Transcript Preparing for IQER: using the Academic Infrastructure

Preparing for IQER
Tanya Izzard and Maria Marzaioli
University of Brighton
[email protected],
[email protected]
Aims and audience
• to introduce college staff to the requirements,
processes and outcomes of IQER
• to develop understanding of the QAA Academic
Infrastructure and its use
• to introduce college staff to Partner College
Review and its role in preparation for IQER
• for all college staff who may be involved in these
processes
• also of interest to students participating in either
process
Integrated Quality and Enhancement
Review
•
•
•
•
Developed by the QAA at the request of HEFCE
Replaced academic subject review
Consultation in 2006, pilot in 2007
Focus on college responsibilities within the context
of agreement with awarding bodies (i.e. UoB)
• College engagement with QAA academic
infrastructure through partnership with University of
Brighton
What is IQER?
IQER is an evidence based peer review which
considers:
• college management of student learning experience
• academic standards and quality of HE provision
Scope
• All colleges providing HE programmes that are
funded by HEFCE will take part in IQER.
• IQER does not apply to research degrees.
Aims and objectives of IQER
Aims
1. Support colleges in evaluating and improving their
management of HE.
2. Foster good working relationships
3. Enable HEFCE to discharge its statutory responsibility
for assessing quality
4. Provide public information.
Objectives
1. Engage colleges in a process of self evaluation and peer
review
2. To produce reports of these review activities
3. To contribute to public information
IQER themes
The IQER review process explores 3 core themes
1. Academic standards
– the level of achievement a student has to reach in order to
achieve a particular award or qualification
2. Quality of learning opportunities
– the effectiveness of everything that is done or provided by the
college, to ensure that students have the best possible
opportunity to meet the stated outcomes of their programmes
and academic standards of the awards they are seeking
3. Public information
– published by the college about academic programmes,
academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities
Process
IQER takes place in TWO PHASES.
1. Developmental engagement
–
supporting the college to develop its HE provision and
management of student learning experience
2. Summative Review
–
–
•
•
reviewing management of student learning experience
making judgements about effectiveness of management
Colleges will have one DE and one SR before 2011/12
Minimum of 1 year between DE and SR
Process
Both phases of an IQER review:
• Focus on management of the HE student learning
experience
• Acknowledge shared responsibilities and seek to enhance
relationships
• Share the three core themes
• Assume HE provision is already managed effectively
• Are lead by teams of peers
• Prioritise the interests of students
• Lead to the production of reports
Developmental Engagement
• Reflects the first two overarching aims
• Adopts two of the IQER objectives
• The first developmental engagement will focus on
assessment
• Most colleges will have only one DE
• Takes place with the full participation of the college;
college institutional nominees join review team
• Employs lines of enquiry proposed by the college
• Report is confidential.
• Usually one developmental engagement
Developmental Engagement outcomes
• Identify good practice
• Recommendations
– Essential recommendations
– Advisable recommendations
– Desirable recommendations
• Report
• Action Plan
Developmental Engagement Timeline
Summative Review
• Reflects all the overarching aims and adopts all
objectives
• Covers all aspects of college managed HE provision
• Does not employ lines of enquiry proposed by the
college
• No college nominees on the review team
• Judgements regarding core themes 1&2, conclusion
on core theme 3
• Summative review report is published openly
Summative Review outcomes
• Provisional judgements related to core themes 1 & 2
– Confidence
– Limited confidence
– No confidence
• Provisional conclusion related to core theme 3
– Reliance can be placed
– Reliance cannot be placed
– May also reach the conclusion that the information is
accurate, but incomplete, or vice versa.
• identifies good practice and recommendations
Summative Review Timeline
Self Evaluation Document (SED)
A Self Evaluation Document (SED) is required for both Developmental
Engagement and Summative Review
• Headings common to both SEDs are:
– Introduction to college and awarding bodies
– Details of college responsibilities for HE
– Outline of recent changes affecting HE provision
• Developmental Engagement SED also requests:
– Outline of assessment policy and practice
– Lines of Enquiry
• Summative Review SED also requests:
– academic standards
– quality of learning opportunities the three core themes
– public information
Student involvement
Reflects Aim 1 – to support colleges in reviewing and improving
their management of HE provision for the benefit of students
• IQER teams seek to identify student views about their
experience as HE learners
• IQER teams meet students during visit
• IQER teams invite students to produce a student written
submission.
• Student submission should reflect students own views of their
experience as learners
• Colleges can help students to prepare for submission by
sharing info with them
• QAA will provide further guidance to students and colleges
during preparations for IQER.
Role of awarding bodies
• IQER correspondence between QAA and College will be copied
to awarding bodies. Colleges are encouraged to copy
information to their awarding body also
• Awarding bodies identified in IQER reports
• IQER reports will be used as evidence for HE institutional audit.
• Institutional audit reports will inform the number of
developmental engagements
• Judgements, conclusions recommendations and action plans
arising from IQER are not addressed to the awarding body, but
may have implications for their relationship with colleges
• Agreement reached early in DE and SR processes regarding the
involvement of awarding bodies
UOB Involvment
The following principles were endorsed by the Academic
Partnership Committee in February 2008
• UoB to offer advice and guidance with SEDs
• SEDs to be sent to UoB as well as review team
• UoB to offer advice and guidance on evidence base
• Colleges to invite UoB representation at preparatory
meetings
• Attendance at other meetings to be agreed - UoB can
offer support where needed
• UoB to attend judgement meetings
• UoB to offer advice and guidance on the development of
action plans
QAA Academic Infrastructure
• Comprises four elements:
– Programme specifications
– Framework for higher education qualifications
– Subject benchmark statements
– Code of Practice for the assurance of quality and
standards in Higher Education
Programme specifications
QAA defines as:
• Concise description of the intended learning
outcomes of a HE programme and the means
by which they are achieved and demonstrated
• Definitive publicly available information on
aims, intended learning outcomes and
expected learner achievements
• Format not specified but core content
suggested
Programme specifications
Uses:
• Source of information for students and
prospective students
• By institutions for programme approval,
review, monitoring & evaluation, as core
programme documentation
• Source of information for external reviewers,
employers, PSRBs
Programme Specifications at Brighton
• See the policy on Programme Specifications
–
–
–
–
–
Developed for each taught award-bearing course
The primary record of an approved course
A key document in course development and approval
Evidence to support periodic review of courses
Part of the agreement between the University and the
student
– Approved at validation and thereafter annually by Faculty
Academic Boards
• Published on Staffcentral and included in student
handbooks
• Standard template defined
Framework for HE Qualifications
• A national framework for England and Wales
• Defines levels of HE awards and provides
qualifications descriptors
• HE providers must “demonstrate that students
will gain qualification awarded in accordance
with” the FHEQ
Framework for HE qualifications
Level 4
Higher National Certificates (HNC)
Certificates of Higher Education (CertHE)
Level 5
Foundation Degrees (eg, FdA, FdSc)
Diplomas of Higher Education (DipHE)
Higher National Diplomas (HND)
Level 6
Bachelor's degrees with honours (eg,
BA/BSc Hons)
Bachelor's degrees qualifications
Professional Graduate Certificate in
Education (PGCE)
Graduate diplomas
Graduate certificates
Level 7
Master's degrees (eg, MPhil, MLitt ,MRes,
MA, MSc), Integrated master's degrees
qualifications, (eg, MEng, MChem,
MPhys, MPharm)
Postgraduate diplomas
Postgraduate Certificate in Education
(PGCE)
Postgraduate certificates
Level 8
Doctoral degrees (eg, PhD/DPhil (including
new-route PhD), EdD, DBA, DClinPsy)
FHEQ at Brighton
•
•
•
•
•
Common Academic Framework
Course development and validation
Qualification descriptors
New awards (eg Foundation Diploma)
Diploma Supplement: ongoing work
Subject area benchmarks
• Set out expectations about standards of
degrees in a range of subject areas
• Many subject areas defined; updated every
five years
• Include information on subject knowledge and
understanding, attributes and skills,
thresholds for student achievement
• Foundation degree benchmark
• Guidance not prescription
Subject area benchmarks at Brighton
• Support programme development
• Validation panels may expect course
development teams to have taken account of
the relevant benchmark
• Assist with delivery of programme
• Contribute to periodic review
Code of Practice
• Guidance on maintaining quality and standards for universities and
colleges subscribing to QAA
• 10 sections
1.
2.
Postgraduate research programmes
Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning
(including e-learning)
3. Students with disabilities
4. External examining
5. Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
6. Assessment of students
7. Programme design, approval, monitoring and review
8. Career education, information and guidance
9. Work-based and placement learning
10. Admissions to higher education
Code of Practice at Brighton
• Precepts and detailed guidance
• Used to inform development of policy and
procedure
• Programme teams encouraged to refer to
relevant sections during programme
development and review, especially:
– section 6 Assessment of students
– section 9 Work-based and placement learning
Academic Infrastructure and IQER
• Review teams will be guided by expectations of
Academic Infrastructure
• Brighton’s engagement already evaluated
through Institutional Audit 2008
• College judged in the context of its agreement
with awarding HEI
• Developmental Engagement will focus on
assessment
• University policy or subject-level engagement?
• Guidance or compliance?
Partner College Review
• a University of Brighton process developed in
consultation with colleges
• carried out at least every five years
• designed with IQER in mind to provide an
effective preparation for colleges
• considers the effectiveness of the partnership
as well as college effectiveness
Partner College Review aims
• University and college can consider, evaluate and
improve the quality of partnership working
• assure University that management and delivery
of responsibilities for HE can be supported by the
college
• review and evaluate college HE strategy
• identify areas for development and enhancement
• identify good practice for dissemination
Partner College Review documentation
• based on draft self-evaluation for IQER Summative
Review
• college HE strategy
• report of significant changes in resources
• report from University, including Faculty commentary,
central department commentary, and analysis of
outcomes of quality assurance processes
• annual institution-level monitoring and evaluation
reports
• extracts from external inspection and review reports
Partner College Review process
• resource inspection
• panel meet with course leaders, link tutors,
current students
• panel discuss outcomes of these meetings and
issues from documentation with college
review team
• normally one and a half days
Partner College Review outcomes
• confirmation that college is able to manage
and deliver its responsibilities
• recommendations and commendations
• development of action plan for the college
and the University
• received by senior University committees
• progress monitored by Academic Partnership
Committee