1 / 12

QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW Interim Report

Imperial College London. QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW Interim Report. Julia Buckingham. TERMS OF REFERENCE. To review existing QA processes and consider their effectiveness and value

alvis
Download Presentation

QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW Interim Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Imperial College London QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEWInterim Report Julia Buckingham

  2. TERMS OF REFERENCE • To review existing QA processes and consider their effectiveness and value • To identify ways in which the College might exploit systems more effectively in its QA processes and management thereof • To identify ways in which the College can be innovative and proactive in its approach to QA and thereby position itself in a leadership position • To consider the resource implications • To make recommendations for change • To report to the SEC

  3. MEMBERSHIP • Julia Buckingham • David Lloyd Smith • Stephen Richardson • Jeff Kramer • Richard Thompson • Karim Meeran • Dot Griffiths • Denis Wright • Jackie de Belleroche • Hannah Theodorou • Rebecca Penny

  4. AREAS REVIEWED • Committee structure • Academic Development and Enhancement – taught courses • Academic Development and Enhancement – research degrees • Collaborative arrangements • Student welfare • Recruitment and career development of academic staff and PDRAs • Complaints, appeals, disciplinaries etc.

  5. RECOMMENDATIONS - COMMITTEES • QARC disbanded • Course reviews to be considered by Studies Committees • Research training reviews to move to the Graduate Schools • Remaining business to be transferred to QAAC • QAAC to be retained • Clear delineation of the decision making powers of Departments, Studies Committees/Graduate Schools and Senate • Improved dissemination of information • Delineation of QA vs. strategy and of the powers of Senate and the SEC/Management Board.

  6. RECOMMENDATIONS – TAUGHT COURSES • Faculties and Departments to ensure that teaching is given strategic attention • Teaching development grants and awards to be supported • CASLAT to be reviewed • Career structure and roles of teaching fellows and learning technologists across College to be defined • SOLE questions to be reviewed • Streamlining the 5-year review process and annual monitoring • Improved methods of sharing best practice

  7. RECOMMENDATIONS – RESEARCH DEGREES • Separation of the processes for dealing with applications for PGT and PGR students • Changes to the procedures for registration and monitoring of PGR students • Changes to the research degree reviews • Improved environment for research students • Consideration of merging the graduate schools

  8. RECOMMENDATIONS – STUDENT WELFARE • Improved co-ordination and web-site • Enhanced personal tutor system • Separation of the roles of DPS and postgraduate tutor • Role of College Tutors made clearer and more accessible to students • Improved information to applicants about the College’s provision for disabled students

  9. RECOMMENDATIONS – STAFF RECRUITMENT AND DEVELOPMENT • All academic posts to be advertised internationally and short-listing by several people • Early career staff to be ‘protected’ from teaching and admin • Probation to be rigorous • Teaching to make a clear contribution to the criteria for promotions, pay awards and bonuses • Joint appointments to be carefully managed • Clarification of the use of PDRAs (and PhD students) in teaching • Outreach strategy to be reviewed

  10. RECOMMENDATIONS – STUDENT APPEALS, COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARIES - 1 • Web-cleanse and development of a dedicated new site with up to date procedures and simple flow charts • Examination appeals – broaden authority so that no one person makes a decision • Disciplinaries • College Discipline Panel to be chaired by the Dean of Students to ensure collective knowledge/experience on the Panel • Appeals – Discipline Review Panel to be chaired by a lay-member of Council

  11. RECOMMENDATIONS – STUDENT APPEALS, COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARIES - 2 • Complaints • Stages 3 and 4 to be merged and dealt with by the Dean of Students, Pro-Rector (Education) and Academic Registrar. • If the complaint involves a member of staff, HR to be informed at an early stage • If the student is not satisfied with the outcome of the stage 3 investigation, he/she should approach the OIA • Guidance to be provided by the Central Secretariat.11

  12. RECOMMENDATIONS – STUDENT APPEALS, COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINARIES - 3 • Examination irregularities and plagiarism • Apply the same procedures to students who plead guilty and not guilty • All decisions to be made by a Panel not an individual • Hearing Panel to be replaced with a Review Panel • Introduce a tariff system • Appeal panel to be chaired by a lay-member of Council

More Related