1 / 8

HER Academic Registrar Council Update June 2013: Progress and Improvements

This update outlines the progress made on Higher Education Review (HER) by Stephen Jackson. Addressed concerns include risk language, review intensity, academic standards judgment, student input, and deregulation evidence. Actions taken include revised appraisal methods, protocol changes, and reviewer enhancements.

lbatie
Download Presentation

HER Academic Registrar Council Update June 2013: Progress and Improvements

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. Update on Higher Education Review (HER)Academic Registrar Council7 June 2013 Stephen Jackson

  2. Progress to date

  3. What you said.... Concern about: • the language of risk • The link between the size of provision and the intensity of review • The limitations of the initial appraisal of information • The judgment on academic standards • The use of international reviewers • The open invitation to students to provide additional information • Insufficient evidence of deregulation

  4. What we’ve done.... • Replaced initial appraisal with desk-based analysis by review teams • Decoupled size of provision from the duration of the review • Duration of review will be linked to outcomes of desk-based analysis. (1-5 days) • Size of team may reflect scale and complexity of provision (2-6 reviewers) • Limited role for international reviewers

  5. What we’ve done... • Revised wording for the judgment on standards.. • ‘..the setting and maintenance of threshold academic standards’ • provision of ‘requires improvement to meet UK expectations’ outcome • Protocols for the submission of information by students • Comment template • Evidence requirement • Features of good practice • Inclusion of professional support staff as reviewers

  6. What next.. • Review Schedule for 2013-14 • Reviewer training and conversion • Briefing sessions for facilitators and student representatives

  7. So what’s different? • Longer intervals between reviews • Single integrated review visit • Collaborative provision – less partner link visits • Shorter visits for most providers • No mid-cycle activity • Revised arrangements for TNE – no UK-end visits

  8. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education www.qaa.ac.uk

More Related