QAA_June_08 AI_and_IQER by gegeshandong

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 35

									The Academic Infrastructure and
            IQER

         Wendy Stubbs
        Assistant Director

          w.stubbs@qaa.ac.uk
             www.qaa.ac.uk
                 Aims of the presentation


•   the Academic Infrastructure

•   Integrated Quality and Enhancement Review ( IQER)
       Academic ‘standards’ and
              ‘quality’
• academic standards are predetermined and explicit levels of
  achievement which must be reached for a student to be
  granted a qualification

• academic quality is a way of describing the effectiveness of
  everything that is done or provided (the ‘learning
  opportunities’) to ensure that students have the best possible
  opportunity to meet the stated outcomes of their programmes
  and the academic standards of the awards they are seeking
     Origins of the Academic Infrastructure
•   Dearing report 1997
•   Proposals:
     • framework for qualifications and awards at all levels of higher
       education:


     • threshold standards across all subject areas;


     • guidance for writing programme specifications for each programme;


     • codes of practice to secure the quality of the student experience;


     • public information
The Academic Infrastructure: Components

•   Framework for higher education qualifications (FHEQ)

•   Subject benchmark statements

•   Programme specifications

•   Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in
    higher education ( The Code of practice )
           The Academic Infrastructure:
                What does it do?
• provides a set of common reference points that enables
  comparable academic standards to be established in institutions
  without jeopardising their autonomy and diversity

• enables institutions, their students, employers and the general
  public to have confidence that an award or qualification is of a
  standard recognised and acceptable within the UK
               Questions answered

What is the difference between a bachelors degree with
honours and a Foundation degree?

What is a master’s degree?

Are degree courses in Physics the same or similar in all
institutions?

What would I know or be able to do if I took this course?
 Relationships between components of
      the Academic Infrastructure
setting standards                                     Code of Practice
                    Framework for HE qualifications
                         (national agreement)



  Programme specification                    Subject benchmark
     (institutional staff)                       statement
                                            (subject community)
     Framework for HE Qualifications (FHEQ)…..
    the ‘ladder’ for England, Wales and N. Ireland
D      all doctoral degrees

M       Postgraduate Certificates, Postgraduate
        Diplomas and … all Masters degrees
H       Bachelors degrees         Graduate Diplomas
        with honours              Graduate Certificates
I      Degrees (Ord.; Found.)     • to identify expectations
       Dip HE , HND                  and achievements

C       Cert HE                   • provide a ‘common language’..
                                     the qualification descriptors
               Framework for higher education qualifications
        FHEQ                  Proposed changes to FHEQ                       NQF (2004)
      (current)

D (Doctoral)      8   Doctoral degrees                                8 Vocational diploma

M (Masters)       7   Masters degrees, Postgraduate Certificates      7 NVQ 5
                      and Postgraduate Diplomas, Post Graduate
                      Certificate Education, First Degrees in
                      medicine dentistry and veterinary sciences

H (Honours)       6   Bachelors degrees with Honours, ordinary        6 Vocational cert.
                      (bachelors), Professional Graduate
                      Certificates in Education, Graduate
                      Certificates and Graduate Diplomas

I (Intermediate) 5    Foundation degrees, Diplomas of HE and          5 NVQ 4
                      other higher diplomas
C (Certificate)   4   Higher National Certificates, Certificates of   4 Vocational cert.
                      Higher Education
        Subject benchmark statements:
• are statements of what the relevant academic communities
  consider to be valid frames of reference within which an honours
  degree in a discipline should be offered;

• are not definitive regulatory criteria for individual programmes or
  awards;

• do, however, provide authoritative reference points, which
  students and other interested parties will expect both to be
  taken into account when programmes are designed and
  reviewed and to be reflected, as appropriate, in programme
  specifications.
              Programme specifications
• a concise description of the intended outcomes of learning from
  a programme in terms of:
     knowledge and understanding
     key skills
     cognitive skills
     subject specific skills

•   show how the learning outcomes are going to be achieved and
    demonstrated in terms of:
      teaching and learning methods
      assessment methods

• make learning explicit;

• draw upon external reference points such as FHEQ, the
  subject benchmark statements and the Code of practice
 Relationships between components of
      the Academic Infrastructure
setting standards                                     Code of Practice
                    Framework for HE qualifications
                         (national agreement)



  Programme specification                    Subject benchmark
     (institutional staff)                       statement
                                            (subject community)
                       Code of practice
• identifies a series of system-wide principles (precepts)
  covering matters related to academic quality and standards
  in higher education management

• 10 sections based on good practice developed and updated
  in consultation with the sector
    •   Postgraduate research programmes
    •   Collaborative provision
    •   Students with disabilities
    •   External examining
    •   Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
    •   Assessment of students
    •   Programme approval, monitoring and review
    •   Career Education, information and guidance
    •   Placement learning
    •   Recruitment and Admission


• an authoritative reference point for institutions as they assure
  the quality and standards of their awards
                            Remember

•   The components of the Academic infrastructure are not documents of
    compliance

•   They are reference points which are designed to help with:

     • Curriculum design

     • Setting and maintaining standards

     • Quality management processes


•   They will be central to the new method of QAA review of HE provision
    in FE colleges
Integrated quality and
 enhancement review
                   IQER


• method developed specifically for colleges

• applies to HEFCE directly,
  indirectly and consortium-funded
  provision

• method that is comparable with institutional
  audit
                      Aims of IQER
• to support colleges in evaluating and improving their
  management of their higher education, for the benefit of
  students, and within the context of their agreements with
  awarding bodies

• to foster good working relationships between colleges and their
  awarding bodies, for the benefit of students

• to enable HEFCE to discharge its statutory responsibility for
  ensuring that provision is made for assessing the quality of
  education provided by the institutions it funds

• to provide public information
                  Objectives of IQER

• to engage colleges in a process of self evaluation and peer
  review focused on reviewing, evaluating and improving the
  management of their higher education provision

• to produce reports of these review activities

• to contribute to public information about the academic standards
  and quality of higher education in colleges.
             IQER limits burden by…

• using existing college documentation

• drawing on evidence from Ofsted inspections and also by
  providing evidence for inspection

• providing published evidence for an awarding institution’s
  institutional or collaborative provision audit

• working within the context of each college’s partnership
  arrangements
                Dialogue with colleges
Each College will have:

• the same coordinator throughout the IQER cycle

• the opportunity to negotiate the timing of reviews, in consultation
  with their awarding body(ies)

• nominees within the Development engagement

• facilitator within the Summative review
                      IQER activities

• two interrelated processes of Developmental engagement and
  Summative review

• college’s self-evaluation

• reviewers’ desk-based analysis and evaluation of documentary
  evidence

• reviewers’ visit(s) to the college to meet staff, students and other
  stakeholders
                       Core themes

• Core theme one: academic standards

• Core theme two: quality of learning opportunities

• Core theme three: public information
    Some important features of IQER

• the Academic infrastructure provides framework of reference

• student voice

• self-evaluation precedes visit

• peer review, not inspection

• open and transparent

• evidence-based
           The student voice in IQER
Students participate:

• in both Developmental engagements and Summative reviews

• in discussions between the Coordinator and college about the
  IQER process

• in confidential meetings with the reviewers

• by submitting an optional student written submission
       Developmental engagements

• most colleges have one, but provision for fewer or more over
  five years

• the numbers of Developmental engagements determined
  according to student numbers and risk
         Developmental engagement

Focuses on:
• student assessment as the theme of the first Developmental
  engagement in each college

• lines of enquiry

• college’s chosen theme for a second Developmental engagement
         Developmental engagement

Teams have:

• typically four members, but fewer for colleges with less than 100
  HEFCE funded full time equivalent students

• usually a Coordinator, a reviewer and two nominees

• a second reviewer, if the college cannot provide two nominees
Developmental engagement outcomes

• an oral report

• essential, advisable and/or desirable recommendations
• good practice for dissemination

• unpublished written report including action plan
                   Summative review

Based on:

• one Summative review for each college during the five-year
  cycle

• all HEFCE-funded provision in the college

• consideration of the three core themes
         The Summative review team

• normally four members

• a Coordinator and three peer reviewers

• college facilitator not a team member
  Summative review judgements and
             evaluation

• judgements of confidence, limited confidence or no confidence
  for core themes one and two

• an evaluation for core theme three

• essential, advisable and/or desirable recommendations

• good practice for dissemination
       Summative review outcomes


• a published report containing judgements and action plan

								
To top