Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The University’s Framework

1. Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The University’s Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer

2. Objectives • To increase understanding of the University’s quality and standards framework with specific reference to how the framework is • developed, approved, enhanced, and communicated [the process] … and reviewed • Informed by external expectations, internal feedback and the values and strategic priorities of the University [the substance] • To explain how responsibilities for quality and standards are allocated within, and underpin, the framework • To outline some potential future developments – internal and external

3. Key elements of the framework • Regulations • University programmes regulations (governing award of credit and progression to the award) – 16 chapters • Unfair means • Complaints by students • Codes of practice (+ annexes) • Programme approvals (four chapters) • Annual monitoring • Assessment Procedures (10 chapters)

4. Influences on the framework (the substance) • External expectations • internal feedback • values • strategic concerns of the University • External feedback – external examiners, other stakeholders • Student feedback

5. External expectations • QAA Academic Infrastructure • Direct impact for academic staff – subject benchmark statements and programme specifications • Indirect: QAA Code reflected in University codes and regulations; FHEQ in regulations

6. Examples: • Regulations on complaints by students (E2) • Academic appeals (E1) • - both Section 5 QAA Code • Programme approvals (G1-4) reflecting Section 7

7. QAA Audit and Review • Evaluating management of Q&S • against the academic infrastructure (esp PGR against section 1) • (see further Part I) • European Standards and Guidelines • TQI – availability of external examiner reports to student representatives

8. Internal: feedback – through • Informal communications • QA processes – including thematic QER reporting • committee structures (faculty-university) • sampling of processes (e.g. attending programme approval, periodic review events and boards of examiners)

9. Values (agreed in 2004) • we aim to be: • collaborative – seeking partnership between learners, teachers and service/support staff • collegial – valuing the contributions of all our staff and students to the life and ethos of the University • fit for purpose – in our facilities and equipment • open and clear – in our procedures and information • professional and rigorous – in all our activities, in particular the maintenance of academic standards • relevant – in our programmes, qualifications, research and reach out activities • responsive – to learners, employers, and other stakeholders • supportive – towards learners and teachers and service/support staff.

10. Principles (2007) • Our management of quality and standards is underpinned by ensuring that our framework is: • clear and accessible to those required to use it • applied consistently and transparently • increasingly based on a variation of touch reflecting an identified level of risk • streamlined and • locates responsibility at the most appropriate level of the institution subject to effective institutional oversight. • Strategic commitments (discussed below)

11. Developing the framework (process) • Stages of development of a code of practice • Project specification • Scope (inclusions/exclusions) • Implementation date • Consultees • Establishment of working group • Consultation • Drafting • QH template – cover sheet • Must – should - may • standard items: authority

12. Approval • 1st reading – principles • 2nd reading – detail • Relevant committees • QSC – Academic Board (codes) – Senate (regulations)

13. Publication • Quality Handbook – www.hull.ac.uk/quality • Defined sections – QH reference number • Version control (1 00, 1 01 or 2 00) • Summary of changes from previous version • Contents page • Annotated version (explanatory notes)

14. Communication • Quality and Standards Update (and consolidated) • http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/news_events/index.html • Implementation guide • user friendly information • Staff development • Advice and guidance

15. Responsibilities for Q&S • Q&S are the responsibility of all academic and related support staff • The tiered management (of Q&S) structure • Contributions at each appropriate level • Departmental – Academic staff: designing a programme, carrying out the assessment process; providing academic support and guidance, monitoring student progression • Defined departmental roles (vary from dept to dept): quality officer, exams officer, student progress, year tutor, director of UG/PG studies • Specific responsibilities (HoD/delegated): student complaints, exam boards, annual monitoring, peer observation scheme

16. Faculty • Oversight across cognate disciplines • Specific functions: • Programme approvals • Unfair means • Producing the Quality Enhancement Report (QER)

17. University-level – institutional oversight • Quality and Standards committee • Oversight of the Q&S framework • Monitoring effectiveness of the processes • enhancement • Oversight of the outputs of the processes • Good practice • Concerns (e.g. complaints, external examiner serious concerns) • Oversight of the provision through periodic review, QERs and external examiners (now appoints)

18. Parental responsibility • SPC/RDC • application of regulatory framework to student cases • Award of degrees on behalf of Senate • Academic appeals • Programme Approvals Monitoring and Enhancement Committee (PAMEC) • On campus and international programme (partnership) approvals

19. Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) • CP processes and the outputs of those processes • External Examining Advisory and Monitoring Panel (EEAMP) • Advises chair QSC on EE appointments • Monitors effectiveness of EE process • Audit Advisory Group

20. ULTAC • the practice of L&T (strategic development) • Learning and Teaching Enhancement Committee • Assessment Committee • Educational Partnerships Committee • Strategic oversight of UK and international partnerships

21. The hierarchy in action • Student feedback at module and programme level (inc via representative mechanisms) • Self-evaluation by teaching staff • External examiner feedback • annual monitoring of programmes • Faculty Quality Enhancement Report • Annexes including EE reports • QSC (analysis of QER by QSC team of 3) • Overview to full committee: good practice / recommendations

22. Periodic review • QSC process – chaired by member of QSC but partnership with faculty, report to QSC • Review of the management of Q&S in defined subject areas; not review of the department or its teaching

23. Future developments – the near horizon • External • Academic Infrastructure • Revision of each section of the Code • Revision of the FHEQ • Integrated (combined) institutional audit • IQER – Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review • FDAP • The national Credit Framework • The Honours Classification • The Bologna Process

24. Internal - Strategic commitments • UoH Strategic Plan 2007-2012 • Outstanding student experience • ‘Operating quality processes which enhance the student learning experience’ • ‘continuing to encourage student participation in decision making processes’ • Develop sustainable and distinctive academic provision • ‘our challenges: • … employer engagement will play a significant role in our planning, while student demand will be the primary driver of curriculum development’

25. Learning and Teaching Strategy • Providing fair access to educational opportunities in which learners are partners in learning • Integrated plan • ‘we also believe in subsidiarity’ • The plan will ‘assure the quality of the student learning experience through rigorous internal and external review mechanisms

26. Our Approach to Quality and Standards • Assurance of quality • Maintenance of standards • Enhancement of the systems and processes • Effectiveness of institutional oversight • Priorities: • Risk management model (risk register) – variation of touch • Enhancement projects e.g. student participation, aspects of the student experience

27. Student participation in quality management • Scope • Feedback at module and programme level • Being consulted e.g. on programme changes • Is the feedback loop closed? • Student programme provider  student • Membership of relevant committees • Participation in management decisions – e.g. through University committees • Participation in QA activities – periodic review? • (parallel – QAA proposals for student membership of audit teams)

28. The role of UQO • Developing the framework • Advice and guidance • Leaflet on programme approvals • Key concepts for boards of examiners • Co-ordinating QA activities • periodic review • Programme approvals: PPC and FAP membership (advice if outwith regulations) • Preparation for audit • Sampling of processes • Departmental/faculty meetings

29. Faculty links: • Tim Burton – Scarborough, HYMS • Lynne Braham – HSC, PGMI • Christopher Cagney – IfL, FoS • Stuart Gilkes – FASS • Liz Pearce – HUBS • Janet Pearce – Collaborative Provision • Sue Cordell - YHELLN

30. Further SD events • Unfair means (mandatory for chairs and secretaries of UM Panels) • Programme approvals • Other ideas … ? • Generic or bespoke for a department/faculty