Quality Assurance within Higher Education Institutions

1. Quality Assurance within Higher Education Institutions Professor Phil Cardew Pro Vice Chancellor (Academic) London South Bank University

2. Objectives of the Day • To establish the concepts of ‘standards’ and ‘quality’ and their place within a higher education institution. • To consider core processes of benchmarking, reporting and review needed to manage quality and standards. • To discuss the relationship between management processes and resourcing and quality assurance systems. • To consider the interrelationship between internal and external assurance systems. • To consider reporting mechanisms, and risk assessment and management from a management perspective.

3. Agenda 0930: Welcome, introductions, discussion of core concepts. 1000: Quality assurance at programme level: establishing and assessing to a standard. 1100: Coffee Break 1130: Validation, monitoring and review: process and reporting. 1230: Lunch 1300: Student engagement: feedback and representation. 1400: Using reports, risk assessment and management. 1430: Plenary Discussion

4. Quality assurance at programme level: establishing and assessing to a standard.

5. Standards and Quality • What is ‘a standard’? • Thresholds attainment • Levels of achievement • Benchmarking and equity • What is ‘quality’? • Customer service models • Enhancement

6. The Building Blocks of degree awards – working with institutional variation: • ‘One size fits all’ approaches. • Establishing ‘labels’ – understanding structures. • Common ‘labels’: • Programmesand courses • Frameworks and Pathways • Modules and Units • Variability of approach • Modification

7. Structures of delivery • Full-time and part-time • Single honours and combined honours • Distance, blended and distributed delivery • Delivery by partner institutions • Multi-site delivery • Comparability • Assessment of standards • Research degrees and learning contracts • Relationship to academic regulations

8. How do we establish a standard at programme level? • National Qualifications Frameworks • Subject benchmark statements • Professional body requirements • Employer requirements • External examiners • Academic • Professional

9. Standards, levels, awards • Award outcomes – graduate attributes • Levels within an award • Exit qualifications • Assessment • Type • Variation • Loading • Embedded, dual and articulated awards.

10. Employability • ‘Professional’ and ‘Academic’ qualifications • Subject knowledge, technical ability, specialist skills, core skills • Currency of knowledge • Work-based learning

11. Conclusions • No ‘one size fits all’ or ‘standard’ model • However – especially in early stages – consistent approach pays dividends • Important to establish an ‘outcomes based’ approach • Clear understanding of overall learning outcomes • Clear understanding of level and progression • Clear assessment strategy

12. Coffee Break

13. Validation, monitoring and review: process and reporting.

15. The Building Blocks • Validation – programme approval • Annual monitoring: • Action planning • Relationship to other processes • Periodic review: • Cycle of operation • ‘End of cycle’ and ‘mid-cycle’

16. Working with collaborative partners • Types of relationship • ‘Flying faculty’ • Part-franchise • Franchise • Validation • Accredited Partner • Approval of delivery • Periodic review

17. Validation • Initial approval in principle: • Strategic ‘fit’ within overall academic portfolio • Clarity of award title • Market • Desirability for professional and/or employment market • Validation event: • Programme specification • External involvement • Academic • Professional • Employer

18. Annual Monitoring • Cyclical action planning • Responding to data: • External Examiners’ report(s) • Progression and Award Statistics • Module Evalution Questionnaire results • National Student Survey • Employment Statistics • ‘Sign off’ of minor modifications

19. Periodic Review • Relationship between review, validation, monitoring and minor modifications: • Incremental change and re-validation • Stability of award title and learning outcomes • (Advantage of frameworks and pathways) • Gives experience of programme over a longer time-scale • Allows for ‘major’ changes • MUST include appropriate externality

20. Action Planning and Reporting • Identifies short and medium-term actions • Includes responsibility • Identifies activities to be undertaken • Includes review point • Establishes benefits of activity • Reports on: • Conclusion of activity • Results of action

21. Conclusions • Nested activities – not separate processes • Should establish continuum of evidenced action planning • Can work in clusters of programmes as well as individual programmes • Should lead to clear, concise reports • MUST include externality in all aspects and at all points.

22. Lunch

23. Student engagement: feedback and representation. • Why engage students with quality processes? • Identify strengths and weaknesses of delivery from a student perspective • Engage with aspects of delivery outside teaching: • Classroom and lecture space • Library • IT • Specialist equipment • Engage with assessment, marking, moderation and feedback to students

24. Basic Methods • Module Evaluation • Annual Surveys • Course Boards • Student Meetings • Student involvement in Periodic Review: • In meetings • As Reviewers • Senior engagement with the Students’ Union

25. Module Evaluation • Standard questions • Scoring • Similar timescales of delivery • Anonymous completion • Comments as well as scores • Standard reports • Module • Programme • Department • Faculty • Focus on under-performing modules

26. Annual Surveys • New entrants • International Students • National Student Survey • Postgraduate Surveys: • Taught programmes • Research Students • ‘Pulse’ surveys

27. Course Boards and Student Meetings • Elected representatives • Training • Timescales for meetings • Standard Agendas • Gathering information • Feedback • Relationship to other processes • External examining • Annual monitoring

28. Students within validation and review processes • Student meetings • Engagement with new proposals • Feedback on existing courses • Recent graduates reflecting on employability • Engagement with department – responsiveness to feedback etc • Students as reviewers • Experience on QAA reviews • Training • Limits of process

29. Conclusions • Student input adds value to processes. • Needs to happen in collaboration with Students’ Union (or a Student Society). • Representatives need training. • Need to establish clear understanding of goals of engagement. • Needs careful handling not to patronise or antagonise. • Need to reassure staff that they are in control of their programmes – but that student input is valuable!

30. Using reports, risk assessment and management.

31. What are the aims of quality assurance processes? • Confirmation of standards • Reassurance that processes have been completed • Reflection on performance (data monitoring) • Enhancement of future delivery (programme structure and quality of delivery/environment).

32. What should processes focus on? • Specialist understanding of the academic discipline • Statistical data – progressionand achievement • Feedback from external examiners • Feedback from students • Employment statistics • Resources

33. What should we avoid? • Long and tedious reports with nothing to say. • Repetition from previous years. • Narrative description with no analysis. • ‘Open-ended’ action planning.

34. What should we promote? • Focused reports. • Clear analysis of data. • Action plans which show monitoring and completion of actions. • Forward planning related to analysis. • Responsiveness to feedback. • Development, not stagnation.

35. Becoming ‘risk aware’ • Can we focus only on key areas (programmes) of risk? • What should lead to investigation? • Threats to standards • Poor progression and/or achievement • Negative feedback (from examiners or students) • Poor satisfaction • Poor employability • Lack of action

36. Reporting as part of a cycle • Reflection on previous year’s report (and actions). • Analysis of data – including comparison with past performance (what is ‘direction of travel’?) • What action is needed as a result? • Who will do it – by when?

37. Conclusions • Reporting need not be a huge burden (either to the author or the reader). • Must have clear outcomes and be useful. • Must be used. • Must have place in future activity and reflection. • Poor performance must be dealt with (both in terms of activity and reporting).

39. Plenary Discussion