Quality Promotion Committee. School Reviews 2002 to 2005 Report on Common Themes. December 2005

Transcription

1 Quality Promotion Committee School Reviews 2002 to 2005 Report on Common Themes December 2005 Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 1 of 8

2 Background The Quality Promotion Unit in Dublin City University was set up in Since then reviews of Schools and Units have been conducted on a regular basis in accordance with the Universities Act Furthermore, the Irish Universities are required under the Universities Act to review the effectiveness of their procedures. For this purpose, the Higher Education Authority (HEA) and all seven Irish universities represented by the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) engaged the European University Association (EUA) to undertake reviews in This resulted in the individual Institutional Quality Reviews and the Sectoral Report which brings together the salient issues across the Irish university sector. 1 Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities: Sectoral Report It is stated in the Sectoral Report that the focus must be retained on the usefulness of the QA outcomes and the quality improvement actions which result from these and which are embedded in the life of the university, rather than simply the smooth operation of the process by the quality promotion units (p. 16, no. 53). The way to do this, in the opinion of the EUA reviewers is specified in recommendation 133 (p. 27) which states that there is a need to ensure the regular analysis and overview of the QA process and outcomes across each university, and to link these explicitly to strategic management processes. This theme is taken up and unfolded in more detail in the DCU-specific EUA review. Institutional Quality Review of Dublin City University In the Institutional Quality Review of Dublin City University the EUA reviewers remark that no regular analysis of the results of the QRP [Quality Review Process] would appear to be made at university level, although such an analysis should be important for the work of the Quality Promotion Committee, the Academic Council and the Governing Authority. (23) Furthermore, the EUA group, while conscious of the difficult overall financial situation of the University due to recent budgetary cuts makes quite detailed observations in relation to the expectations amongst the University community resulting from the Quality Review process. The reviewers state quite clearly that lack of visible and material changes emerging from the implementation 1 All quotations from the EUA reviews are taken from the joint HEA and IUQB publications in 2005: Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities: Review of the Effectiveness of the Quality Assurance Procedures in Irish Universities, University Reports, Dublin City University, p.7-27 and Review of Quality Assurance in Irish Universities: Sectoral Report. Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 2 of 8

3 phase could lead to a major risk of demotivation amongst university staff (23). In order to tackle the perceived risk of demotivation a two pronged approach is suggested by the EUA reviewers, culminating in explicit recommendations. On the one hand, under the heading of Quality Assurance (26) it is suggest to identify university-wide issues for review which could contribute to the ongoing development of quality at DCU. On the other hand, it should be ensured that staff expectations regarding the quality review process are more realistic and long-term (p. 26, under the heading of Management and Governance). Furthermore, the peer group observes that Senior management must ensure that it has an overview of the QRP outcomes and prioritise accordingly (23) which is to be seen in conjunction with the recommendation that mechanisms should be developed to ensure more consistent follow-up to the quality improvement plans across the university (26). Taking all the above into consideration and in order to strengthen the followup process in DCU it was felt by the QPC that a regular analysis of results from the QRP across the university would help in improving quality assurance and quality improvement. The first results of this beginning process are contained in this report. The information contained in this report will, it is hoped, be taken into consideration in the implementation phase of the Strategic Plan Leadership through Foresight and set an example for the innovation and change agenda contained in the Plan. In this way, a further EUA recommendation could be put into practice, namely to develop a more explicit link between the quality review outcomes and strategic management (26). Methodology At its meeting on 28 September 2005 the Quality Promotion Committee decided to identify common themes across the university which were contained in past reviews. A subgroup of the QPC was established with the following membership: Dr Heinz Lechleiter Prof Joe Morris Ms Ursula Baxter Dr Liam Boyle Ms Yvonne Tuohy Ms Barbara McConalogue It was decided to concentrate on School Reviews for this first exercise. It was furthermore decided that both Peer Group Reports and Quality Improvement Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 3 of 8

4 Plans would be taken into consideration. There are ten Schools overall included in the scope of this report : School of Physics (henceforth Physics) 2003: School of Computing (henceforth Computing), School of Communications (henceforth Communications), School of Biotechnology (henceforth Biotechnology) 2004: Fiontar, School of Electronic Engineering (henceforth Electronic Engineering), School of Chemical Sciences (henceforth Chemistry) 2005: School of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering (henceforth Mechanical Engineering), School of Applied Language and Intercultural Studies (henceforth SALIS), School of Nursing (henceforth Nursing). The report covers all Faculties with the exception of the Business School (see footnote 2). There are four Schools represented from the Faculty of Science and Health, and three each of the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences and the Faculty of Engineering and Computing. The subgroup established a template according to which the Reports were analysed and summarised in order to extract the most salient themes across the School reviews. Thus raw data were assembled which were then discussed and sorted into groups and prioritised. It was thought to be contingent that the review should not only look at common themes but also to interpret the findings and deduct possible courses of action from them. The findings of the subgroup were presented and discussed at the QPC meeting of 9 November It was decided that a report containing the findings should be written, agreed by the QPC and made available to the Executive. Proviso: Due to the time-frame in which the reviews were conducted some caution is required in interpreting the results of this exercise. The format of the Peer Group Report was less well settled initially than it is now. Therefore some areas might have received more or less attention in the successive years of reviews. The strategic planning was at a different stage. The review process in DCU was set in train just when the first strategic planning was started. The last cycle of reviews analysed in this report took place while the old strategic plan was running out but the new plan not yet in place. Executive Deans were not yet in place. It is now part of each review (of Schools) that the Dean of Faculty is involved in the process at all stages. 2 The first review to be conducted in DCU was of the Business School. However, publication of Peer Group Report and Quality Improvement Plans was only agreed and approved by Governing Authority from 2002 onwards. Therefore, the Peer Group findings and the School s response are not publicly available and were not included in this report. Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 4 of 8

5 Main findings The areas in this report were prioritised according to the frequency with which they came up in the various reports. It was also noted under which headings the common themes occurred because this allows a judgement to what extent a theme permeates the University s life. All findings were discussed by the Quality Promotion Committee, but consideration of possible actions was mainly related to the two top priority areas. It has to be kept in mind that the deliberation process is not yet finished and the present report, therefore, has to be seen as work in progress. 1. Academic Workload Schools: Fiontar, Biotechnology, SALIS, Chemistry, Nursing, Communications, Computing Headings: Organisation & Management, Scholarship & Research, Programmes and Instruction, Staffing, Accommodation, Resources Academic workload is a recurring theme under all headings and in most Schools. It could be said that Academic workloads are also implicitly contained in the other Schools reports. The theme is strongly connected with a potential tension between the three main areas of research, teaching and administrative duties carried out by academics. It is reflective of the Schools desire to, on the one hand, enhance and encourage research and, on the other hand, to recognise excellence in teaching. The actions discussed and recommended by the Quality Promotion Committee are as follows: 1. Develop consistent trade-off model university wide (modelled on examples of existing best practice) in co-operation between OVPR and OVPLI and other members of Senior Management 2. Seek an opportunity to make an input to IUQB Sectoral Project (academic workload document on nation-wide basis) 3. Create meaningful awards for teaching (promotion, recruitment) 2. Buildings, Facilities, Equipment Schools: Biotechnology, SALIS, Chemistry, Nursing, Communications, Computing, Physics, Mechanical Engineering Headings: Staffing, Accommodation, Resources; Programmes and Instruction This theme, in terms of the numbers of Schools who mentioned it, was the most prominent one. Three subtopics can be discerned: the first one is very strongly made by the Peer Review Groups of Schools mainly based in the Henry Grattan building agreeing that the building is substandard and a bad Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 5 of 8

6 reflection not only on the Schools housed in the Henry Grattan building but, given its central location and proximity to the restaurants and other public areas, on the University as a whole. Secondly, also in terms of rooms, but relating to the internal communication within DCU, a lack of local social spaces was remarked upon in a number of cases. This is in line with the observation in the EUA DCU report that vertical and horizontal communications at DCU have been identified by the university as areas where improvement is needed. (25) Thirdly, the regular upgrading of facilities and equipment reappears frequently in the Peer Group reports and Quality Improvement Plans, in particular in relation to computers both in publicly accessible areas (library, computer labs) and in staff offices. The QPC came to the conclusion that the following recommendations would be helpful in addressing the problems identified in respect to buildings, facilities and equipment. 1. An Equipment Replacement Policy should be developed and put into place 2. A Capital Budget for Building Maintenance should be set aside 3. Social Spaces for staff within Schools and Faculties should be made available 4. Systematic consultation of Schools and Faculties should take place in order to determine which improvements have to be made, and in order to determine priority areas in respect to the improvement of buildings, facilities and equipment. The QPC thinks it important, in respect to numbers 1 and 2 above, that the policy and budget are seen to be put into place by the entire university community. 3. Student Experience The student experience is a consistent theme throughout all the reports. The QPC is aware of the fact that student retention is at the moment discussed university wide and within Senior Management. Student retention, however, is only one aspect of the student experience and had not specifically been noted as an area of particular interest in the PGRs and QuIPs. Student Experience can, again, be divided into three sub-topics: undergraduates, postgraduates and non-traditional student groups. Undergraduates Schools: Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering, Electronic Engineering, Computing Heading: Programmes and Instruction Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 6 of 8

7 The most prominent recurring theme under this subheading was that student opinion should be elicited regularly and as a matter of course, and that action to improve the undergraduate student experience should follow. It can be assumed that curriculum and programme design, module design and content, and teaching and learning quality are the crucial areas. The actions recommended by the QPC are, in general terms, the following: 1. Seek systematic feedback from students 2. Act on student feedback and follow through Postgraduates Schools: Electronic Engineering, SALIS, Nursing, Computing, Biotechnology, Communications, Fiontar, Mechanical Engineering Heading: Scholarship & Research This topic relates to postgraduate recruitment, induction and training. There seems to be a communality of related problems throughout the university in this respect and it might be possible to tackle some of the general problems on a university wide basis, while more specific areas can and should be left to the Faculties and individual Schools. The QPC recommends the following actions: 3. The IUQB booklet Good Practice in the Organisation of PhD Programmes in Irish Universities should be made accessible to all postgraduate research students. 4. Examples of good practice within DCU should be made accessible to and shared by all Schools Non-traditional student groups Schools: Fiontar, Computing, Electronic Engineering Heading: Community Service The fact alone that non-traditonal student groups appear mainly under the heading of Community Service seems remarkable and shows that this area is of interest not only in strengthening DCU s student numbers but also determines how DCU is perceived in the local and wider community. It was remarked, in the Peer Group Reports that the support systems (heating, catering, access) and fee structures are not optimal for non-traditional student groups who are the most likely to use DCU facilities outside ordinary office hours and also the most likely not to have easy access to funding. The actions suggested by the QPC take up the two areas and is formulated in general terms. Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 7 of 8

8 5. Adapt support systems to suit non-traditional students needs. 6. Adopt and publicise suitable fee structure for non-traditional students 4. Community Relations, Community Service, Marketing, School Liaison, Student Recruitment, Public Relations, Co-operation outside DCU Finally, as the heading of this section indicates, there are a number of themes that come up under various headings which all have to do with the way DCU relates to the world outside. The Peer Group Reports and Quality Improvement Plans seem to point towards the fact that all concerned (Peer Groups with their internal and external reviewers, Schools, Focus Groups, University) are unclear about the distinction between the various ways in which DCU and its constituent parts relates to the outside world. No specific action on this point is recommended by the QPC at this time 6. Summary and outlook It is remarkable to what extent the topics that were filtered out as the main concerns in the School Peer Reports and Quality Improvement Plans over the last four years reflect concerns which are presently widely discussed within DCU and the entire third level sector in Ireland and beyond. The analysis of common themes and threads in this report should be seen as the start of a process which will be continued with an analysis of Unit Reviews and subsequent analyses in the coming years. The quality assessment process in DCU and the Irish University sector was reviewed by the EUA and the present report s purpose is to complement the EUA findings in accordance with the EUA team s recommendations. The EUA team contended that an overview of the findings should be important for the work of the Quality Promotion Committee, the Academic Council and the Governing Authority. The Quality Promotion Committee decided that it was also important to make this report available to the University Executive. The Quality Promotion Committee trusts that putting together this report was a valuable exercise and it will apply the same methodology to Unit reviews in the near future. The Quality Promotion Committee suggests that the findings of this report should be published on the QPU website in order to make it accessible to all DCU staff and students. It is stated in the Mission and Values of the DCU Strategic Plan Leadership through Foresight that the university identifies needs, opportunities and trends, prioritises them and exercises leadership. We hope that this report will serve as an opportunity to put the Strategic Plan into action. Quality Promotion Committee Common Themes Page 8 of 8