Internal Quality Assurance at University College Cork Dr. Norma Ryan University College Cork – National University of Ireland Cork

2 Dr. Norma Ryan  Biochemist  Director, Quality Promotion Unit, UCC  Irish Bologna Expert  Past-Chair, Irish Higher Education Network  Member, Governing Authority, UCC  Member, Senate of National University of Ireland  Member, Irish Universities Association Quality Committee

3 UCC  A University located in the South of Ireland, with 18,000+ students, and one of the highest annual research income of all the Irish Universities  Has a particular focus on delivering Fourth Level Ireland (graduate studies) and lifelong learning

4 Mission  To create, preserve, and communicate knowledge and to enhance cultural, social and economic life locally, regionally and globally. VISION  To be a research-led university of international standing with impact in Munster, Ireland, Europe and the world

5 Colleges of UCC  Arts, Celtic Studies & Social Sciences  Business & Law  Medicine & Health  Science, Engineering & Food Science

6 Universities Act 1997  Legislation that established all Irish Universities as independent autonomous institutions  Requires all Irish Universities to put in place quality assurance procedures

7 Section 35: Quality Assurance  To promote the improvement of the quality of education of students and all related activities  Responsibility for process rests with the University

8 National Agenda  In 2003 Irish Universities Association published: A Framework for Quality in Irish Universities  In 2007 second edition published  Principles outlined in Framework compatible with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Higher Education

9 Irish Universities Quality Board  Independent body established by Irish Universities in 2003  Purpose: to assist the Universities in the quality agenda and to conduct reviews of the effectiveness of the Quality Improvement /Quality Assurance reviews on behalf of the Universities.

10 QI/QA  QI: Quality Improvement  QA: Quality Assurance

11 What is Quality?  ‘Fitness for Purpose’  ‘Fitness of Purpose’  ‘Making the best use of resources available’  ‘added value’

12 Quality Assurance  Ensuring we do what we say we are doing  Ensuring what we do is a ‘quality’ job

13 Examples of QA  Peer review of research  External Examiner system  Accreditation of degrees  Employability of graduates

14 QI/QA Procedures  Focussed on quality improvement with rigour of quality assurance as a starting position  Well-established and documented  Reviewed internally and amended as deemed appropriate, e.g. –Implementation of detailed procedures for development and approval of Quality Improvement Plans following quality reviews.  Developed and amended using a collegial approach

15 Quality Reviews  Focus on ownership of review by unit under review  Focus on all activities of unit  All types of unit (academic, administrative, support service) reviewed under same principles and guidelines

16 Strategy in UCC  Quality Promotion Committee of Governing Body  Reviews scheduled over 6 year period by Quality Promotion Committee

17 Quality Promotion Committee  Committee of Governing Body with executive authority  Chaired by President of UCC  Has representatives of –Academic Staff –Administrative and Support Staff –Governing Body external members –Students

18 Quality Promotion Unit  Facilitates the implementation of Quality Improvement/Quality Assurance (QI/QA) procedures in UCC  Assists in the Follow-Up procedures following a QI/QA review of a unit

19 Methodology  Self-Assessment  Peer Review –Institutional/National/International  Follow-Up –On-going Quality Improvement

20 Reviews must involve  Students  Staff of institution  Employers  Past graduates/Alumni  Other stakeholders

21 Questionnaires  Used to obtain views of staff, students and others  Available on web sites  Some are linked specifically to guidelines for preparation of Self-Assessment Report

22 Evaluation Process 1  Appointment of unit co-ordinating committee –Guidelines on web site  Conduct of surveys of opinions of stakeholders –Questionnaires –Focus meetings –????  Assistance can be provided by QPU upon request

23 Evaluation Process 2  Nomination of members of Peer Review Group –External advisor to nominate a panel of external experts. –Unit to nominate a panel of external stakeholders –QPC to appoint internal members –Unit to be offered an opportunity to identify any conflict of interest prior to letters of invitation

24 Evaluation Process 3  Appointment of internal and external peer reviewers by Quality Promotion Committee  Production of Self-Assessment Report  Agreement of timetable for conduct of visit

25 Evaluation Process 5  Peer Review Visit & Report  Follow-up action  On-going quality improvement

26 Self-Assessment Report  Includes assessment by students  All staff of department must be involved  Includes views of past graduates  Incorporates views from –accrediting bodies –External Examiners –internal stakeholders –external stakeholders

27 Self-Assessment Report  Includes analysis of –Teaching –Learning –Research –Scholarly activity  Includes commentary on actions taken for improvement since last Quality Review and Research Quality Review

28 Self Assessment  Às appropriate, must include assessment of –Staff profile –Teaching –Research –Services provided –standards –Support services, including facilities –Contribution to society

29 Structure of SAR  Core: ‘Overall Analysis & Recommendations’  Appendices: contain factual details

30 Overall Analysis & Recommendations  Succinct and comprehensive  Details Mission of Department  Details Aims & Objectives  Summary of Unit activities  Relates all activities to Mission and Strategic Plan of UCC

31 Overall Analysis & Recommendations (contd)  Benchmarking  Details of how you plan to show you have achieved your Aims & Objectives  How is quality measured?

Overall Analysis & Recommendations (contd.)  How is success measured?  Emphasis on strategies for improvement of quality

33 Summary of Department  1 page executive summary on each of following: –Department Structure and Organisation –Teaching –Research –Consultancy Activities –Public Profile

34 SWOT Analysis  S - Strengths  W - Weaknesses  O - Opportunities  T - Threats  All staff involved  Leads to recommendations for improvement  Support for facilitator available from QPU upon request

35 Evaluation of Teaching  Evaluation by students  Questionnaires  Focus groups  Views of external stakeholders  Teaching portfolios  Peer review

36 Evaluation of Research  Peer reviewed publications  Books/chapters in books  Supervision of graduate students  Research grant income  Other scholarly activity

37 Appendices - Academic Units  Unit Details  Profiles of all staff - academic, administrative and support  Unit Planning and Organisation  Teaching and Learning –strategy –Reports of extern examiners –Reports from accrediting bodies. E.g. Medical Council

38 Appendices (contd.)  Research & Scholarly Activity –Metrics from Research Quality Review –Strategy  Staff Development Objectives  External Relations  Support Services  Methodology used in preparing Report  Additional documentation that Unit may wish to submit

39 Appendices - Admin & Central Service Units  Unit Details  Profiles of all staff  Unit Planning and Organisation  List of Client Groups for Unit  Service Standards for the Unit  Staff Development Objectives  Unit Budget  Methodology used in preparing Report

40 Documentation  Provided to review group by QPU: –Strategic Plans UCC College/Operational Area Teaching & Learning Research Student Experience –Student statistics –Research profiles –Financial details –Previous Quality Review Report and Follow-Up report

41 Documentation (contd)  Research Quality Review Report  Actions taken by Unit/University following Research Quality Review

42 Examples of other Documents  Policy documents produced by Unit  Procedural Manuals  Guidelines/Manuals/Handbooks  Audit reports produced by external bodies

43 Peer Review  Evaluation of Self-Assessment Report  Site Visit to meet with staff and students  Report on findings  Recommendations for improvement –To Unit –To University

44 Peer Review Report  Comments on findings  Recommendations –Acted upon by unit –Acted upon by institution

45 Follow-up - 1  Discussion  Draw up Quality Improvement Plan based on recommendations  Implementation

46 Follow-up - 2  On-going quality improvement  Re-visit one to 2 years later to discuss developments  Re-visit six years later in a formal review

47 What happens report?  Review Report is considered by –Staff of Department –Quality Promotion Committee of Governing Body –Budget decision makers in UCC –Governing Body

48 Recommendations in report  Discussed with Head of Unit and Head of College/Vice-President and the Director of Quality Promotion Unit  A Quality Improvement Plan is agreed upon and acted upon by unit in first instance

49 Publication of Report  Review Report is published on University web site.  Annual Report of Quality Promotion Committee to Governing Body also published. Report provides a synthesis of findings and issues as well as full details on each review

50 Follow-up  Unit submits a report on actions taken and outcomes within 18 months of completion of the review to the Quality Promotion Committee  Report on progress is considered by Governing Body and published.

51 Review of QI/QA process  A major review of the process and its effectiveness in UCC and the other Irish Universities was conducted in 2005 by the EUA.  The review was commissioned by the IUQB and the HEA on behalf of the Universities.  The Report endorsed and commended the quality processes in place.

52 Major Successes  Acceptance of quality review process  Appreciation of need for self-reflection  Embedding of a quality culture in all areas of the university initiated  Ownership by unit being reviewed seen as a benefit to unit  Follow-up procedures ensuring actions taken on recommendations for improvement

53 Challenges  To reduce the workload for departments/programme boards of study/units in gathering data  To ensure University acts on recommendations requiring resources

54 Activities  Development of thematic reviews, e.g. of quality of total research activity of University  Complete second cycle of quality reviews  Development of improved University Information Systems providing accurate data

55 Embedding a Quality Culture  Role of Director of Quality Promotion  Emphasis on quality enhancement  Remit wider than management of internal quality reviews  Link to strategic planning  Performance indicators  Institutional data and research  Funding of Quality Improvement Projects

56 Web sites      derwijs/bologna/

57  Thank You