Management of the quality assurance system at the University of East London

Ruth CarterHead of Quality Assurance and Enhancement

EUROPOS SĄJUNGAEuropos socialinis fondas

MYKOLO ROMERIOUNIVERSITETAS

Overview

University of East London (UEL) National Context - England The quality assurance system at the

University of East London Securing standards Management of the quality

framework at UEL

University of East London (UEL) Approx 20,000 students Campuses located at centre of Thames Gateway

regeneration Stratford – the location of the 2012 Olympic park:

Education, early childhood studies, linguistics Law, criminology Psychology Biosciences, health studies, sports studies, professional

health sciences Docklands

Business and management, accounting, economics Computing, engineering, surveying Architecture, visual arts Social sciences, international development, media and

communications studies, creative industries, humanities

Student Profile at UEL

Gender UEL SectorMale 42% 41% Female 58% 59%

Age20 and under 24% 31%21 and over 76% 69%

Student Profile at UEL

Ethnicity UEL SectorWhite 41% 85%Black 27% 5%Asian 24% 8%Other 8% 2%HEFCE Under-represented Groups

UEL SectorSocial Classes 4-7 49% 29% State Schools 99% 87%

Student Profile at UEL

Highest Qualification on Entry UEL Sector

Access 13% 3%A level 56% 75%Prof Quals 23% 15% Graduate 6% 4%Post grad 2% 1% No Formal Qual 0% 2%

National Context

National Context

The government Higher Education Funding Council for

England(HEFCE)

Funding provider and financial watchdog Quality Assurance Agency for Higher

Education (QAAHE or QAA) Quality and quality assurance watchdog Conducts institutional audits

HE Academic Infrastructure

Framework for higher education qualifications

Subject benchmark statements Programme specifications Code of Practice

Framework for higher education qualifications

Outlines the achievements and attributes represented by the main qualification titles

eg Certificate in Higher Education, non-Honours degree, Bachelors degree, Masters degree, Doctoral Degree

Defines: what holders of the qualification will be able

to do qualities and transferable skills

Benchmark statements

Reference points in a range of subject areas, eg Business, Accounting, Law

To help to ensure that the standards of degree programmes across the UK meet an agreed level and cover agreed topics and skills.

Programme Specifications

Internal and external information documents

Outline the intended knowledge, understanding, skills and attributes of a student completing that programme

Identify methods of assessment and degree classification

Code of practice – 10 parts 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 admissions

European standards and guidelines

Policy and procedures for quality assurance

Approval, monitoring and review of programmes

Assessment procedures Quality assurance of teaching staff Learning resources and student support Information systems Public information

Quality Assurance at the University of East London

Aspects of an internal quality framework

Appropriate to the needs and the vision Stakeholder oriented Trust and responsibility combined with

institutional level audit Self evaluation Feedback Externality Closing the loop

UEL Quality Assurance principles

We aim to assure the quality of the total student experience

All staff are responsible for quality We aim to improve quality whenever

possible We are committed to the principle of

external peer involvement in assuring quality

We take into account the views of our students

Key elements of the UEL QA system

Programme approval Programme monitoring Periodic (6 year) review Annual audit Student views

Programme approvals

Initial approval Validation document Programme and module specifications Evaluation against academic infrastructure,

especially benchmarks and FHEQ, relevant sections of Code of Practice

External advice – peer review Assessed against quality criteria Approved by School level quality committee Accreditation from professional bodies

sought where appropriate

Annual monitoring

Programme level To ensure programmes remain up-to-date Evaluate effectiveness of programmes and

attainment of learning outcomes Review and enhancement Evidence includes statistical data, external

examiner reports, student feedback, teaching learning and assessment developments, professional body feedback

Peer reviewed Action planning School overview report

Periodic review

6 year review schedule Systematic evaluation of operation Process:

Self evaluation 2 days peer review by a panel Evidence review Meetings with staff and students Report

Criteria: Academic standards Quality of the student experience Review of quality processes

Institutional level audit processes

Annual audit of a procedure ‘Internal’ external on School committee Audit policy implementation Validation and review sub-committee for

programme approvals, and programme withdrawals

External examiners sub-committee for external examiner nominations

Student input

Representation on University committees

Formal liaison meeting with Vice-Chancellor’s group

Programme committees Consulted over changes to

programmes Module evaluation Student Satisfaction surveys

Securing Standards

Academic Framework Modular Regulations

Awards available and credit tariff Module structure and assessment Arrangements for registration and

maximum study rates Accreditation of prior learning Requirements for passing a module Reassessment arrangements Degree classification

Assessment Policy

Assessment design – eg relation to learning outcomes

Processes for assessment moderation and marking, eg anonymity, second marking

Timing of assessment, submission arrangements

Arrangements for feedback Arrangements for students with

disabilities Marking and grading criteria Assessment tariff

Role of external examiner

Impartiality Ensuring comparability of standards

across HE institutions Approving assessment tasks before

students take them Reviewing assessed work Moderating marks Attending assessment boards Ensuring assessment regulations are

observed Preparing a report

Framework for managing the quality system

Framework for managing quality

Central overview through Quality and Standards Committee and its sub-committees

Responsibility for process devolved to Schools – local ownership

Internal review and audit mechanisms External advice Quality assurance and enhancement

office – expert advice and guidance School Quality leader Quality Manual

Quality and Standards Committee

Corporate responsibility for the assurance of quality and security of standards

Promote and champion innovation and development to enhance the quality of the student experience

Policy development Review outcomes and action plans relating to

review processes Inform institutional policy in light of QAA

developments Lead institutional responses to audit and

consultations

Supporting management of quality

Quality Leaders forum Quality leader representation on

committees and working groups Guidance notes and templates Staff development Quality manual Quality officer allocated to each

School

Role of School quality leader

Provide leadership at School level Chair School quality committee Ensure operation of School quality

processes Devise processes at local level Manage approval and monitoring

processes

Role of QAE team Advice and support to schools in managing their

quality assurance processes Manage periodic academic review Manage annual audit Advice to Schools and external partners in the

development of collaborative academic links Manage collaborative and distance learning

validations Manage the external examiner system Taking a lead role in preparations for external

quality audits Ensuring compliance with regulatory bodies &

complete relevant returns

Future developments

From quality assurance to quality enhancement

From teaching to learning Student input

Curriculum design Membership of review panels