1. UK Quality Framework OU and ARCs
Diana Stammers, Head of Quality
December 2014

2. Coming up … UK quality assurance framework
Quality Assurance Agency for HE (QAA) HE Review of OU, December 2015
UK Quality Code for HE

3. Academic quality and standards – what do we mean?
Academic standards: the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an academic award (skills and knowledge base expected of students for a particular subject area at a particular level).
Academic quality describes how well the opportunities provided for students help them to achieve their award; making sure that appropriate and effective learning/programme design, teaching, supervision, other support, assessment and resources are provided. (Also known as “quality of learning opportunities”; “quality of student learning experience” etc.)

4. Quality and The Open University
The OU operates within same UK frameworks for quality and academic standards as other HE institutions awarding degrees
Academic standards and attainment by students must be equivalent to that of whole higher education sector
Quality management audited by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education - external peer review, used for all universities
The OU is accredited by the US Middle States Commission on HE – accreditation reapproved in 2010

5. QAA HE Review – what is it?
QAA’s principle review method for universities and colleges
Aim is to inform students and the wider public if a provider meets UK Expectations for:
setting and maintenance of academic standards
provision of learning opportunities
provision of information
enhancement of the quality of learning opportunities
providing accountability + encouraging improvement

6. Scope
All provision leading to OU qualifications or credit at FHEQ levels 4 to 8 (+ Scottish equivalent)
Taught provision and research degrees
Direct provision and provision delivered with third party

7. Key elements Peer review
Involvement of students (reviewer, lead rep, meetings)
Management of standards, quality, information, enhancement
Evidence-based – self-evaluation document supported by documentary evidence
Built entirely around the UK Quality Code for HE
Reference to (benchmarked) data
Core and theme
Review team – academics, student, may include professional support staff member and international observer/reviewer

8. Outcome 7 March 2016 QAA publish Report
9 May OU publishes action plan on its public website
Report, includes:
Judgements
Features of good practice
Affirmations of current action
Recommendations for action -with deadlines
Commentary on a selected theme
This is where process is heading

9. Outcome Four judgements on:
setting and maintenance of academic standards
meets / does not meet UK Expectations
quality of learning opportunities
information about learning opportunities
enhancement of students’ learning opportunities
commended
meets
requires improvement to meet
does not meet
UK Expectations
Can be differentiated judgements for different provision
UK Expectations – as defined by Quality Code
requires improvement to meet /does not meet – both considered unsatisfactory
Definitions: information about learning opportunities – general public, prospective and current students, staff. Fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy.
Before that ….

10. Review Visit
9 Nov OU finds out duration; lines of enquiry; who team wishes to meet, including partners; visit timetable; further document requests (incl audit trails)
7 Dec Review visit meetings start
Staff (including VC; ALs)
Staff from partner links
Students: OUSA reps; other students incl students at partners; possibly alumni
Possibly external examiners, employers
Team interrogate documentation further - triangulation
Final day reach judgements – team spend with QAA Review Manager
Duration will be a week (contingency to extend)
Video/tele conference with partners

11. QAA HE Review of OU, December 2015 – ARC involvement
Self-evaluation document (February-May 2015)
Student “mini-submission”?
Possible visit meetings – senior staff, supervisors, students; video or tele-conference
9 Nov 15 Find out who team wants to meet
7 Dec 15 Week of review visit
Letter to be sent shortly

12. UK Quality Code for HE Published by QAA
First section October 2011; last sections October 2013
Phased in for QAA reviews; all in use from August 2014
Three parts: academic standards; academic quality; published information
Expectation per chapter; indicators of sound practice; explanatory text
10.30

13. QAA UK Quality Code for HE
Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards
Covers:
A1: UK and European reference points for academic standards
A2: Degree-awarding bodies' reference points for academic standards
A3: Securing academic standards and an outcomes-based approach to academic awards
To give you a sense of how the chapters most relevant to you fit into the Quality Code ….

14. QAA UK Quality Code for HE
Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality  
B1: Programme design, development and approval
B2: Recruitment, selection and admission to HE
B3: Learning and teaching
B4: Enabling student development and achievement
B5: Student engagement
B6: Assessment of students and recognition of prior learning
B7: External examining
B8: Programme monitoring and review
B9: Academic appeals and complaints
B10: Managing higher education provision with others
B11: Research degrees

15. QAA UK Quality Code for HE
Part C: Information about higher education provision
Information about the higher education provider
Information for prospective students
Information for current students
Information for students on completion of their studies
Information for assuring quality and standards

16. B10 Managing HE with others
Responsibility for academic standards of awards cannot be delegated by the degree awarding organisation - OU needs to ensure equivalent academic standards (covered in Quality Code Part A)
Overall responsibility for academic quality with the degree awarding organisation but delivery is shared - OU to ensure equivalence of opportunities
Processes for assuring quality and academic standards, at least as rigorous as for direct provision, e.g.:
Approval, monitoring & review (partnership; programmes; information)
Use of management information, student feedback
External examiners and other external input
Due diligence (regular), written agreements
Risk-based approach
OU role

17. B11 Research Degrees Environment for success, quality of support
Consistency while recognising diversity amongst students
Clear and available regulations, codes of practice, procedures
Robust, fair and transparent selection
Clear entitlements and responsibilities of students
Supervisor skills, time, development and responsibilities
Research, personal, professional skills development - aligned with Researcher Development Framework; reviewed regularly
Robust progress monitoring, review, and assessment
Evaluation and action – MI, feedback, representation
Records
Communication and accessibility of information
Largely ARC role; OU doing some bits but largely oversight role (see B10)

18. OU and ARC Quality Code mappings
Evaluating alignment with Expectation and Indicators
Planning actions for improvement
Refreshing mappings after action
Aware that ARCs have been working hard to align research degree arrangements with the new Chapter and respond to similar changes in the OU e.g. supervision policy – where need to ensure equivalence of opportunities for students. Good news for HE Review.

19. A reflective approach to quality: 6 quality questions
What are you trying to do? PURPOSES
Why are you doing it? REASON
How are you going to do it? METHOD
Why is that the best way to do it? OPTIMISATION
How do you know it works? EFFECTIVENESS
How can you improve it? ENHANCEMENT
Why are we doing this? To help students achieve research goals
Quality Code is used as a reference point to help with question 4 and 6.
How can you improve it – by sharing and drawing on successful practice …. Next session!