Higher Education Review January 2015

Higher Education Review – What is it? External Review of how effectively Kent manages: Academic Standards Quality of the Student Learning Experience Enhancement Public Information Page 2

Higher Education Review – Who Leads it? The QAA: Team of external peer reviewers Senior Academic Professionals Student Member Assistant Director of the QAA Page 3

What do the QAA test Universities Against? The UK Quality Code Part A: Academic standards,cademic standards Part B: Academic quality andPart B: Academic quality Part C: Information about higher education provision.Part C: Information about higher education provision Each of these is subdivided into Chapters covering specific themes. Each Chapter has an Expectation Page 4

UK Quality Code - Expectations Expectations express key principles essential for the assurance of academic standards and quality. …What UK higher education providers are required to do, what they expect of themselves and each other, and what students and the general public can therefore expect of them. Individual providers are required to demonstrate they are meeting the Expectations effectively. Page 5

UK Quality Code – Example Expectation B6: Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning “Higher education providers operate equitable, valid and reliable processes of assessment, including for the recognition of prior learning, which enable every student to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the credit or qualification being sought.” Page 6

QA Quality Code – Why does it Matter? In HER, the core task is to: Explain to the review team how you know that your institution’s approach is effective in meeting the Expectations of the Quality Code, and how it could be further improved. Page 7

HER 2015 – Self-Evaluation Document (SED) to give an overview of your organisation, including its track record in managing quality and standards to describe your approach to assuring the academic standards and quality of that provision to explain how you know that approach is effective in meeting the Expectations of the Quality Code (and other external reference points, where applicable), and how it could be further improved. Page 8

SED – Where Can You Read it? In particular, staff involved in: Quality Management Student Support Partnerships Page 9

What Else Does the Review Team look at? Information provided by students Students at the university make a written student submission to help the review team understand what it is like to be a student at that university or college and how students' views are considered. Page 10

Student Submission Feedback Still variable in quality Very little to no feedback on written exam scripts Assessment Inconsistencies between marks and feedback comments between examiners Employability Like more opportunities to have placements, involvement with modules etc More volunteering opportunities Too much variability in what’s offered between programmes and levels (including PGT and PGR) Page 11

Student Submission Learning Resources Positive about the library, hubs etc Have issues over lecture capture – too little at present but seem to acknowledge that Kent is starting Critical over rooms, lack of flexibility, difficult to book for student activities etc Critical of lack of social and study space –Particularly critical over space for PGT students, especially out of term time –Also note that catering and other facilities restricted for PGT out of term time Page 12

Student Submission Electronic Submission Basically they want comprehensive ES! Want to submit and obtain feedback electronically as universally as possible Feel that there is currently too much inconsistency of treatment Student Engagement Positive about the way the university tries to include students at all levels However, feel that too often students are treated like 2 nd class citizens in some meetings, or feel intimidated Feel there should be better explanation of processes, and expectation management of staff Feel that better training is important and that they take responsibility for that Page 13

What Else Does the Review Team look at? Information collected by QAA QAA collects for the review team any recent QAA reports on the university or college and any other recent published reports from other organisations that work with the university or college. KIS Data National Student Survey Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Non-continuation following year of entry Page 14

When is this Happening? Page 15

HER - When is it Happening? Now Page 16

HER - When is it Happening? Desk-based analysis The first stage is a desk-based analysis by the review team of a wide range of information about the higher education on offer. Page 17

HER - When is it Happening? Kent SED & KSU Student Submission Submitted in December 2014 Page 18

HER - When is it Happening? Kent SED & KSU Student Submission Submitted in December 2014 Additional Information by end January Review visit: week commencing 9 March 2015 Page 19

HER - When is it Happening? The precise duration of, and programme for, the review visit will be determined by the review team about four weeks beforehand Page 20

HER Week – Who Will be involved? QA Manager Lead Student Representative Selected Staff Students Representatives of some partners Page 21

HER – How Will We Be Judged? Judgement on standards meets UK expectations, requires improvement to meet UK expectations or does not meet UK expectations Page 22

HER – How Will We Be Judged? Judgements on learning opportunities, information and enhancement commended, meets UK expectations, requires improvement to meet UK expectations or does not meet UK expectations Plus ‘Affirmations’ Page 23

HER – Potential Consequences? HEFCE – Unsatisfactory Quality Policy (QUP) Providers who receive one or more 'does not meet' judgements or who are unsuccessful in having a 'requires improvement' judgement changed to 'meets UK expectations' will have the UQP applied to them. Providers who are unsuccessful in having a 'does not meet' judgement changed to 'meets UK expectations' will move directly to a HEFCE-led process, which involves regular meetings and engagement with HEFCE and other stakeholders to agree and monitor progress against further actions. Page 24

HER – Potential Consequences? HEFCE may limit or exclude the institution from securing further public investment through any bidding process run by HEFCE. consider whether the institution’s poor-quality status should have any impact on how the student number control applies. make a support team available to the institution to help resolve the issues. Page 25

HER – Potential Consequences? HEFCE may make recommendations to the institution’s senior management team and, if appropriate, the board of governors as detailed in the ‘wider support strategy’ in Annex D of the financial memorandum (HEFCE 2010/19). HEFCE will also consider applying its general institutional support strategy, which is described in Annex D of HEFCE 2010/ /201330/HEFCE_2013_30.pdf Page 26

HER – Risks? ? Page 27

HER – What Should We Be Doing? Manage Quality processes effectively – PASS, Academic Advisors, Concessions, Assessment feedback) Ensure all quality process documentation is up to date and available (Specifications, Reports, AMRs, Minutes, Responses to EEs) Ensure consistency in information about modules in various media (Module Specs, Online Module Catalogue, Moodle) Page 28

Questions and Discussion