HEQC Finnish Project: Purpose To prepare the University for the HEQC audit: September 2007. (P1) 2006/7 To validate our current IQMS system in terms of what is expected and to make the required adjustments. (2006to March 2007) Appoint a Project Manager & Institutional Researcher.
HEQC Finnish Project: Purpose Diagnostic Analysis on Programme Reviews Create and interactive Internal Quality Management System to support our SEMS system & other QA events. P3 (2008/9) The further improvement challenge will then be: Addressing the additional gaps and any implementation weaknesses identified during the 2007Audit.
HEQC Finnish Project (1) The HEQC audit was successfully conducted in September 2007. The first draft of the HEQC panel feedback to UWC was received on 27 May 2008. The institutional response to the draft report was submitted to the HEQC on 4 August 2008. Final Report received on 8 October 2008 for institutional engagement. Improvement Plan: March 2009
HEQC Finnish Project (1) Outcomes 7 commendations 20 Recommendations Recommendations accepted in principle. However Concerns expressed: Inadequate triangulation. Inappropriate paradigms Inaccurate absolute statements and recognition of current reality in various areas
HEQC Finnish Project Outcomes Recommendations for consideration Need Strategies to: Link mission to quality. Debate of what quality actually means to provide institutional expression at all levels. Different notions & tensions (Sense-making our own) New pedagogical approaches ito our richness of experience in this area and use it to develop new T& L strategies Monitoring of Teaching and Learning Plan at all levels (IOP)
HEQC Finnish Project(1) Outcomes On our Internal Quality Management System: Quality Policy(2007) The institution has a clear sense of areas in which quality needs to be monitored.(p26) Interviews with different layers of staff found that –..UWC has working IQMS sufficiently generalized, understood and consistently applied at Faculty and departmental processes. The QA system has a positive effect on its core functions and recognizes the role of the QA office in this regard. (p26):…. Refer to recommendations
HEQC Finnish Project (2) Programme Reviews Research on PR concluded in 2005 to 2006. Focused Areas: Institutional arrangements. Distinct nature of programme reviews. Ownership of the process. Reporting and support to resource the recommendations of the panel. Synchronizing current Academic and Programme reviews Professional Board Reviews.
HEQC Finnish Project (2) Outcomes HEQC audit remarks on Programme Reviews. Clear procedures are in place to achieve a number of outcomes as defined in its policy.(p38) It recommends that we also focus on the quality and effectiveness of the teaching and learning and assessment strategies. (p40)
HEQC Finnish Project (2) Outcomes The research findings have implications at different institutional levels, from the relationship between structures and the synergies between different processes to supporting faculty members as reflective practitioners. Specific recommendations for consideration to change policy and current practices are underway :Some of the research findings have fed into current Programme Reviews (2008).
Student Enrolment Management System SEMS and Interactive IQMS Progress
ACADEMIC PROGRAM SASI COMMITTEE DOCUMENT MAN SYSTEM (CDMS) TIME- TABLIN G MAS CALL/ CONTACT CENTRE STUDENT/ STAFF PORTALS STUDENT DOCUMENT MANAGEME NT TRACKIN G SYSTEM OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS (SEMS) COMPLETED IN PROGRESS
SEMS PROGRAMME FACILITATES PROCESS AND DATA INTEGRATION Contact centre (front-end) Organization and Process (back-end) (SEMS, ACADEMIC PROGRAM, MAS, CDMS, DOC MAN, ABACUS, etc.) Student Portals (front-end)
Broad Internal Quality System for UWC (adaptive to continuously seek improvement) HEQC Audit HEQC Programme Accreditation Professional. Boards Strategic Alignment of Executive lines such as Academic Departments Human Resources Marketing/ Recruitment Student Administration Finance ITS Institutional Planning Tech Services Safety & Security Student Development Public Affairs Special Support Units and needs to be validated on a regular basis. Institutional Operating Plan focus on broad improvement issues as per UWC. s mission strategic objectives, 0ur approach to quality and values we strive for Departmental reviews Purpose: Focus on operational review with emphasis on Management Leadership Staffing, Research development, workloads, collaboration, services and values: Improvements and Key Processes. Annual reports: Each unit to focus and reflect on its Contributions of strategic alignment and values to show continuous improvement within its specific specialized area of operation. (Could include external auditing) Serves a primary source for all Departmental and other Reviews Programme Review focus on Strategic Alignment, of content, Teaching and Learning, Assessment, Moderation, Impact, Monitoring and Student feedback (Community service ) Academic departments only UWC Goal Self -Accreditation Feeds into 1 2 2 a 3 Vincent Morta Presented to Executive May 2004 Review and annual reports of academic departments to Senate. Support departments to Senior Management
Challenges Further enhance and refine our IQMS at all levels. Need strategies on how to make what we already have in place more effective. Improve our T & L strategies (integrate with new IOP 2010 to 2014) Follow-through on recommendations made at the Leadership Workshop (All) on the IOP held on 1-2 September 2008
Challenges Continued Strengthen our new T & L Unit. ( T& L strategies via research; to identify and deepen understanding of nature and extent of barriers to student success and ‘best’ teaching and learning practices across the institution and implement pilot interventions based on evidence obtained Senate Teaching & learning Committee (new) Enhance Programme Review procedures. Further streamline administrative processes via SEMS
Finally UWC wishes to thank and express its appreciation to the HEQC/Finnish funders for the capacity development project that contributed to the enhancement of our IQMS. To Dr H Du Toit, for his commitment, support, understanding and patience as Project Manager. Without a doubt,this project has been successful Thank you to the Quality fraternity present fpr their support.