Transcript Academic review in FECs: 2003-4

The Academic Infrastructure and
IQER
Wendy Stubbs
Assistant Director
[email protected]
www.qaa.ac.uk
Aims of the presentation
•
the Academic Infrastructure
•
Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review ( IQER)
Academic ‘standards’ and
‘quality’
• academic standards are predetermined and explicit levels of
achievement which must be reached for a student to be
granted a qualification
• academic quality is a way of describing the effectiveness of
everything that is done or provided (the ‘learning
opportunities’) to ensure that students have the best possible
opportunity to meet the stated outcomes of their programmes
and the academic standards of the awards they are seeking
Origins of the Academic Infrastructure
•
Dearing report 1997
•
Proposals:
• framework for qualifications and awards at all levels of higher
education:
• threshold standards across all subject areas;
• guidance for writing programme specifications for each programme;
• codes of practice to secure the quality of the student experience;
• public information
The Academic Infrastructure: Components
•
Framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ)
•
Subject benchmark statements
•
Programme specifications
•
Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in
higher education ( The Code of practice )
The Academic Infrastructure:
What does it do?
• provides a set of common reference points that enables
comparable academic standards to be established in institutions
without jeopardising their autonomy and diversity
• enables institutions, their students, employers and the general
public to have confidence that an award or qualification is of a
standard recognised and acceptable within the UK
Questions answered
What is the difference between a bachelors degree with
honours and a Foundation degree?
What is a master’s degree?
Are degree courses in Physics the same or similar in all
institutions?
What would I know or be able to do if I took this course?
Relationships between components of
the Academic Infrastructure
setting standards
Framework for HE qualifications
(national agreement)
Programme specification
(institutional staff)
Code of Practice
Subject benchmark
statement
(subject community)
Framework for HE Qualifications (FHEQ)…..
the ‘ladder’ for England, Wales and N. Ireland
D
all doctoral degrees
M
Postgraduate Certificates, Postgraduate
Diplomas and … all Masters degrees
H
Bachelors degrees
with honours
Graduate Diplomas
Graduate Certificates
I
Degrees (Ord.; Found.)
Dip HE , HND
• to identify expectations
and achievements
C
Cert HE
• provide a ‘common language’..
the qualification descriptors
Framework for higher education qualifications
FHEQ
(current)
Proposed changes to FHEQ
NQF (2004)
D (Doctoral)
8
Doctoral degrees
8 Vocational diploma
M (Masters)
7
Masters degrees, Postgraduate Certificates
and Postgraduate Diplomas, Post Graduate
Certificate Education, First Degrees in
medicine dentistry and veterinary sciences
7 NVQ 5
H (Honours)
6
Bachelors degrees with Honours, ordinary
(bachelors), Professional Graduate
Certificates in Education, Graduate
Certificates and Graduate Diplomas
6 Vocational cert.
I (Intermediate) 5
Foundation degrees, Diplomas of HE and
other higher diplomas
5 NVQ 4
C (Certificate)
Higher National Certificates, Certificates of
Higher Education
4 Vocational cert.
4
Subject benchmark statements:
• are statements of what the relevant academic communities
consider to be valid frames of reference within which an honours
degree in a discipline should be offered;
• are not definitive regulatory criteria for individual programmes or
awards;
• do, however, provide authoritative reference points, which
students and other interested parties will expect both to be
taken into account when programmes are designed and
reviewed and to be reflected, as appropriate, in programme
specifications.
Programme specifications
• a concise description of the intended outcomes of learning from
a programme in terms of:
knowledge and understanding
key skills
cognitive skills
subject specific skills
•
show how the learning outcomes are going to be achieved and
demonstrated in terms of:
teaching and learning methods
assessment methods
• make learning explicit;
• draw upon external reference points such as FHEQ, the
subject benchmark statements and the Code of practice
Relationships between components of
the Academic Infrastructure
setting standards
Framework for HE qualifications
(national agreement)
Programme specification
(institutional staff)
Code of Practice
Subject benchmark
statement
(subject community)
Code of practice
• identifies a series of system-wide principles (precepts)
covering matters related to academic quality and standards
in higher education management
• 10 sections based on good practice developed and updated
in consultation with the sector
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Postgraduate research programmes
Collaborative provision
Students with disabilities
External examining
Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
Assessment of students
Programme approval, monitoring and review
Career Education, information and guidance
Placement learning
Recruitment and Admission
• an authoritative reference point for institutions as they assure
the quality and standards of their awards
Remember
•
The components of the Academic infrastructure are not documents of
compliance
•
They are reference points which are designed to help with:
• Curriculum design
• Setting and maintaining standards
• Quality management processes
•
They will be central to the new method of QAA review of HE provision
in FE colleges
Integrated quality and
enhancement review
IQER
• method developed specifically for colleges
• applies to HEFCE directly,
indirectly and consortium-funded
provision
• method that is comparable with institutional
audit
Aims of IQER
• to support colleges in evaluating and improving their
management of their higher education, for the benefit of
students, and within the context of their agreements with
awarding bodies
• to foster good working relationships between colleges and their
awarding bodies, for the benefit of students
• to enable HEFCE to discharge its statutory responsibility for
ensuring that provision is made for assessing the quality of
education provided by the institutions it funds
• to provide public information
Objectives of IQER
• to engage colleges in a process of self evaluation and peer
review focused on reviewing, evaluating and improving the
management of their higher education provision
• to produce reports of these review activities
• to contribute to public information about the academic standards
and quality of higher education in colleges.
IQER limits burden by…
• using existing college documentation
• drawing on evidence from Ofsted 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
arrangements
Dialogue with colleges
Each College will have:
• the same coordinator throughout the IQER cycle
• the opportunity to negotiate the timing of reviews, in consultation
with their awarding body(ies)
• nominees within the Development engagement
• facilitator within the Summative review
IQER activities
• two interrelated processes of Developmental engagement and
Summative review
• 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
Core themes
• Core theme one: academic standards
• Core theme two: quality of learning opportunities
• Core theme three: public information
Some important features of IQER
• the Academic infrastructure provides framework of reference
• student voice
• self-evaluation precedes visit
• peer review, not inspection
• open and transparent
• evidence-based
The student voice in IQER
Students participate:
• in both Developmental engagements and Summative reviews
• in discussions between the Coordinator and college about the
IQER process
• in confidential meetings with the reviewers
• by submitting an optional student written submission
Developmental engagements
• most colleges have one, but provision for fewer or more over
five years
• the numbers of Developmental engagements determined
according to student numbers and risk
Developmental engagement
Focuses on:
• student assessment as the theme of the first Developmental
engagement in each college
• lines of enquiry
• college’s chosen theme for a second Developmental engagement
Developmental engagement
Teams have:
• typically four members, but fewer for colleges with less than 100
HEFCE funded full time equivalent students
• usually a Coordinator, a reviewer and two nominees
• a second reviewer, if the college cannot provide two nominees
Developmental engagement outcomes
• an oral report
• essential, advisable and/or desirable recommendations
• good practice for dissemination
• unpublished written report including action plan
Summative review
Based on:
• one Summative review for each college during the five-year
cycle
• all HEFCE-funded provision in the college
• consideration of the three core themes
The Summative review team
• normally four members
• a Coordinator and three peer reviewers
• college facilitator not a team member
Summative review judgements and
evaluation
• judgements of confidence, limited confidence or no confidence
for core themes one and two
• an evaluation for core theme three
• essential, advisable and/or desirable recommendations
• good practice for dissemination
Summative review outcomes
• a published report containing judgements and action plan