OVERVIEW OF INTERNAL QUALITY PROCEDURES AT SHU

Transcription

1 SHEFFIELD HALLAM UNIVERSITY OVERVIEW OF INTERNAL QUALITY PROCEDURES AT SHU Introduction The QSME (Quality and Standards Management and Enhancement) Framework (agreed by the Academic Board in 2001) is the vehicle through which the University: monitors and assures quality and standards management and enhancement monitors and assures the establishment and maintenance of academic standards. The University has an online QSME handbook which is a one-stop-shop resource for all staff in Faculties, detailing principal procedures from the Faculty perspective and, where appropriate, links to University-level policies and regulations for fuller details. Annual Quality Review (AQR) The Annual Quality Review process starts at module and course level with teaching staff undertaking an analysis of the provision. The analysis is based on a wide range of evidence, feedback and results in module, subject group and course level action plans. This process informs a review within subject, discipline, portfolio or programme area. The Action Plans, together with the work of the LTA Committee, inform the Faculty's business planning cycle. Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Overview and aims The Faculty monitors the quality of its activities through a review process which operates across a range of levels from the individual Module to the Faculty as a whole. The aims of the Review are: enable the Faculty to assure the quality of the learning experience and, increasingly the infrastructure that supports it enable the Faculty to monitor the maintenance of academic standards and the effectiveness of the processes by which they are assured demonstrate effective management of quality and academic standards to the Faculty's stakeholders provide a framework to promote self-assessment and improvement provide a profile of quality and academic standards by the use of external evidence and internal feedback to support the self assessment.

2 Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Module review Every Module is reviewed at the end of each operation by the Module Leader, and where appropriate Module Team, informed by internal and external perspectives: the experience of the Module delivery and assessment reflection on the Module operation by the course Team an overview of assessment instruments and student achievement following Internal Moderation comments from the Subject External Examiner, where the Examiner so wishes student evaluation an action plan for the next operation. The Module Review form is forwarded by the Module Leader to Support Services who copy it to the Subject Award Board Chair as evidence of moderation and to the relevant Subject and Course/Portfolio Leaders to inform reviews at those levels. Module file The primary evidence base for Module Review is the Module File. Each Module file contains: The current Module descriptor The Module handbook, as provided to students The Module Review Form A Module mark sheet, which shows the results for individual assessment elements The Assessment Board data for the Module Examination papers, including resits, and marking schemes Internal Moderator s and External Examiner s comments on the examination paper design where appropriate Coursework assignment briefs, including reassessments and assessment criteria Internal Moderator s and External Examiner s comments on the coursework assessment design where appropriate Learning materials (eg, tutorial sheets and model answers, lecture handouts) where appropriate Student feedback; evidence of student evaluation, e.g. student questionnaire results, SSCC minutes Moderated examples of student examination scripts with Internal Moderator s and any External Examiner s comments on the marking where appropriate Moderated examples of student coursework with Internal Moderator s and any External Examiner s comments on the marking where appropriate Outcomes of Peer Review forms (optional) Archive material, such as previous Module Review Forms, Peer Review Forms, SAB data, student feedback and assessment instruments

3 In addition, other sections may be included to take account of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements. All aspects of the File which change from one operation to the next should be refreshed as the Module runs through. The archive material provides evidence of development and review. Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Course/ Programme/ Portfolio review Each Course/ Programme/ Portfolio is reviewed annually (or post operation for a shorter course) by the Course Leader/ Programme/Portfolio Director together with the Course Committee. The outcome of the review is summarised on the Course/ Programme/ Portfolio Review Form, which contains: Evaluation of curricula and assessment; academic level; student achievement Evaluation of quality of learning opportunities Teaching & Learning Admissions and progression Learning resources Evaluation of effectiveness of QSME Action plan for next academic year (or operation for a shorter course). Progress towards achievement of the goals in the action plan, and new actions required by emerging circumstances are reviewed at appropriate intervals (eg quarterly for a course/ programme/ portfolio which runs through a normal academic year) by the Course/ Programme/ Portfolio Team. Course/ Programme /Portfolio File The primary evidence base for the Review is a File which is refreshed at each operation by Support Staff in collaboration with the Course Leader/ Programme/Portfolio Director. Each Course/ Programme/ Portfolio File contains: Programme specification Learning outcomes External examiners reports and Faculty responses for previous year/operation Course/Portfolio Review and Action Plan for previous year/operation SSCC minutes and responses Course/Portfolio Committee minutes Award Assessment Board data (including referral board) Statistics o entry profile, gender, mature, ethnicity, entry qualifications, Widening Participation issues o progression statistics o 1st destination statistics Archive material, such as previous years reviews and statistics. In addition, other sections may be included to take account of PSRB requirements.

4 All aspects of the File which change from one operation to the next should be refreshed as the Course/ Portfolio runs through. The archive material provides evidence of development and review. Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Subject review Each Subject is reviewed annually by the Subject Leader with the advice of the Subject Group. The outcome of the review is summarised on the Subject Review Form, which contains: Evaluation of curricula and assessment; academic level; student achievement Evaluation of quality of learning opportunities Teaching & Learning Admissions and progression Learning resources Evaluation of effectiveness of QSME Evaluation of staff development, research and scholarly activity Action plan for next academic year. Progress towards achievement of the goals in the action plan, and new actions required by arising circumstances are reviewed quarterly by the Subject Group. Subject File The primary evidence base for the Subject Review is the Subject File which is refreshed annually by Support Staff in collaboration with the Subject Leader. Each Subject File contains: Current Module specifications for all Modules delivered by the Subject Group Most recent Module Review Forms Most Recent Subject Review Forms Staff profile and development activities Archive material, such as minor modification history of Modules. In addition, other sections may be included to take account of PSRB requirements. All aspects of the File which change from one operation to the next should be refreshed during the Academic Year. The archive material provides evidence of development and review. Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Faculty QSME Profile and Action Plan On an annual basis the Quality Co-ordinators, working with Divisional Heads and Heads of Programmes, will provide a summary of issues arising from the Action Plans for the Faculty QSME Committee. In addition, the Faculty QSME Committee will review Faculty profile data provided by support staff. The Annual Review also draws on Collaborative Provision, LTA, Technical, Business Services, central services and research activity.

5 The profile is compiled under the following headings: Faculty vision and objectives Evaluation of curricula and assessment; academic level; student achievement Evaluation of quality of learning opportunities Teaching and Learning Admissions and progression Learning resources Evaluation of effectiveness of QSME Evaluation of staff development, research and scholarly activity Action plan for next academic year. Progress towards achievement of the goals in the action plan, and new actions required by arising circumstances are reviewed quarterly by the Faculty QSME Committee QSME Calendar The following shows the typical pattern of QSME activity in the Academic Year. It illustrates major validation activity, together with the operation of CPD and other short courses which may occur at other times. Month Activity Responsibility September October November December January Respond to External Examiners' reports. Subject Group meetings. Semester 2 & 1/2 Module pass rates circulated to SGL's. Selection of Student Reps. Submit Semester 1 exam papers AQR Reports. Submit report on Module pass rates to PAQG. Arrange Peer Review sessions. Semester 1 Module Questionnaires distributed. Student/Staff Course Committee meetings. Prepare summary of External Examiner reports/action plans. Prepare draft Faculty QP for FEG and Faculty Board of Studies. Module Questionnaires returned to Courses Team Leader for scanning. Semester 1 Exam papers to Printing. Finalise Faculty QP. QSME Conference. Analysis of Semester 1 module HoQ/SLs/PDs SLs. QA Admin. CL/YT Tutors. SL/PD/CL SL's. SL's. Courses Team Leader. Course Leaders/ Year Tutors. HoQ/QA Admin. HoQ,HoUG,PG,CPD,TS,BS /QA Admin. Courses Team. HoQ. All Staff. Courses Team Leader.

6 Month Activity Responsibility February March April May June July questionnaires returned to module leaders. Semester 1 Module Review & Action plans. Complete Semester 1 Module files ready for SAB'AAB's Submit Semester 2 exam papers. Semester 1 Module pass rates circulated to SGL's. Area/Subject Group meetings. Semester 2 Module Questionnaires distributed. Student/Staff Course Committee meetings. Module Questionnaires returned to Courses Team Leader for scanning. Exam papers to printing. Submit report on Module pass rates for Semester One to Quality Coordinators. Analysis of Semester 2 module questionnaires returned to module leaders. Semester 2 & Long/Thin Module Review & Action plans. Complete Semester 2 & Long/Thin Module Files ready for SAB/AAB's Submit Minor Mods. Course Committee Meetings. Submit Resit Exam papers. QA Admin. SL's. Courses Team Leader. Course Leaders/ Year Tutors. Courses Team. SGL's. Courses Team Leader. CL/Module Leaders Course Leaders. August Since a significant proportion of important information, such as final module/ course statistics, External Examiner Reports, Link Tutor Reports etc. becomes available in the Autumn Term, the major annual update of the Faculty QSME Profile and Action Plan is produced at the end of that Term. Quality and Enhancement Review Process: Internal Academic Review The University has an ongoing programme of Internal Academic Review (IAR) with each subject group taking part in review every six years. IAR will embrace undergraduate and postgraduate provision, research degrees activity, collaborative arrangements and Continuing Professional Development provision, as appropriate.

7 IAR is concerned in the main with subject groups priorities for development and enhancement, but also includes an evaluation of academic quality and standards. IAR is holistic in nature with participation from students, Learning Teaching Institute, Learning Infrastructure (careers, student support and facilities), administrative and academic staff. Staff and students should have a clear sense of ownership of the process. The primary objective of Internal Academic Review is for subject groups, facilitated by the review team, to: Review current and future development and enhancement of their learning, teaching and assessment Articulate strengths, issues and good practice Demonstrate evidence-based reflection and evaluation of academic quality and standards Inform stakeholders of the outcomes of the review The IAR team is made up as follows: Review Co-ordinator Student Member Academic Member External Member Observers The review takes place over a one day period. For large scale reviews there may be breakout groups, so that useful dialogue can take place. Prior to the review, subject groups will provide the review team with a copy of their recent Annual Quality Reports (AQR) accompanied by a short wrap-around commentary based on the subject groups AQRs. Further evidence is made available on the day of the review. Comments from the External Member are used to inform the preliminary meeting attended by the review team (not including the External Member) and subject groups, which takes place before the review. The objective of the preliminary meeting is to finalise the following: Scope of the review in particular areas for development and good practice Documentation to be reviewed Who the Review Team should meet and appropriate grouping of staff/students for agreed topics for discussion Modifications to standard programme for one-day review Management of review outcomes After the review subject groups write a commentary on the review and prepare an action plan, to be agreed with the Review Co-ordinator. The commentary and action plan from the review process are distributed within the University. Research Degrees: Research Roles and Responsibilities

8 Assistant Deans (Research and Business Development) are required to: lead in the enhancement of academic standards and the quality of academic results in learning and research, encourage excellence in service delivery, ensure that reports are produced in accordance with published schedules and take appropriate action in the light of quality judgements. The Faculty Research and Business Development Committee under their Terms of Reference are required: 'to advise and make recommendations on staff development needs... including in particular the enhancement of the research and consultancy capacity of academic staff, to report annually to the Faculty Academic Board, to liaise with the Faculty and University committees as appropriate to promote good communications, quality enhancement and good practice'. Head of Programmes, Research Degrees are responsible for Quality Management and Enhancement in respect of Research Degrees. They are expected to: work closely with colleagues in Research Centres and subject areas to ensure a consistent and high quality experience for Research degree students wherever they may be located, advise the Faculty leadership team on matters relevant to maintaining a high quality student experience for this provision, implement the policies of Academic Board and the Faculty Academic Board as appropriate, work with the Head of Quality and Enhancement to ensure accountabilities are clear in relation to QSME, encourage excellence in service delivery. The Faculty Research Degrees Committee's Terms of Reference requires the FRDC: to recommend approval, and oversee implementation of, the Faculty's Research Degrees Quality and Standards Assurance statement, as an integral component of the overall Faculty QSME system, to advise the Faculty QSME Committee and the University Research Degrees Sub-Committee as appropriate on the implementation and development of local quality assurance processes for research degrees, To proactively monitor the progress of research degree students at local level to maintain a high quality learning experience and to satisfy University and national expectations regarding timely completion. Faculty Research Degrees Quality and Standards Assurance statement will comply with the precepts set out in the QAA Code of Practice for Postgraduate Research Programmes and will specify arrangements for:

9 sustaining a high quality research environment approval of promotional material selection and admission of students enrolment and induction of students approval of research projects and transfers skills training supervision and monitoring including matters relating to research ethics assessment feedback complaints and appeals annual monitoring and evaluation The FRDQSAS will identify roles and responsibilities and the working relationships with postgraduate research tutors, the University Research Degrees Sub Committee, Faculty QSME Committee and Faculty Academic Board. The annual monitoring report of the RDC will be submitted to the University RDSC and that part of it referring to research students will also be referred to the Faculty QSME Committee. Quality and Standards Profile The Quality and Standards Profile provides an overview of University quality, standards and quality enhancement and is informed by the outcomes of the institutional review process and a wide range of other internal and external judgements. The Profile is produced on an annual basis and its format has recently been revised to follow the key stages of the student experience from preenrolment enquiries through to alumni and first destinations following completion of study. The Profile serves an accountability function ie reassuring internal and external stakeholders that the quality and standards of the University's provision are secure. However, in a context of accelerating change, rising expectations of students and increasing competition between Universities, the focus of the Profile has been shifted to accommodate a more explicit consideration of the enhancement of the learning experience. The Profile is maintained and monitored by the Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement Portfolio of Student and Academic Services, supported and advised by Monitoring Sub-Committee of the Academic Development Committee. It is timed to inform strategic planning considerations for the Business Planning and Operational Review (BPOR) cycle. It will also provide the basis for the periodic Self-Evaluation Documents required for Quality Assurance Agency Institutional Review/Audit. A number of Review Reports produced as part of the QSME Framework inform the Institutional Profile.