Learning and Teaching Committee

Subject: QAA Institutional Review – Spring 2012

Origin: Rob Pearson, Programme Quality and Teaching Partnerships

1. Introduction

Our next QAA Institutional Review (previously termed Institutional Audit) will take place in spring 2012. This Briefing Paper provides an overview of the process and indicates key dates.

Accompanying this paper is a draft of the Self-Evaluation Document (SED) that we are required to submit to the QAA in advance of the visit. LTC is asked to endorse the content of the SED.

2. Purpose of the review

The University is one of the first in the sector to experience the latest review methodology. This is broadly similar to that of our last review in Spring 2008, but some changes have been made following two rounds of consultations with institutions in 2010.

The QAA’s stated aims for the Review are to “provide accessible information for the public which indicates whether an institution:

• sets and maintains UK-agreed threshold standards for its higher education awards as set out in The framework for higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (FHEQ);

• provides learning opportunities (including teaching and academic support) which allow students to achieve those higher education awards and qualifications and reflect the UK-agreed good practice in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (Code of practice) and other UK-agreed reference points;

• produces public information for applicants, students and other users that is complete, current, reliable and useful;

• plans effectively to enhance the quality of its higher education provision. “

3. Focus of the review

The process covers all taught programmes and research student provision, and includes all our collaborative provision. There are two principal components:

a) a ‘core element’ which explores the institutional management of standards, quality of learning opportunities, enhancement of learning opportunities and public information. This leads to four judgements:

o on the achievement of threshold academic standards;

o on the quality of students’ learning opportunities (teaching and academic support);

o on the enhancement of students’ learning opportunities, and

o from 2012-13, on the quality of public information, including that produced for students and applicants.

In the first category, the judgement is whether or not the institution meets UK expectations for threshold standards. For the last three categories on aspects of ‘quality’, four grades of judgement are available: ‘commendation’, ‘meets UK expectations’, ‘requires improvement to meet UK expectations’ (where a small number of factors need to be addressed) and ‘does not meet UK expectations’.

The University will not be subject to a formal judgement on the quality of public information on this occasion as that aspect of the review does not come into operation until 2012/13. However, the topic will receive consideration and comment during the review.

b) a ‘thematic element’ which explores an “issue of public interest”. This will feature in all reviews across the sector that year, and will inform a QAA report providing sector-wide conclusions and recommendations. The thematic element will lead to comment in the review report, but not a formal judgement.

The theme for 2011-12 will be the first year student experience. This has a particular focus on helping students to make an effective transition to HE-level learning.

4. The Review Team

The QAA Review Team is comprised of three academics, a student reviewer and a secretary, as follows:

Ms Susan Blake, City University London

Director of Studies and Associate Dean, The City Law School.

Professor Mark Davies, University of Sunderland

Professor of Bioscience, Department of Pharmacy, Health and Well-being.

Dr Alan Howard, University of Reading

Senior Lecturer in Computational Geography, School of Geography and Environmental Science.

Charlotte Richer, Student Reviewer, University of Cambridge.

The Review Secretary is Dr Richard Harrison, Head of Academic Support Office, University of Durham.

5. Schedule of events

The Review Team will consider an institutional Self-Evaluation Document (SED) and supporting papers on the quality of our learning and teaching and the student experience. This has to be submitted by 12 March 2012 along with supporting documentation. This is also the deadline for a Student Written Submission (SWS), which is prepared independently by the Students’ Union.

The SED, SWS and supporting documentation will all be submitted electronically. This removes the former requirement on institutions to spend time and effort furnishing the review team base room with hard copies of all documentation.

The SED should focus on how the University achieves quality assurance and enhancement, and how this is evidenced (i.e. how we know whether standards are being met, initiatives are having a positive impact, etc). A draft of the SED is attached at appendix 1. LTC is asked to endorse the content of the SED.

The University is expected to appoint an Institutional Facilitator who will be the primary institutional contact for the review team and be able to provide advice and guidance to the team on documentation, policies, structures etc.. Rob Pearson from PQTP will act as Institutional Facilitator.

The Students’ Union is also expected to appoint a Lead Student Representative who will manage the student submission and be a source of contact for the Review Team and the institution. Jayde Savage, VP Education, will act as the Lead Student Representative.

The Review Team will make two visits to the University:

a) an initial First Team Visit on 17 and 18 April 2012. This will include a meeting with the Vice-Chancellor, and meetings with student representatives, some staff members, the Institutional Facilitator and the Lead Student Representative(s).

b) a Review Visit of up to five days in the week beginning 28 May 2012. This will include meetings with a wide range of students and staff from across the University. The team may also contact a selection of external examiners, alumni, and employers.

The review process also includes a Preparatory Meeting on 10 February 2012. This is for the QAA Officer assigned to our review to visit the University to discuss the process, answer any queries, agree the information to be provided and confirm other detailed review arrangements.

Summary of key dates:

Preparatory meeting with QAA Officer	10 February 2012
Deadline for submitting SED, supporting documentation, and SWS	12 March 2012
First Team Visit	17 and 18 April 2012
Review visit	28 May to 1 June 2012
QAA issues provisional key findings to us and HEFCE	w/c 18 June 2012
QAA issues draft report for us to comment on factual accuracy.	w/c 18 July 2012
Agree commentary on draft report and return to QAA	w/c 6 August 2012
QAA publishes report on its website.	w/c 27 August 2012
Prepare action plan within one semester of report published. Annual action plan updates to be published until actions completed.

6. Outcomes of the Review

Following the visit the team will produce a report that will recommend actions and indicate the QAA’s expected timescales to address the issues raised.

The report will also identify areas of good practice and, where appropriate, affirm existing institutional work and plans.

The University will be required to produce, and publish, an action plan to address the review’s recommendations. This will be updated annually until the work is completed.

Author – Rob Pearson Date – February 2012