INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07

on

  • 1,282 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,282
Views on SlideShare
1,279
Embed Views
3

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
21
Comments
0

2 Embeds 3

http://www.slideshare.net 2
http://zagreb2008.bolognapromoters.net 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. ELIA /inter}artes INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07
  • 2. inter}artes Thematic Network Strand 1 Quality Assurance & Enhancement the Strand 1 project is to devise a scheme, test & analyse, establish & recommend to EU Commission European QA&E Process for the Arts
  • 3. Working Group
    • UK-England-Birmingham
    • Scandinavia-Norway-Bergen-
    • Sweden-Stockholm
    • Romania-Cluj-Napoca
    • Portugal-Lisbon
    • Germany-Stuttgart
    • Italy-Venice
    • Ireland-Limerick
  • 4. Quality Assurance & Enhancement
    • QA&E exists in
    • Scandinavia
    • Scotland
    • England
    • Ireland
    • ENQA- EUA
  • 5.
    • Warsaw- European QAE for the Arts
    • Berlin-appointed expert group
    • Birmingham – developmental Training
    • Decided - CRITICAL FRIENDS
    • Developed the process-
    • Established pilot scheme
    • Cluj, Sofia, Vilnius, Brno
    Working Group Meetings & Outcome
  • 6. What is Quality Assurance & Enhancement
    • Transparency
    • Accountability
    • Institutional Self Awareness
    • Information gathering & management system
    • Developmental Process
  • 7. External Stakeholders Employers Student Destination & Achievement Galleries Educational Institutions Internal Stakeholders Students Academic Staff Administrative Staff Ancillary Staff External/Institutional Stakeholders External Examiners Consultants National Agencies
  • 8. INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW
    • It is intended to combine scrutiny of internal Quality Assurance (QA) systems at institutional level with investigation of how those systems work at discipline level. The review will examine three main areas:
    • Effectiveness of institutions’ QA structures
    • The accuracy and reliability of the information
    • provided to students about courses
    • Examples of how internal QA mechanisms work at course level – discipline reviews (DR’S)
  • 9. INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW
    • Evaluation teams (ET) focus on the following evidence:
    • Internal QA reviews and their outcomes
    • Review/validation of programmes
    • Use of external reference points in course construction
    • Internal systems for the management of information
    • Development and use of programme specifications
    • Academic standards expected from students
    • Progression, retention and achievement data
    • The experience of students as learners
    • Management of teaching staff – appointments, appraisal etc
  • 10. EVIDENCE COLLECTED
    • Self evaluation reports (SER’s)
    • Information presented by and gathered from students.
    • Student achievement, progression, etc.
    • Recent review reports
    • Information acquired during the visit
  • 11. STUDENTS
    • Students are central to the process of review
    • The audit will examine:
    • Information available to students
    • How learning is facilitated
    • Academic standards they are expected to achieve, and achieve in practice
  • 12. INSTITUTIONAL SELF EVALUATION REPORT (SER)
    • The self evaluation report is intended to
    • address four questions:
    • What is the institution trying to do?
    • How is the institution trying to do it?
    • How does the institution know if it works?
    • How does the institution change in order to improve?
  • 13. Institutional SER Content
    • What is the institution trying to do ?
    • Mission statement - broad institutional philosophy/aims
    • Distinctive features - what it is recognised for
    • Governance, organisation and management
    • Learning, teaching and assessment
    • Research and scholarship
    • Relationship to external agencies, professional bodies, industry and society
    • Major developments, changes over last 4 years
  • 14. Institutional SER Content
    • How is the institution trying to do it ?
    • Analysis of strengths and areas for improvement
    • Academic activities
    • - research and educational approaches
    • - education programme design and organisation
    • - evaluation of how these programmes reflect
    • institutional mission
    • Academically related activities
    • - analysis of external links, regional and community
    • service
    • - analysis of student support services
    • - evaluation how these programmes reflect the mission
    • Management and administrative systems and activities
    • - communication
  • 15. Institutional SER Content
    • How does the institution know that it works?
    • Institution Processes for Assurance of Academic Quality
    • & Standards
    • Quality monitoring processes for:
    • - appointment of staff
    • - creating new courses
    • - external examiners
    • - learning support services
    • - learning, teaching and assessment
    • - research
    • - review and approval of existing courses
    • - staff development
    • - student involvement and feedback in quality assurance process
    • - student progression, retention and achievement
    • - student support and guidance.
  • 16. Institutional SER Content (cont)
    • How does the institution know it works ?
    • Institution Processes for Assurance of Academic Quality
    • & Standards (cont)
    • Framework for management of quality and academic standards
    • - policy
    • - key features
    • - aims
    • - key documents
    • Committee and management structures
    • - overview and structure
    • - institution
    • - department/faculty
    • - management responsibilities
    • Feedback by key stakeholders: students, graduates, employers and professional bodies
  • 17. Institutional SER Content
    • How does the institution change in order to improve ?
    • Strategic management and capacity for change
    • Analysis of the role of quality management to
    • implement/support change
    • Identify and respond to internal and external demand and opportunities
    • How are internal and external representatives involved in strategic management?
    • What role does quality monitoring and management play in these developments?
    • What changes do you envisage due to these influences?
  • 18. DISCIPLINE REVIEW (DR)
    • To verify that the institutions QA mechanisms are working at course/programme level
    • A window to view student achievement and effectiveness of support for learning
    • A means to check claims made by the institution
  • 19. DISCIPLINE REVIEW
    • Comprises five elements:
    • Short self evaluation report
    • Discussion between team and staff and students about how QA policies are implemented
    • Scrutiny of the accuracy of information (prospectus, website, programme specifications, etc)
    • Observation of the relation between programmes and intended learning outcomes (sample of assessed work, progression, achievement, external examiners reports etc)
    • The QA team can request additional information
  • 20. DISCIPLINE SELF EVALUATION REPORT
    • The report is an objective, critical self-evaluation of the course/programme by the course/programme team including programme specification and addressing the following:
    • Maximum 3,000 words
    • Educational philosophy and aims of the provision
    • Description of the learning outcomes
    • Curricula and assessment
    • Quality of learning opportunities
    • Learning and teaching policy and strategy
    • Student admission and progression (including statistics)
    • Learning resources
    • Process for maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality
  • 21. EVALUATION REPORT
    • Relies on the accuracy, integrity,
    • completeness and frankness of the information
    • provided by the institution
    • ‘ Essential Recommendations’
    • ‘ Advisable Recommendations’
    • ‘ Desirable Recommendations’
    • ‘ Highlight of Good Practice’