Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton,...
-
Upload
jonathan-jones -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton,...
Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The University’s Framework30 Nov 07Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer
Objectives
To increase understanding of the University’s quality and standards framework with specific reference to how the framework is
> developed, approved, enhanced, and communicated [the process] … and reviewed
> Informed by external expectations, internal feedback and the values and strategic priorities of the University [the substance]
To explain how responsibilities for quality and standards are allocated within, and underpin, the framework
To outline some potential future developments – internal and external
Key elements of the framework
Regulations> University programmes regulations (governing award of
credit and progression to the award) – 16 chapters> Unfair means > Complaints by students
Codes of practice (+ annexes)
> Programme approvals (four chapters)> Annual monitoring> Assessment Procedures (10 chapters)
Influences on the framework (the substance)
External expectations internal feedback values strategic concerns of the University External feedback – external examiners, other
stakeholders Student feedback
External expectations>QAA Academic Infrastructure
Direct impact for academic staff – subject benchmark statements and programme specifications
Indirect: QAA Code reflected in University codes and regulations; FHEQ in regulations
>Examples: >Regulations on complaints by students (E2)>Academic appeals (E1)>- both Section 5 QAA Code>Programme approvals (G1-4) reflecting Section 7
QAA Audit and Review>Evaluating management of Q&S
against the academic infrastructure (esp PGR against section 1)
> (see further Part I)
European Standards and Guidelines TQI – availability of external examiner reports to
student representatives
Internal: feedback – through >Informal communications>QA processes – including thematic QER reporting>committee structures (faculty-university)>sampling of processes (e.g. attending programme
approval, periodic review events and boards of examiners)
Values (agreed in 2004) we aim to be:
> collaborative – seeking partnership between learners, teachers and service/support staff
> collegial – valuing the contributions of all our staff and students to the life and ethos of the University
> fit for purpose – in our facilities and equipment> open and clear – in our procedures and information> professional and rigorous – in all our activities, in particular the maintenance
of academic standards> relevant – in our programmes, qualifications, research and reach out
activities> responsive – to learners, employers, and other stakeholders> supportive – towards learners and teachers and service/support staff.
Principles (2007) Our management of quality and standards is
underpinned by ensuring that our framework is:> clear and accessible to those required to use it
> applied consistently and transparently
> increasingly based on a variation of touch reflecting an identified level of risk
> streamlined and
> locates responsibility at the most appropriate level of the institution subject to effective institutional oversight.
Strategic commitments (discussed below)
Developing the framework (process)
Stages of development of a code of practice> Project specification
Scope (inclusions/exclusions) Implementation date Consultees Establishment of working group
> Consultation> Drafting
QH template – cover sheet Must – should - may standard items: authority
Approval > 1st reading – principles> 2nd reading – detail
Relevant committees> QSC – Academic Board (codes) – Senate (regulations)
Publication> Quality Handbook – www.hull.ac.uk/quality> Defined sections – QH reference number> Version control (1 00, 1 01 or 2 00)> Summary of changes from previous version> Contents page> Annotated version (explanatory notes)
Communication>Quality and Standards Update (and consolidated)
> http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/news_events/index.html
>Implementation guide >user friendly information>Staff development>Advice and guidance
Responsibilities for Q&S
Q&S are the responsibility of all academic and related support staff
The tiered management (of Q&S) structure> Contributions at each appropriate level
> Departmental – Academic staff: designing a programme, carrying out the assessment process; providing academic support and guidance, monitoring student progression
> Defined departmental roles (vary from dept to dept): quality officer, exams officer, student progress, year tutor, director of UG/PG studies
> Specific responsibilities (HoD/delegated): student complaints, exam boards, annual monitoring, peer observation scheme
>Faculty Oversight across cognate disciplines Specific functions:
Programme approvals Unfair means Producing the Quality Enhancement Report
(QER)
> University-level – institutional oversight Quality and Standards committee
Oversight of the Q&S framework Monitoring effectiveness of the processes enhancement
Oversight of the outputs of the processes Good practice Concerns (e.g. complaints, external examiner
serious concerns) Oversight of the provision through periodic review,
QERs and external examiners (now appoints)
Parental responsibility> SPC/RDC
application of regulatory framework to student cases Award of degrees on behalf of Senate Academic appeals
> Programme Approvals Monitoring and Enhancement Committee (PAMEC)
On campus and international programme (partnership) approvals
>Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) CP processes and the outputs of those
processes>External Examining Advisory and Monitoring Panel (EEAMP) Advises chair QSC on EE appointments Monitors effectiveness of EE process
>Audit Advisory Group
ULTAC >the practice of L&T (strategic development)>Learning and Teaching Enhancement Committee>Assessment Committee
Educational Partnerships Committee>Strategic oversight of UK and international
partnerships
The hierarchy in action> Student feedback at module and programme level (inc via
representative mechanisms)> Self-evaluation by teaching staff> External examiner feedbackannual monitoring of programmes Faculty Quality Enhancement Report
Annexes including EE reportsQSC (analysis of QER by QSC team of 3)
Overview to full committee: good practice / recommendations
> Periodic review QSC process – chaired by member of QSC but
partnership with faculty, report to QSC Review of the management of Q&S in defined subject
areas; not review of the department or its teaching
Future developments – the near horizon
External> Academic Infrastructure
Revision of each section of the Code Revision of the FHEQ
> Integrated (combined) institutional audit> IQER – Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review> FDAP> The national Credit Framework> The Honours Classification> The Bologna Process
Internal - Strategic commitments> UoH Strategic Plan 2007-2012
Outstanding student experience ‘Operating quality processes which enhance the student
learning experience’ ‘continuing to encourage student participation in decision
making processes’ Develop sustainable and distinctive academic provision ‘our challenges: … employer engagement will play a significant role in our
planning, while student demand will be the primary driver of curriculum development’
> Learning and Teaching Strategy Providing fair access to educational opportunities in which
learners are partners in learning Integrated plan
‘we also believe in subsidiarity’ The plan will ‘assure the quality of the student
learning experience through rigorous internal and external review mechanisms
> Our Approach to Quality and Standards Assurance of quality Maintenance of standards Enhancement of the systems and processes
Effectiveness of institutional oversight Priorities:
Risk management model (risk register) – variation of touch
Enhancement projects e.g. student participation, aspects of the student experience
Student participation in quality management
Scope> Feedback at module and programme level> Being consulted e.g. on programme changes> Is the feedback loop closed?
>Student programme provider student> Membership of relevant committees> Participation in management decisions – e.g. through
University committees> Participation in QA activities – periodic review?> (parallel – QAA proposals for student membership of audit
teams)
The role of UQO
Developing the framework Advice and guidance
> Leaflet on programme approvals> Key concepts for boards of examiners
Co-ordinating QA activities > periodic review> Programme approvals: PPC and FAP membership (advice if
outwith regulations) Preparation for audit Sampling of processes Departmental/faculty meetings
Faculty links:> Tim Burton – Scarborough, HYMS> Lynne Braham – HSC, PGMI> Christopher Cagney – IfL, FoS> Stuart Gilkes – FASS> Liz Pearce – HUBS
> Janet Pearce – Collaborative Provision> Sue Cordell - YHELLN
Further SD events
Unfair means (mandatory for chairs and secretaries of UM Panels)
Programme approvals Other ideas … ?
> Generic or bespoke for a department/faculty