Millard Parkinson St Helens College QAA Specialist Subject Reviewer

1. Millard Parkinson St Helens College QAA Specialist Subject Reviewer

2. Contacts • Gillian Hayes, Deputy Director (Reviews) • Ian Welch, IQER Method Coordinator • Katie Akerman, IQER Deputy Method Coordinator • www.qaa.ac.uk • QAA Gloucester Office: 01452 557000

3. Integrated quality and enhancement review – an overview

4. IQER • Is: • designed specifically for • colleges in England which provide higher education • appropriate for HEFCE directly, • indirectly and consortium-funded • provision • comparable with external review processes used within higher education institutions

5. The aims of IQER • Are: • to assist colleges in building their capacity for managing their responsibilities for quality and the delivery of academic standards • to assist HEFCE in meeting its statutory obligations • to allow QAA to provide independent verification of quality and standards

6. IQER should reduce burden by: • using existing college documentation • drawing on evidence from Ofsted/ALI college inspections and also by providing evidence for inspection • providing published evidence for an awarding institution’s institutional or collaborative provision audit • working within the context of each college’s partnership agreements

7. Dialogue with colleges Each College will have: • the same coordinator throughout the IQER cycle • An invitation to nominate members of staff as institutional nominees (INs). • An invitation to nominate a member of staff as a Summative review (SR) facilitator

8. IQER activities These include: • two interrelated processes: DE and SR • college’s self-evaluation • reviewers’ desk-based analysis and evaluation of documentary evidence • reviewers’ visit(s) to the college to meet staff, students and other stakeholders

9. Core questions are integral to both DE and SR • Core question one: Academic standards • Core question two: Quality of learning opportunities • Core question three: Accuracy and completeness of information

10. Important features of IQER In common with all QAA reviews: • the Academic Infrastructure provides a framework of reference • students’ experiences are central • self-evaluation precedes visiting • reviewers are peers • evaluations, recommendations and judgements are evidence-based

11. Students’ role in IQER They participate actively: • in both DEs and SRs • in discussions between the Coordinator and college about the IQER process • in confidential meetings with the reviewers • by submitting an optional students’ written submission

12. Developmental engagements Each college has: • From none to two over five years • The numbers of DEs is determined according to student FTEs and risk

13. Developmental engagement focus These includes: • consideration of the three core questions for each DE • student assessment as the theme of the first DE in each college • lines of enquiry to help answer the three core questions • a college preferred theme for any second/third DE

14. Developmental engagement team Teams have: • typically four members, but fewer for colleges with less than 100 HEFCE funded FTEs • usually a Coordinator, a reviewer and two INs • a second reviewer, if the college cannot provide two INs

15. Developmental engagement outcomes The outcomes are: • an oral report • written report, not published, including an action plan

16. Summative review Is based on: • one SR for each college during the five-year cycle • All HEFCE-funded provision in the college • Consider action of the three core questions

17. Summative review team Has: • typically four members, but fewer for colleges with less than 100 FTE students funded by HEFCE • no IN and is assisted by facilitator from the College

18. Summative review judgements and evaluation These are: • judgements of confidence, limited confidence or no confidence for core questions one and two and • an evaluation for core question three

19. Summative review outcomes • an oral report • a written report including an action plan containing judgements and evaluation • not published until IQER goes live

20. How should a College and its awarding bodies work together in IQER?“It is important to stress that IQER is concerned with colleges’ responsibilities for the management and delivery of higher education in the context of their partnership arrangements with awarding bodies, and not with the responsibilities of awarding bodies. That being said, awarding bodies may be involved in IQER in some way.

21. What additional support would you expect from the University in preparing for IQER? • This needs to be agreed by the College and its awarding body or bodies according to local circumstances. Where a College has a mature and/or evidently effective partnership with a particular awarding body, then both the College and the awarding body may feel it is not appropriate to involve the awarding body far beyond giving it the opportunity to comment on the self-evaluation. Where a partnership is relatively new and/or has not been the subject of other review activity, or where it has been the source of concern to recent review activity, then it may be appropriate for the awarding body to be more actively involved in IQER.”

22. What additional support would you expect from the University in preparing for IQER? • “Those representatives of HEIs who were present pointed out that most if not all HEIs would seek active involvement in the process as the quality guarantors of the provision. The HEIs added that a negative outcome (expression of limited or no confidence) could damage their reputations and commercial interests and this was another important reason for them to be involved.”