Academic Staff Induction: Quality Assurance and Enhancement

Transcription

1 Academic Staff Induction: Quality Assurance and Enhancement Wednesday 8 th October, am-12.00pm, Room JD13 Ormskirk Campus Tony Turjansky Director of Quality Assurance Academic Quality & Development Unit [email protected]

2 Aim of the session To explain: National quality expectations: UK Quality Code for Higher Education Higher Education Review How Edge Hill s procedures align with these expectations How academic staff are involved Sources of information and guidance

3 Context Edge Hill s next external QAA Review is in 2016/17 Academic year 2014/15 is the first of two years in which the reviewers will look especially closely at evidence of our quality assurance and enhancement Why a successful review is important: Failing outcomes are published widely Failure to turn round a negative QAA judgement can have implications for providers ability to survive as autonomous institutions

4 UK Quality Code for Higher Education Defined by a national HE level framework and subject benchmarks (PART A), additional guidance on securing and enhancing the quality of students learning opportunities (PART B) and guidance concerning information published by HE providers (PART C) All three Parts of the Code are used at Higher Education Review to inform judgements on academic standards, quality of learning opportunities, enhancement and public information

5 General introduction Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards A1: UK and European reference points for academic standards A2: Degree-awarding bodies' reference points for academic standards A3: Securing academic standards and an outcomesbased approach to academic awards Part C: Information about higher education provision Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality B1: Programme design, development and approval B2: Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education B3: Learning and teaching B4: Enabling student development and achievement B5: Student engagement B6: Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning B7: External examining B8: Programme monitoring and review B9: Academic appeals and student complaints B10: Managing higher education provision with others B11: Research degrees

6 UKQCHE Part A Deals with the setting and maintenance of threshold academic standards: Threshold standards = the MINIMUM level of achievement that a student has to reach to achieve a UK HE award (however awarding institutions may set their own minimum threshold higher than the national threshold) Classification beyond threshold is a matter for institutions External examiners judge whether threshold standards are being achieved and comment on the comparability of standards beyond threshold

7 UKQCHE Part A (contd) Threshold standards are defined during programme design and confirmed at validation through evidence of course teams engagement with: The national qualifications framework (generic) Subject benchmark statements (subject-specific)

8 Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) Certificate (C) level Level 4 Certificates of higher education, HNCs Intermediate (I) level Level 5 Foundation degrees, diplomas of higher education, HNDs and other higher diplomas Honours (H) level Level 6 Bachelor's degrees with honours, ordinary bachelor s degrees, graduate certificates and graduate diplomas Master's (M) level Level 7 Master's degrees, postgraduate certificates and postgraduate diplomas Doctoral (D) level Level 8 MPhil, PhD and professional doctorates

9

10

11

12 Other generic reference points Foundation degree qualification benchmark Employer involvement, accessibility and flexibility, partnership, assessment, articulation and progression Masters degree characteristics Purpose, content, structure and delivery, volume of learning and credit, teaching learning and assessment, relationship to further study or employment

13 Subject Benchmark Statements Developed by panels of academic subject experts convened by QAA Subject benchmark statements for undergraduate honours degrees (58 subjects) Masters degree benchmark statements (13 subjects) NHS/ DoH degree benchmark statements (18 subjects)

14 English Benchmark Statement (2007)

15

16

17

18 UKQCHE Part A (contd) Therefore, the national qualifications level descriptors (generic) and subject benchmark statements (subject-specific) are used together to develop programme content and learning outcomes at the appropriate level in respect of: Subject knowledge and understanding Intellectual skills Practical skills Transferable skills

19 UKQCHE Part B Deals with assuring and enhancing the quality of student learning opportunities with chapters on: 1. Programme design, development and approval 2. Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education 3. Learning and teaching 4. Enabling student development and achievement 5. Student engagement 6. Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning 7. External examining 8. Programme monitoring and review 9. Academic appeals and student complaints 10. Managing higher education provision with others 11. Research degrees

20 UKQCHE Part B (contd) All chapters contain one or more Expectations (mandatory) These are supported by Indicators of sound practice which describe ways in which the Expectations may be met (the Indicators are not mandatory but provide important benchmarks to sector practice)

21 UKQCHE Chapter B3 Learning and teaching

22 UKQCHE Chapter B3 Learning and teaching

23 UKQCHE Part C Information from HE providers should be: Comprehensible, valid, reliable, useful, accessible, timely, proportionate Part C covers everything that is published to students and the wider public from course listings and programme specifications to module handbooks Responsibility for information is delegated at all levels of the institution

24 Part A - Standards Part B Quality and enhancement Part C - Information NATIONAL LEVEL

25 INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL Part A - Standards Strategies, policies, procedures, regulations, information, oversight, evaluation Part B Quality and enhancement Part C - Information NATIONAL LEVEL

26 Institutional level HE providers embed the national Quality Code within their regulations and quality processes (cf. EHU s Academic Regulations and Quality Management Handbook) Policies and strategies will also be informed by the Code, e.g. EHU s UG and PGT Frameworks and strategies for L&T, assessment and student support

27 INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL Part A - Standards Strategies, policies, procedures, regulations, information, oversight, evaluation Part B Quality and enhancement Part C - Information Validation, delivery, monitoring and review NATIONAL LEVEL PROGRAMME LEVEL

28 Programme level Validation - detailed panel scrutiny of new programme proposals Annual Monitoring (AMR) includes module evaluation External examiners confirm standards through their annual reports Periodic review - of subject areas every 5 years (includes re-validation)

29 Higher Education Review HE providers are visited by QAA every six years and reviewed against the Expectations of the UKQCHE, resulting in formal judgements on: Academic Standards (meets/ requires improvement/ does not meet) Quality of student learning opportunities (commended/ meets/ requires improvement/ does not meet) Enhancement (commended/ meets/ requires improvement/ does not meet) Published information (commended/ meets/ requires improvement/ does not meet) All recommendations must be addressed within a timeframe set by QAA Reviewers may also identify specific good practice and acknowledge work already being taken to deal with any identified issues ( Affirmations )

30 Our last QAA audit (2010) Confidence in the management of academic standards and quality of students learning opportunities Enhancement: The University has taken institution-wide steps to embed quality enhancement in its strategies and operations. Enhancement features at all stages of the quality management cycle. The University's enhancement of the quality of learning opportunities and the student experience has created sound basis for further development. Published information: reliance could reasonably be placed in its accuracy and completeness PGR students: arrangements for their support, supervision and assessment were effective and met national expectations Collaborative provision: mainly limited to FE at the time of audit auditors noted a cautious, risk-based approach to its management

31 And finally We have the next two years to confirm full and continued alignment of our programmes, policies and processes with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and collect the evidence to support it and everyone has a part to play!

32

33 quality-code-brief-guide.pdf

34 . Any Questions? ~ Thanks for your participation! ~