Managing Academic Quality and Standards – Part II: The University’s Framework30 Nov 07Tim Burton, University Senior Quality Officer

Objectives

To increase understanding of the University’s 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

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)

Influences on the framework (the substance)

External expectations internal feedback values strategic concerns of the University External feedback – external examiners, other

stakeholders Student feedback

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

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

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)

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.

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)

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

Approval > 1st reading – principles> 2nd reading – detail

Relevant committees> QSC – Academic Board (codes) – Senate (regulations)

Publication> Quality Handbook – www.hull.ac.uk/quality> 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)

Communication>Quality and Standards Update (and consolidated)

> http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/news_events/index.html

>Implementation guide >user friendly information>Staff development>Advice and guidance

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

>Faculty Oversight across cognate disciplines Specific functions:

Programme approvals Unfair means Producing the Quality Enhancement Report

(QER)

> 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)

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

>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

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

The hierarchy in action> Student feedback at module and programme level (inc via

representative mechanisms)> Self-evaluation by teaching staff> External examiner feedbackannual monitoring of programmes Faculty Quality Enhancement Report

Annexes including EE reportsQSC (analysis of QER by QSC team of 3)

Overview to full committee: good practice / recommendations

> 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

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

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’

> 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

> 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

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)

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

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

Further SD events

Unfair means (mandatory for chairs and secretaries of UM Panels)

Programme approvals Other ideas … ?

> Generic or bespoke for a department/faculty