1. Quality Assurance for Enhancement INQAAHE Conference Abu Dhabi, 2009

2. Norman Sharp Director QAA Scotland n.sharp@qaa.ac.uk

3. Starting statements The ‘political’ challenges facing HE No right model Continuity and change Who really makes a difference?

4. Scotland in the 1990s 400+ Teaching Quality Assessments Full cycle of quality audits Quality Council and Funding Councils

5. Some new 21st century principles Enhancement Partnership Stability Challenges in HE teaching & learning Focus on the student experience

6. Students as co-producers The temporary nature of knowledge Effective HE learning What are we quality assuring/enhancing?

7. The Quality Enhancement Framework Reviews at subject level internalised Extensive student involvement New organisation for students

8. cont’d…. The Quality Enhancement Framework Enhancement Themes Enhancement-Led Institutional Review Quality Working Group External evaluation

9. What has been achieved: the outcomes of independent evaluation “The approach to quality that we review here is ambitious, distinctive and, so far, successful. It was conceived as a reaction to quality assurance processes that seemed to be intrusive; emphasise compliance; concentrate on the current state of play, rather than on making things better; and represent poor value for money………

10. Cont’d What emerged was ‘home-grown but not ‘home-spun’. Scottish, certainly, but based on the pooling of expertise and knowledge of literatures on teaching, learning, change and quality from a wide range of sources, all shot through with a commitment to enhancing students’ experiences as learners.

11. Cont’d … In other words, the Quality Enhancement Framework brought right to the fore the simple and powerful idea that the purpose of quality systems in higher education is to improve student experiences and, consequently, their learning.”

12. ‘the commitment (in the QEF) to … Students and the continuing enhancement of their learning in higher education Partnership between agencies…….. A theory of educational change that placed far more weight on consensual approaches than on more coercive stances embedded in some quality assurance regimes. The approach emerged from serious discussion and thinking.

13. Cont’d …  A culture shift – away from top-down compliance-inducing processes to participative and critical supported self- evaluation; away from audit towards improvement; away from ruffling the surface of higher education practices and towards permeating the system with practices compatible with the QEF; away from mechanistic models based solely on inputs and outcomes towards more sensitive other forms of evidence of cultural change, while maintaining rigour and challenge.

14. Cont’d … Reflexivity, in the sense of exposing the QEF itself to evaluation from the very beginning……. The long run.”

15. Final reflections No universal answers Basic model in right direction Emphasis on student experience and quality cultures correct Partnership working and underlying principles increasingly important Always ask ‘why’