Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer."— Presentation transcript:

1 Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer

2 Objectives To increase understanding of the Universitys 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

3 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)

4 Influences on the framework (the substance) External expectations internal feedback values strategic concerns of the University External feedback – external examiners, other stakeholders Student feedback

5 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

6 >Examples: >Regulations on complaints by students (E2) >Academic appeals (E1) >- both Section 5 QAA Code >Programme approvals (G1-4) reflecting Section 7

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

8 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)

9 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.

10 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)

11 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

12 Approval >1 st reading – principles >2 nd reading – detail Relevant committees >QSC – Academic Board (codes) – Senate (regulations)

13 Publication >Quality Handbook – >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)

14 Communication >Quality and Standards Update (and consolidated) > >Implementation guide >user friendly information >Staff development >Advice and guidance

15 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

16 >Faculty ­Oversight across cognate disciplines ­Specific functions: ­Programme approvals ­Unfair means ­Producing the Quality Enhancement Report (QER)

17 >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)

18 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

19 >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

20 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

21 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

22 >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

23 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

24 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

25 >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

26 >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

27 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)

28 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

29 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

30 Further SD events Unfair means (mandatory for chairs and secretaries of UM Panels) Programme approvals Other ideas … ? >Generic or bespoke for a department/faculty

Download ppt "Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The Universitys Framework 30 Nov 07 Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google