Accreditation in GB

www.kvalita.reformy-msmt.cz

Praha, 24. 4. 2014doc. Ing. Emil Helienek, MBA, Ph.D.

Aim of this presentation

• Main aim of this short presentation is two fold:

1. Reflect on the validation process of academic programmes at our Faculty and

University level;

2. To explain what is the role of the relevant external bodies/regulators in this

processes.

• Naturally, given the time constraint, it is impossible to go to many

details. Nevertheless I will try to answer any relevant questions from the

audience in the remaining time.

1

Understanding academic

accreditation in the UK (QAA agency)

• Higher education providers reviewed by the Quality Assurance Agency for

Higher Education (QAA) are required to meet all the Expectations in the

Quality Code set up by the QAA.

• The manner in which they do so is their own responsibility. (flexible

systems of academic QM)

• QAA carries out reviews to check whether higher education providers are

meeting the Expectations.

• Expectations express the key principle that the higher education community

has identified as essential for the assurance of academic standards and

quality within each of the specified area.

2

The Quality Code (QAA agency,

England)

• The Quality Code is the definitive reference point for all those involved

in delivering higher education which leads to an award from or is

validated by a UK higher education provider.

• It makes clear what institutions are required to do, and what the general

public can expect of all higher education providers.

• The QC express key matters of principle that the higher education

community has identified as important for the assurance of quality and

academic standards.

3

Understanding academic quality in

the UK (QAA agency)

• The UK Quality Code for Higher Education has three parts:

1. academic standards,

2. academic quality

3. information about higher education provision

4

The Quality Code (UK Quality

Assurance Agency)

• The UK QC sets out Expectations which higher education providers are

required to meet to ensure:

1. that appropriate and effective teaching, support, assessment and learning

resources are provided for students;

2. that the learning opportunities provided are monitored;

3. and that the provider considers how to improve them. (notion of continuous

improvement)

5

Assuring and enhancing academic

quality

B1: Programme design and approval

B2: Admissions

B3: Learning and teaching

B4: Enabling student development and achievement

B5: Student engagement

B6: Assessment of students and accreditation of prior learning

B7: External examining

B8: Programme monitoring and review

B9: Academic appeals and student complaints

B10: Managing higher education provision with others

B11: Research degrees

6

Academic standards (QC Expectations)

1. Each qualification (including those awarded under collaborative

arrangements) is allocated to the appropriate level in The framework for

higher education qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland

(FHEQ)

2. All higher education programmes of study take account of relevant subject

and qualification benchmark statements.

7

Academic standards (QC Expectations)

3. Higher education providers make available definitive information on the

aims, intended learning outcomes and expected learner achievements for a

programme of study.

4. Higher education providers have in place effective processes to approve

and periodically review the validity and relevance of programmes.

5. Higher education providers ensure independent and external participation in

the management of threshold academic standards.

6. Higher education providers ensure the assessment of students is robust,

valid and reliable and that the award of qualifications and credit are based

on the achievement of the intended learning outcomes

8

Academic standards

• Qualification descriptors set out the generic outcomes and attributes

expected for the award of individual qualifications at each level.

• These outcomes represent the integration of various learning experiences

resulting from designated and coherent programmes of study.

• These qualifications develop graduates with high level analytical skills and a

broad range of competences.

9

Academic standards

• Qualification descriptors make explicit general expectations of the purpose

and outcomes of the main qualifications at each level, and make clear how

these differ from other qualifications, both at that level and at other levels.

• Further guidance on the expectations for degrees in particular subjects can

be found in subject benchmark statements.

10

Academic standards (subject

benchmark)

• Working closely with the higher education sector, QAA has published

subject benchmark statements for a range of disciplines to set out

clearly the academic characteristics and standards of UK programmes

of study.

• Some benchmark statements are combined with, or make reference to,

professional standards required by external professional or regulatory

bodies in the discipline.

• Subject benchmark statements provide a means for the academic

community to describe the nature and characteristics of programmes in

a specific subject or subject area. They also represent general

expectations about standards for the award of qualifications at a given

level in terms of the attributes and capabilities that those possessing

qualifications should have demonstrated.

11

Academic quality (Indicators)

1. Institutions ensure that their responsibilities for standards and quality

are discharged effectively through their procedures for the design and

approval of programmes.

2. Institutions ensure that the overriding responsibility of the academic

authority (for example senate or academic board) to set, maintain and

assure standards is respected and that any delegation of power by the

academic authority to approve programmes is properly defined and

exercised.

3. Institutions make use of external participation at key stages for the

approval of programmes, as independence and objectivity are

essential to provide confidence that the standards and quality of the

programmes are appropriate.

4. Approval processes are clearly described and communicated to those

who are involved in them.12

Academic quality (Indicators)

5. Institutions publish, or make available, the principles to be considered

when programmes are designed and developed, the fulfilment of

which will be tested at the approval stage.

6. Institutions ensure that programme approval decisions are informed

by full consideration of academic standards and of the

appropriateness of the learning opportunities which will be offered to

students, and that:

• the final decision to approve a programme is taken by the academic

authority, or a body acting on its behalf that is independent of the

academic department, or other unit that offers the programme, and has

access to any necessary specialist advice;

13

Academic quality (Indicators)

• there is a confirmation process, which demonstrates that a programme

has fulfilled any conditions set out during the approval process and that

due consideration has been given to any recommendations.

7. Institutions have a means of assessing the effectiveness of their

programme design, approval, monitoring and review practices.

14

New review outcomes Graded judgments

15

StandardsThe setting & maintenance of the threshold academic standards of awards

Quality The quality of student learning opportunities

Published information The quality of the information produced by the provider about its provision

Enhancement The enhancement of student learning opportunities

1. Meets UK expectations

2. Requires improvement to meet

UK expectations

3. Does not meet UK expectations

1. Is commended

2. Meets UK expectations

3. Requires improvement to

meet UK expectations

4. Does not meet UK

expectations

How do we create new courses?

• University/School’s mission and strategy: The new course is consistent

with the University’s mission, School’s strategic plan and there is a

demand for it.

• Marketing department (market intelligence – existing competitors taking

into account – clusters of universities) Students pay fees - fierce

competition among the HE providers in the UK.

• Two dimensions to be considered for approval:

1. Business case approval (business planning process)

2. Academic approval (DAG)

16

How do we create new courses?

• School’s academic plan

• Academic courses review committee – review of the existing academic

programmes each year (taking into account statistics of students

numbers, finance and external information)

• Programme sponsor(s) – with support of ATL builds course team

• DAG (development and approval group): Chair, other academic

colleagues, SQM (School quality manager),

17

Features of the University’s

framework

UNIVERSITY STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES

Academic Board/ASQC/URDC/LTES

• Development and Approval Groups (DAG)

• CADQ/Academic Office/Academic Planning/CPO/Graduate School/LLR

Student Support Services/Information Systems

• External examiners PSRs/Collaborative Review

18

Academic Board

• Academic Board is the senior academic committee of the University,

with a range of responsibilities relating to the organisation of learning

and teaching, research, scholarship, standards, students and

programmes and advising the Vice-Chancellor on academic matters.

• The Academic Board may establish and disestablish such committees,

as it considers necessary to enable it to carry out its responsibilities.

19

Academic Office

• The Academic Office focuses on academic governance, awards and

titles; award ceremonies; timetabling; examination organisation;

student records; academic calendar and Academic Board.

20

Academic Planning

• The department collates and interrogates national and international data

and policy developments to inform NTU wide academic direction.

• Academic Planning is also responsible for the coordination and further

improvement of NTU Schools’ academic planning cycle and identifies

challenges and opportunities both in the external environment and

within academic plans.

21

Centre for Professional Learning

and Development (CPLD)

• Its role is to provide a responsive staff development service to the

University. This includes:

• supporting colleagues in identifying learning and development needs and

considering effective means of meeting these

• formulating and delivering staff development events

• creating strategy and policy in support of learning and development.

22

Centre for Academic Development

and Quality (CADQ)

• CADQ is led by the Director of Academic Development together with a

team of professional officers. CADQ’s core function is to lead and

support innovation and developments in curriculum design, teaching,

assessment and learning, and quality assurance.

• The maintenance of the University’s programme portfolio database also

forms part of its work. CADQ administers ASQC .

23

NTU academic standards and

quality enhancement framework

• Students are encouraged to participate in the University's framework for

assuring standards and quality.

• Each new programme is subject to an initial approval process and to re-

specification from time to time. School-wide programme quality issues

are also considered during Periodic School Review and through

consideration of PSQRs.

24

NTU academic standards and

quality enhancement framework

• Research Degrees and Higher Awards are governed by separate

policies, procedures and regulations.

• The University's Research Degrees Committee (URDC) acts in a similar

capacity to ASQC and reports to Academic Board. Programmes of

supervised research are subject to initial approval and regular

monitoring by College Research Degrees Committees (CRDCs).

• The Graduate School support the operation of research degrees.

25

Features of the University’s

framework

SCHOOL STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND ROLES

SASQCs

• School LTES Action Plan/School Academic Plan

• Quality managers SSQRs External examiner, PSRB inputs etc.

• Analysis of student feedback

• Collaborative provision monitoring

26

Features of the University’s

framework

PROGRAMME STRUCTURES AND PROCEDURES:

• Student evaluation

• PSQRs

• Programme committee/team meetings

• External examiner input

27

Features of the University’s

framework

MODULE ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION:

• Student evaluation

• Module leader analysis

• Module team review and development

28

Features of the University’s

framework

STUDENT INVOLVEMENT:

• Trained student representatives

• Staff/student meetings

• Programme committees

• Questionnaires/surveys

29

Thank you for your attention!

www.kvalita.reformy-msmt.cz