Presentation on theme: "ENQA – QAA meeting 8-9 December 2005 Birmingham, UK 9 December, 10.45 – 12.30 Feedback from workshop groups."— Presentation transcript:
ENQA – QAA meeting 8-9 December 2005 Birmingham, UK 9 December, 10.45 – 12.30 Feedback from workshop groups
International experts Judgement or enhancement Prestigious universities want prestigious benchmark Easier in audits than in programme/subject review Recruitment sometimes difficult Easier for English-speaking countries?
International experts (2) Students as panel members Representativity is difficult Students interviewing student groups separately? Stakeholders Conservative force? Higher learning or employability?
Bologna In the countries where the European standards match the national requirements, the integration of ESG is part of the regular revision of procedures In the countries where the ESG do not match the national requirements, there is action to change requirement through legislation Important that standards are seen as guidelines
Students Two areas of student involvement Panel members Involvement in institution being involved Panel members: Purpose of involvement – role to be played Full member? Single voice, not student voice Only student areas of interest Reporting involvement
Students 2 Students in institutions Number of approaches to ensuring panels hear from students Involvement in writing evaluation document How representative are student groups Political difficulties associated with student unions Institutional concerns
Quality enhancement in institutional audit Planned enhancement – more realistic with strong subject/professional influence Building on quality assurance – generally an applicable and desirable route for improvement Much information - but little analysis of how it can generate the basis for improvement Communication – between managers and faculty needs to be good – in both directions Leadership – needs to be strong to overcome internal tensions associated with the risks of enhancement vs. the stability of assurance
Reports Clarity regarding purpose, and therefore target readership Multiple or complex purposes may require particular structure(s) Multi-part single reports Separate reports Reports for student information (too sensitive) Reports will also have regard for: National legal and political context Freedom of information etc
Reports 2 Publish or not? Negative reports and institutional reputation; bad news may be softened or disguised Tension between public accountability and institutional improvement? Who owns the report? Institutions may decide on publication Institutions need clear messages but more coded reports may protect institutions
Reports 3 Approaches to communication of difficult critical points below the line pre-report draft In exit feedback Not published but reported to institution Issues around quality of draft text Reviewers or officers produce report Training and report frameworks/templates Evidence base
Reports 4 Continuity strengthens significance How to make sure the report is understood and used Leave messages for next time round Check in follow-ups
Internal/external How detailed should/may the criteria be that govern the audits, determining: The scope and conduct of the audit? The institutions QA systems or capacity to respond to external QA – mature institution does not always mean mature QA What are the limits to what audits may legitimately assess? How to avoid the stagnation of procedure? (Moving the goalposts?) The possibilities for having flexible dynamic audits
Internal/external (2) Materials presented and materials available (avoid bumph?) Properties of good QA systems Integrated processes Wide participation Wide ownership exceptionalism of subject communities vs the generalist approach of audit QA systems of possible power instruments for management; faculty squeezed between management and student demands
Internal/external (3) Achieving trust and openness in a situation that will always be tense.