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