are intended to streamline monitoring and evaluation in Ugandan higher education institutions 

to ensure quality. 

 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

38 
 

(ii) Formulation of M&E Policy in Public Higher Education Institutions 

The Uganda National Monitoring and Evaluation Policy for the Public sector (2011) stipulates a 

framework for monitoring and evaluation of government projects (Government of Uganda, 2011). Its 

purpose is stated as improving the performance of the public sector through the strengthening of the 

operational, coordinated, and cost-effective production and use of objective information on 

implementation and results of national strategies, policies, programmes and projects (Goldman, Chirau, 

Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022). Kenya’s draft M&E policy aims at harmonising M&E systems for all public 

projects, programmes and policies at all levels (National and County), ensuring timely and accurate 

reporting of progress and results at all levels (national and county), strengthening capacity to effectively 

monitor and evaluate policies, programmes and projects at all levels (national and county), ensuring 

effective coordination of M&E systems in the country, promoting a culture and practice of M&E in the 

country; and promotion of dissemination and communication (Goldman, Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 

2022). 

Any M&E policy in the public sector should be based on principles such as alignment with the constitution 

and national priorities, ownership, accountability and transparency, credibility and objectivity, ethics, 

using M&E evidence, learning, participatory and inclusiveness, timeliness and technology (Goldman, 

Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022).  

Monitoring in public HEIs involves measurement of performance indicators in the university such as 

indicators for quality teaching, learning, research and community engagement. Evaluation focuses on 

value for money audits, mid-term and final evaluation, impact evaluation and lastly, the ex-ante and 

baseline evaluation all done during two phases of monitoring; the implementation and impact (Goldman, 

Chirau, Sossou, & Molaiwa, 2022). These evaluations are done against the activity, output, out-come and 

impact indicators. It is within this framework that both external and internal evaluation frameworks for 

public and private higher institutions of learning are anchored but consistent with and in the context of the 

University’s Vision, Mission and Values (Makerere University, 2007). 

According to the Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act (Government of Uganda, UOTIA, 2001), 

there are established statutory organs established to play an oversight role of M&E in HEIs. The top organs 

are the University Senate and Council. The Senate is the top academic organ that monitors and evaluates 

the quality of education and curriculum-related issues, while the University Council is the top governance 

organ, mandated with establishing policies for use in monitoring and evaluation of human resources, 

university assets, staff welfare, students’ services and welfare, etc. 

Mayanja (2020) briefly explains actions that universities in Uganda have taken to implement both external 

and internal evaluations. He says that externally, higher education institutions deploy external examiners 

to assess their students, external reviewers to assess quality of research proposals and dissertations, as well 

as guest speakers. These come with an independent eye so as to ensure quality products and services. This 

is consistent with Makerere University Quality Assurance, QA, Policy Framework policy (2007) which 

outlines the external evaluation measures to encompass evaluation of courses/programmes content and 

delivery, student assessment, programme resources, academic staff qualifications, scholarly work and 

professional development activities (Makerere University, 2007).  

The QA policy also spells out components of its internal evaluation to include internal examination 

moderation procedures to ensure validity of student assessment and reliability of marking, assessment and 

monitoring of academic honesty, monitoring academic staff performance standards, self-study reports, 

standardized programme and course development procedures, such as the Senate-approved 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

39 
 

guidelines/templates , an annual appraisal of what the department is trying to do (planning), what it has 

done, evaluation processes and outcomes, reviewing and making appropriate changes based on the data, 

academic and non-academic staff performance, taking measures to remedy gaps and mis-performance 

(Makerere University, 2007).  

(iii) M&E Role of Units as Defined in the Establishment of Constituent Colleges of Makerere 

University Statute (2012) 

Makerere University, the country’s oldest and premier public university, established the Makerere 

University College Statute in 2012 to explicitly streamline the administration of large academic and 

administrative units of the institution (Government of Uganda, GOU, 2012). This statute places the 

responsibility of monitoring and evaluation of the quality of educational services and facilities on the 

leadership of the various components or units in the College. The statute envisages that each college at 

Makerere University shall be administered as a semi-autonomous entity within the larger university and 

the overall supervision of the college is the responsibility of the university council (GOU, 2012). 

Being a management function, M&E is part of the governance university colleges as enshrined in the 

Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions Act, (GOU, UOTIA, 2001) and the College Statute (2012). 

Among the M&E functions of colleges at Makerere University that must be monitored and evaluated 

include; the provision of a place (suitable environment) for learning, education, research and service 

according to the mission and vision of the university, preparation of students through regular and 

professional courses for degrees, diplomas and certificates and other awards of the university, contribution 

to the intellectual life the university, focusing on economic, social, cultural and political development 

pertaining to the interests and changing life of society, establishing positions in accordance with the Act 

(UOTIA, 2001), university policies and regulations with the approval of the university council, and 

performing any other functions as may be determined by the university council (GOU, 2012,  P.7). 

Thus, according to the College Statute for Makerere University, it is the responsibility of College 

leadership to conduct regular M&E of services offered in their units to ensure that quality is not 

compromised. In the leadership of a college are members such as the Principal, deputy Principal, members 

of the constituent academic board, the college secretary, college bursar, college librarian, college registrar, 

the professors, lecturers and teaching assistants of the college, the deans, academic librarian, researchers 

of the university in the college, if any, plus the technologists or clinicians of the college. In addition to 

these leaders, colleges at Makerere are also composed of students, alumni, administrators and other 

members that the university council may consider from time to time to be members of the college (GOU, 

2012). Schools, departments, centres and institutes are all constituent units of a college. 

Colleges have legally defined powers, functions and responsibilities that enable them achieve M&E role. 

Among those laid down in the Statute include ensuring proper discharge of the academic affairs of the 

university, ensuring the implementation of the strategic plan of the university, registration, examination 

and recommendation of results for approval by the university senate and issuance of academic transcripts 

to students, planning, budgeting and executing of  budgets as approved by the university council, raising 

revenue from various sources and programmes as may be approved by the university council, management 

of university assets at the college, initiating, planning and executing projects and programmes within the 

university guidelines, promoting and protecting the name, brand and image of the university, and 

exercising such other functions as may be prescribed by the university council (GOU, 2012).  

It is therefore within the mandate of each officer/leader of a college to implement the above functions, 

powers and responsibility by monitoring and evaluating activities within their dockets. For example, a 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

40 
 

college registrar, working with the university’s academic registrar and the admission board, is responsible 

for monitoring and evaluating the process of admission of students to a college to ensure that qualified 

students are admitted while paying special detail to the affirmative action policy in favour of the admission 

of marginalized groups such as students with disability, those from disadvantaged schools and gender 

issues in the admission process. He/she also ensures that persons with special talents in sports, music and 

other social entertainment activities are duly considered in the admission process (GOU, 2012 P.7). 

The overall officer responsible for M&E in a college is the Principal. This is a person at the helm of the 

college leadership, an Associate Professor or Professor, with proven managerial experience in a given 

field. In consultation with the relevant organs and officers of the university for guidance, the Principal, 

serves as the chief administrative, academic and financial officer of the college responsible for promoting 

and maintaining academic excellence, efficiency and good order at the college. He/she implements 

university policies and enforces applicable regulations at the college. A principal is deputized by a deputy 

Principal who is the overseer and supervisor of academic affairs in the college, including review and 

development of academic programmes, approval of results, time tabling and monitoring the teaching in 

various schools and departments, monitoring the integrity of university examinations, etc. In performing 

these duties, this officer is assisted by deans of schools who report directly to him/her. Deans are the 

supervisors of Heads/Chairs of Departments who manage, monitor and evaluate the work of academic, 

administrative and support staff in their respective departments. The department is the lowest academic 

unit in a college (GOU, 2012 P.7). 

M&E in colleges is basically performed by established boards and committees recognised in the statute. 

These include College Administrative Board (CAB), the College Establishment and Appointments 

Committee (EAC), Quality Assurance, gender and ICT committee, contracts committee. The academic 

monitoring and evaluation role is a responsibility of the college academic board. This board consists of 

the Principal, deputy Principal, deans of schools, departmental chairs, all coordinators of centres, two 

student representatives, one for undergraduate and another for graduate students, college librarian, senate 

representatives of the college and two senior members of staff elected by academic staff in the college. 

The college registrar is the secretary to this board. 

At the lowest academic unit (the department), departmental chairs/heads conduct routine appraisal of all 

staff in their units, thereby ensuring that there is efficiency, good performance and accountability by each 

member of staff in the unit. Chairs/heads of department are in turn appraised, monitored and evaluated by 

the dean of the respective school while deans are appraised, monitored and evaluated by the deputy 

Principal of the college. The deputy Principal is appraised, monitored and evaluated by the Principal of 

the College. Principals are appraised by the top university management including the Vice Chancellor and 

his deputies. These top university officers are appraised, monitored and evaluated by the University 

Council. 

(iv) M&E of University Teaching Quality 

As already indicated, the overarching goal of M&E is quality improvement in the institution and rendering 

quality service delivery (Baguma, 2017). M&E is therefore closely linked to quality assurance (QA), here 

defined as the policies, procedures and practices put in place within the institution for maintaining and 

enhancing quality (Nabaho, 2016). QA in higher education serves two purposes, one of accountability (the 

purpose of external M&E or QA) and another of improvement (the purpose of internal M&E or external 

QA). 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

41 
 

M&E of the quality of teaching in a university can be conducted using a variety of approaches or tools 

(Nabaho, Aguti & Oonyu 2016). For example, Student evaluation of teaching (SET) uses questionnaires 

that are given to students to evaluate the quality of instruction by their instructors at the end of every 

lecture, course or semester. However, one of the draw-backs of this approach is the reluctance of university 

administrators and managers to utilise the students’ feedback seriously to improve on the policies for 

improvement of teaching quality. Another challenge is the lack of a culture of giving feedback at earlier 

levels of education, resulting in the students answering the questions unserious.  

Another M&E approach for teaching quality is peer observation of teaching, which involves colleagues 

from the same department, subject or discipline giving and receiving feedback from one another on the 

quality of teaching and effectiveness in promoting student learning (Nabaho, Aguti & Oonyu 2016). 

Giving out teaching excellence awards is another approach resulting from M&E of teaching in the 

university. These are intended to recognise and celebrate excellently performing teachers, promote 

teaching excellence, disseminate best teaching practices and create teaching role models who can motivate 

other faculty to enhance their own teaching practices (Nabaho et al. 2016). 

(v) University Senate and Council Committees’ Roles in M&E 

The Senate, according to the UOTIA (2001), is the chief academic organ of the university which approves 

all academic policies and monitors the quality and standards of teaching and learning, research and 

innovation, and community outreach services by members of the university community. The same Act 

establishes the University Council as the supreme governing body that formulates governance policies.The 

quality of academic programmes and curricula are a critical reflection of the quality of graduates from an 

institution of higher learning. The University Senate is tasked with ensuring that the quality and standards 

of education at the university remains competitive by putting in place academic policies, guidelines and 

regulations for quality education. The provision of the best learning environment and experiences, 

production of highly skilled and competent and graduates are the main focus of the senate. Senate reports 

to council which is the supreme governing organ of the university. Council establishes governance policies 

concerned with efficient human resource management, management of university assets, branding the 

university, and any other policies for the effective governance of the university. 

Both the Senate and Council execute their business through Committees that furnish Senate or Council 

with reports that are debated and passed as policies for academic affairs and governance matters 

respectively. For example, the Council Committee on Quality Assurance and Gender Mainstreaming is 

responsible for academic and gender mainstreaming issues in the university. It is concerned with 

restructuring of academic programmes to ensure that they remain relevant and responsible to the changing 

needs of society and employers. It has two sub-committees, that is a sub-committee on academic 

restructuring and a sub-committee on gender mainstreaming. The two directorates of this committee are 

the Quality Assurance Directorate (QAD) and Gender Mainstreaming Directorate (GMD). The M&E plan 

in the university can be described as a bottom – top process because the committees of organs at higher 

levels (senate and council) receive and consider business initiated from lower academic units of the 

university such as departments and schools, thereby ensuring that all decisions made at high levels are a 

result of a popular, participatory and consultative process. 

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Conclusions 

Different higher education institutions hold individual quality assurance policy frameworks that 

streamline their evaluation systems and frameworks. Any M&E policy in the public sector should be based 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

42 
 

on principles such as alignment with the constitution and national priorities, ownership, accountability 

and transparency, credibility and objectivity and evaluations are done against the activity, output, out-

come and impact indicators. Higher education institutions deploy external examiners to assess their 

students, external reviewers to assess quality of research proposals and dissertations, as well as guest 

speakers. 

Among the M&E functions of colleges at Makerere University that must be monitored and evaluated 

include; the provision of a place (suitable environment) for learning, education, research and service 

according to the mission and vision of the university, preparation of students through regular and 

professional courses for degrees, diplomas and certificates and other awards of the university, contribution 

to the intellectual life the university, focusing on economic, social, cultural and political development. 

Recommendations 

- Monitoring and evaluation should be implemented even in the secondary and primary education  

- Institutions should have both internal and external evaluations for consistency and transparency  

- More research should be done on the challenges facing the established policies in higher education 

institutions of learning in Uganda  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

43 
 

REFERENCES 

Ashbly, W. R. (1956). An introduction to cybernetics. John Wiley and Sons. 

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.5851 

Baguma, S. (2017). Role of Monitoring and Evaluation and Quality of Service Delivery in Local 

Governments in Uganda: A Case of Mpigi District. Masters Dissertation. Uganda Management 

Institute, Kampala. 

https://www.academia.edu/34548349/Role_of_Monitoring_and_Evaluation_and_Quality_of_Ser

vice_Delivery_in_Local_Governments_in_Uganda_A_Case_of_Mpigi_District 

Centre for Civil Society and Non-Profit Management, CSNM (2022). Project Monitoring and Evaluation. 

https://csnm.kku.ac.th/learning/course/module/lesson/117-me-system-and-framework 

Chirau, T., Tirivanhu, P., Waller, C., & Robertson, H. (2018). Assessing evaluation education in African 

tertiary education institutions: Opportunities and reflections. South African Journal of Higher 

Education, 32(4), 229-244. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.20853/32-4-2527 

Goldman, I., Chirau, T., Sossou, D., & Molaiwa, T. (2022). Establishing a National Monitoring and 

Evaluation Policy. Technical Report. Twendembele.  

Government of Uganda (2020). Third National Development Plan, NDP III. National Planning Authority. 

http://www.npa.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NDPIII-Finale_Compressed.pdf 

Government of Uganda (2012). The Universities and Other Tertiary Institutions (Management of 

Constituent Colleges of Makerere University) Statute, 2012. 

https://policies.mak.ac.ug/sites/default/files/policies/Statute%202012%5B1%5D.pdf 

Government of Uganda (2011). Office of the Prime Minister. National Policy on Public Sector Monitoring 

and Evaluation.https://usaidlearninglab.org/sites/default/files/resource/file s/Attachment_J.15-

_M%26E_Policy_Final_Draft.pdf 

Government of Uganda (2004). Ministry of Education and Sports, Education Sector Strategic Plan 2004-

2015. 

http://www.africanchildforum.org/clr/policy%20per%20country/uganda/uganda_education_2004

-2015_en.pdf 

Hamzah, Purwati, A. A., & Kadir, E. A. (2018). Quality Evaluation on Private Higher Education 

Institutions in Pekanbaru, Indonesia (Integrating Kano Model and Quality Function Deployment). 

Education, 39 (17), 1 -11. https://www.revistaespacios.com/a18v39n17/a18v39n17p24.pdf  

Kumar L. (2014). Evaluation in higher education. Journal of research in education. 2(1), 62-

71file:///C:/Users/h/Downloads/Evaluation_in_Higher_Education.pdf 

Leiber, T., Stensaker, B. & Harvey, L. C. (2018). Bridging theory and practice of impact evaluation of 

quality management in higher education institutions: a SWOT analysis. European Journal of 

Higher Education, 8(3), 351-365, DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474782 

Makerere University (2007). Quality Assurance Policy Framework. 

https://policies.mak.ac.ug/sites/default/files/policies/Quality_Assurance_Policy_0.pdf 

Mayanja, C. S. (2020).   Participatory monitoring and evaluation for quality programs in higher education: 

What is the way for Uganda? International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy 

Studies, 12(1), 52-59, DOI: 10.5897/IJEAPS2020.0637 

https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.5851


European Journal of Human Resource    

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online)        

Vol.7, Issue 2, pp 31 - 44, 2023                                                                     www.ajpojournals.org 
                                                                                                                                 

44 
 

Michael, S.O. (1998), “Restructuring US higher education: Analyzing models for academic program 

review and discontinuation”, Association for the Study of Higher Education, 21(4), 377-404, 

DOI:10.1353/RHE.1998.0013 

Nabaho, L., Aguti, J. N., & Oonyu, J. (2016). Assuring the quality of teaching at Makerere University in 

Uganda: Practices and experiences of academics and students. Alternation Journal, 23(1), 40-61. 

http://alternation.ukzn.ac.za/Files/docs/23.1/03%20Nabaho%20F.pdf 

National Council for Higher Education, NCHE (2018). Annual Performance Report and Financial 

Statement of Financial Year 2017/18. http://www.unche.or.ug/webpages/publications.aspx 

Tsinidou, M., Gerogiannis, V., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in 

higher education: an empirical study. Quality assurance in Education. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vassilis-

Gerogiannis/publication/228350411_Evaluation_of_the_factors_that_determine_quality_in_high

er_education_An_empirical_study/links/09e4150a8ab6a845e7000000/Evaluation-of-the-factors-

that-determine-quality-in-higher-education-An-empirical-study.pdf 

Uganda Vision (2040). National Planning Authority. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic 

Development. http://www.npa.go.ug/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/VISION-2040.pdf 

UK Quality Code for Higher Education (2014). Overview and 

Expectations.https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/quality-code/qualitycode-overview-

2015.pdf?sfvrsn=d309f781_6 

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General System Theory: Foundations, Developments. New York: George 

Braziller  

 

 

License 

Copyright (c) 2023 Roberts Wandera Otyola, John Bukenya, Proscovia Nalwadda, Edward Kamaga, 

Godfrey Bagamba Wamani, Suzan Bantebya, Mukisa Jonathan 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously 

licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 License that allows others to share the work 

with an acknowledgment of the work’s authorship and initial publication in this journal. 

 

https://doi.org/10.1353/RHE.1998.0013
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

