Higher Education Review
January 2015
Higher Education Review – What is it?
External Review of how effectively Kent
manages:
• Academic Standards
• Quality of the Student Learning
Experience
• Enhancement
• Public Information
Page 2
Higher Education Review – Who Leads it?
The QAA:
• Team of external peer reviewers
• Senior Academic Professionals
• Student Member
• Assistant Director of the QAA
Page 3
What do the QAA test Universities Against?
The UK Quality Code
• Part A: Academic standards,
• Part B: Academic quality and
• Part C: Information about higher education
provision.
• Each of these is subdivided into Chapters
covering specific themes.
• Each Chapter has an Expectation
Page 4
UK Quality Code - Expectations
• Expectations express key principles essential
for the assurance of academic standards and
quality.
• …What UK higher education providers are
required to do, what they expect of themselves
and each other, and what students and the
general public can therefore expect of them.
• Individual providers are required to
demonstrate they are meeting the Expectations
effectively.
Page 5
UK Quality Code – Example Expectation
B6: Assessment of students and the
recognition of prior learning
“Higher education providers operate equitable,
valid and reliable processes of assessment,
including for the recognition of prior learning,
which enable every student to demonstrate the
extent to which they have achieved the intended
learning outcomes for the credit or qualification
being sought.”
Page 6
QA Quality Code – Why does it Matter?
In HER, the core task is to:
• Explain to the review team how you
know that your institution’s approach is
effective in meeting the Expectations
of the Quality Code, and how it could be
further improved.
Page 7
HER 2015 – Self-Evaluation Document (SED)
• to give an overview of your organisation,
including its track record in managing quality
and standards
• to describe your approach to assuring the
academic standards and quality of that
provision
• to explain how you know that approach is
effective in meeting the Expectations of the
Quality Code (and other external reference
points, where applicable), and how it could be
further improved.
Page 8
SED – Where Can You Read it?
http://www.kent.ac.uk/teaching/qa/instaudit.html
In particular, staff involved in:
• Quality Management
• Student Support
• Partnerships
Page 9
What Else Does the Review Team look at?
Information provided by students
Students at the university make a written
student submission to help the review
team understand what it is like to be a
student at that university or college and
how students' views are considered.
Page 10
Student Submission
• Feedback
•
•
Still variable in quality
Very little to no feedback on written exam scripts
• Assessment
•
Inconsistencies between marks and feedback comments
between examiners
• Employability
•
•
•
Page 11
Like more opportunities to have placements,
involvement with modules etc
More volunteering opportunities
Too much variability in what’s offered between
programmes and levels (including PGT and PGR)
Student Submission
• Learning Resources
•
•
•
•
Page 12
Positive about the library, hubs etc
Have issues over lecture capture – too little at present
but seem to acknowledge that Kent is starting
Critical over rooms, lack of flexibility, difficult to book
for student activities etc
Critical of lack of social and study space
–Particularly critical over space for PGT
students, especially out of term time
–Also note that catering and other facilities
restricted for PGT out of term time
Student Submission
Electronic Submission
•
•
•
Basically they want comprehensive ES!
Want to submit and obtain feedback electronically as universally as
possible
Feel that there is currently too much inconsistency of treatment
Student Engagement
•
•
•
•
Positive about the way the university tries to include students at all
levels
However, feel that too often students are treated like 2nd class
citizens in some meetings, or feel intimidated
Feel there should be better explanation of processes, and
expectation management of staff
Feel that better training is important and that they take responsibility
for that
Page 13
What Else Does the Review Team look at?
Information collected by QAA
QAA collects for the review team any recent QAA
reports on the university or college and any other
recent published reports from other organisations
that work with the university or college.
• KIS Data
• National Student Survey
• Destination of Leavers from Higher Education
• Non-continuation following year of entry
Page 14
When is this Happening?
Page 15
HER - When is it Happening?
• Now
Page 16
HER - When is it Happening?
Desk-based analysis
• The first stage is a desk-based
analysis by the review team of a
wide range of information about the
higher education on offer.
Page 17
HER - When is it Happening?
• Kent SED & KSU Student
Submission
• Submitted in December 2014
Page 18
HER - When is it Happening?
• Kent SED & KSU Student
Submission Submitted in December
2014
• Additional Information by end
January
• Review visit: week commencing 9
March 2015
Page 19
HER - When is it Happening?
• The precise duration of, and
programme for, the review visit will
be determined by the review team
about four weeks beforehand
Page 20
HER Week – Who Will be involved?
• QA Manager
• Lead Student Representative
• Selected Staff
• Students
• Representatives of some partners
Page 21
HER – How Will We Be Judged?
Judgement on standards
• meets UK expectations,
• requires improvement to meet UK
expectations or
• does not meet UK expectations
Page 22
HER – How Will We Be Judged?
Judgements on learning opportunities, information
and enhancement
• commended,
• meets UK expectations,
• requires improvement to meet UK expectations
or
• does not meet UK expectations
Plus ‘Affirmations’
Page 23
HER – Potential Consequences?
HEFCE – Unsatisfactory Quality Policy (QUP)
• Providers who receive one or more 'does not
meet' judgements or who are unsuccessful in
having a 'requires improvement' judgement
changed to 'meets UK expectations' will have
the UQP applied to them.
Page 24
• Providers who are unsuccessful in having a
'does not meet' judgement changed to 'meets
UK expectations' will move directly to a
HEFCE-led process, which involves regular
meetings and engagement with HEFCE and
other stakeholders to agree and monitor
progress against further actions.
HER – Potential Consequences?
HEFCE may
• limit or exclude the institution from securing
further public investment through any bidding
process run by HEFCE.
• consider whether the institution’s poor-quality
status should have any impact on how the
student number control applies.
• make a support team available to the institution
to help resolve the issues.
Page 25
HER – Potential Consequences?
HEFCE may
• make recommendations to the institution’s
senior management team and, if appropriate,
the board of governors as detailed in the ‘wider
support strategy’ in Annex D of the financial
memorandum (HEFCE 2010/19).
• HEFCE will also consider applying its general
institutional support strategy, which is
described in Annex D of HEFCE 2010/19.
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce/content/pubs/
2013/201330/HEFCE_2013_30.pdf
Page 26
HER – Risks?
• ?
• ?
•?
• ?
•?
Page 27
HER – What Should We Be Doing?
• Manage Quality processes effectively – PASS,
Academic Advisors, Concessions, Assessment
feedback)
• Ensure all quality process documentation is up
to date and available (Specifications, Reports,
AMRs, Minutes, Responses to EEs)
• Ensure consistency in information about
modules in various media (Module Specs,
Online Module Catalogue, Moodle)
Page 28
Questions and Discussion