International Partners meeting

Professor Bob Craik Deputy Principal (Learning and Teaching)

Focus on the Future

HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY 2010

Objectives

   Outline the UK context, HWU values and key principles for quality and standards Describe the quality assurance processes Discuss some of the proposals for improving quality assurance and quality enhancement

Background

 Heriot-Watt is small  UK expansion not possible  UK merger and acquisition no longer likely  International business is the solution

Background

  Heriot-Watt is an independent Higher Education Institution established by royal Charter in 1966 It has its own degree awarding powers (taught and research)   But overseen by  Quality Assurance Agency on behalf of the UK Government Other governments Professional institutions

Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework

   1 Credit for 10 hours of student effort 120 credits for an UG year (30 wks @40 hrs) 180 credits for a PG year (45 wks @40 hrs)      Higher Education Certificate after level 1 Higher Education Diploma after level 2 Degree after level 3 Honours Degree after level 4 Masters awards

Subject benchmark statements

   Describes the features of a named award (eg Civil Engineering) Does not specify the curriculum Each institution can build on its strengths  Professional Institutions also oversee the curriculum

Code of Practice

 Sets out how institutions should manage their business and students          

Collaborative provision

Postgraduate research students Students with disabilities External examining Appeals and complaints Assessment of students

Approval monitoring and review

Career education Work based learning Recruitment and admission

Key principles

 All academic standards must be benchmarked against the UK norms  Any course offered in more than one location/modes must have identical standards, learning outcomes and develop the same knowledge and skills  The University will treat all students the same and will follow the UK

Code of Practice

Student experience

 The University does not expect the student experience to be the same everywhere  Students have a range of options and pick what suits them and provides best value

Student options



Edinburgh

: academic (and research) focus, academic choice, co-curricular choice, range of services 

Dubai, Scottish Borders Campus

activities : More focussed on learning, intimate community of scholars, co-curricular activities, balance of professional and academic 

Partner

: Local access, cost, local contextualisation, professionally focussed 

Independent Learner

: flexibility, cost 

No mode/location provides “better value” than another

Partnerships

      Approved Learning Partner Joint Collaborative Partner Articulation Partner Academic Student Exchange Partner Industrial Student Placement Partner Validation Partner  Undergraduate, postgraduate, research

Success

 Financially sustainable student numbers (prefer growth)    Student achievement (pass rates) Student satisfaction (good feedback) Student employment (graduate employment)

Academic Standards Academic Quality

What do they mean and how do we deliver them

Standards

Threshold standard

Standards

Cohort A “high” standard Student achievement Cohort B “low” standard Threshold standard

Quality and Standards

Standards

The height of the bar

Quality

The training and preparation for the jump

Student experience

Did you enjoy it (did you get coffee after)

Academic standards

 Academic standards must be the same everywhere  Normal rule is “same course, same exam, same markers, same external examiner”.

 Planned and managed approach to exceptions (eg Management Programme)

Exam management

   Exams are managed by the International Centre for Examinations Managed 28,500 external exams last year Summative assessment is independent of the partners  Similar process on Campus (independent location and invigilators)

Academic Quality

       Common curriculum and learning outcomes Skills development embedded in the curriculum High quality learning materials for students Tutor guidelines and support Qualified teaching staff at partner (approved by the University) Approved facilities and resources at partner Local contextualisation

Contextualisation

      International degree so core learning has to be common Local contextualisation is important for student learning, employability and partner reputation Formative course work should be locally contextualised Dissertations can have a local application Exam answers can reflect local situations Curriculum should not have country specific parts

Learning support IT, Library, Advice

 Core learning through the curriculum  Learning support provided for all students (mainly web based)  Library  IT and the Virtual Learning Environment  Careers support  Induction  …

Quality assurance

Quality Assurance

   Approval (intention) Monitoring (self-assessment) Review (independent judgement)    University School Partner (by government) (by University or Profession) (by University and your gov’t)

The University

  University approved by Royal Charter Monitoring through an annual report, approved by Court, to the Government and Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)   Review on a 5 year cycle by QAA (Jan 2011) Overseas Audit by QAA (Imperia recently completed)  Review by partner government (eg ACTT)

Each School

 Annual self-evaluation report of all activities including all off campus activities  5 year cycle of Internal Reviews  Students, External specialists, Internal Academics  Reported to Senate and QAA

Each Partner: approval

  Academic approval by Senate  Course curriculum, assessment, academic support (identical to on-campus courses)  Scrutiny at a senior level Business approval by named individuals  Partner, facilities and resources, teaching staff, quality processes  Information from partner, visit report, background checks  Approved by Course Leader, Head of School, Legal Services, Academic Registrar, Deputy Principal, University Secretary

Each partner: monitoring

 Partner prepares an annual monitoring report (self-assessment )  School reports back to Partner on issues raised and action to be taken  Report and response reviewed by Dean and reported to Quality Enhancement and Standards Committee  Deputy Principal confirms to Partner that the review has been completed

Each Partner: review

 Occasional visits and reports (must be every 3 years)  Internal Audit on a 3 year cycle  Review of reports and other documents over the past 3 years  Formal academic re-approval of partnership

Benefits not features

 You can be confident (and demonstrate) that all students learn the same knowledge and skills in a local context  You can be assured that the degree standards are the same

Quality enhancement Areas for development

Problem areas

      Admin response can be slow (registration) Exam results processing can be slow Feedback to students can be slow Feedback from students can be variable in quality Schools have different processes making multi programme partnerships difficult (for us and you) Difficult for partners to be engaged in curriculum development

Annual report and development

   A Board of Studies may be appropriate as a joint forum to annually review the partnership replacing the self-assessment report.

Board of Studies reports to both institutions Probably need to be associated with a visit  Report back to partner should include     Issues raised by the external examiner Student performance compared to other cohorts Update on business issues and future student numbers (This is the current practice in some schools)

Non academic matters

 New student admin system is being introduced  To be discussed tomorrow  Academic year was designed for a Sept start and is difficult for Jan/Feb start

Student feedback

   Partners collect feedback reported through Annual Report HWU staff meet students during visits Some Schools receive feedback directly from students  Piloting University wide feedback system  Shared with partners  Student focused general questions  Needs new student admin system

Preparing for Honours

 Students undertake a major piece of independent work (dissertation)  Students study advanced subjects  

Partner needs

 Staff to teach specialist subjects Staff to support students doing research Facilities for research (labs, library etc)

Preparing for multi programme delivery

HWU

 Consistent admin arrangements through a single contact  Consistent (and explicit) academic expectations and support

Partner

 Admin processes to manage increased scale

Focus on the Future

HERIOT-WATT UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL STRATEGY 2010