Launch of the New Visual Identity
Download
Report
Transcript Launch of the New Visual Identity
Managing Academic Quality and
Standards – Part II: The
University’s Framework
30 Nov 07
Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer
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
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)
Influences on the framework
(the substance)
External expectations
internal feedback
values
strategic concerns of the University
External feedback – external examiners, other
stakeholders
Student feedback
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
>Examples:
>Regulations on complaints by students (E2)
>Academic appeals (E1)
>- both Section 5 QAA Code
>Programme approvals (G1-4) reflecting Section 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
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)
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.
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)
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
Approval
> 1st reading – principles
> 2nd reading – detail
Relevant committees
> QSC – Academic Board (codes) – Senate (regulations)
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)
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
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
>Faculty
- Oversight across cognate disciplines
- Specific functions:
- Programme approvals
- Unfair means
- Producing the Quality Enhancement Report
(QER)
> 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)
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
>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
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
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
> 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
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
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’
> 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
> 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
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)
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
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
Further SD events
Unfair means (mandatory for chairs and
secretaries of UM Panels)
Programme approvals
Other ideas … ?
> Generic or bespoke for a department/faculty