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 – 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)

14. Communication >Quality and Standards Update (and consolidated) >http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/news_events/index.htmlhttp://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/news_events/index.html >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