ELIA /inter}artes  INSTITUTIONAL  QUALITY MANAGEMENT &  ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07
inter}artes Thematic Network  Strand 1 Quality Assurance & Enhancement  the Strand 1 project is to  devise a scheme, test ...
Working Group <ul><li>UK-England-Birmingham </li></ul><ul><li>Scandinavia-Norway-Bergen- </li></ul><ul><li>Sweden-Stockhol...
Quality Assurance & Enhancement  <ul><li>QA&E exists in </li></ul><ul><li>Scandinavia </li></ul><ul><li>Scotland </li></ul...
<ul><li>Warsaw- European QAE for the  Arts </li></ul><ul><li>Berlin-appointed expert group </li></ul><ul><li>Birmingham – ...
What is Quality Assurance & Enhancement <ul><li>Transparency </li></ul><ul><li>Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Institutio...
External Stakeholders Employers  Student Destination  & Achievement Galleries Educational Institutions Internal Stakeholde...
INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW <ul><li>It is intended to combine scrutiny of internal Quality Assurance (QA) systems at institu...
INSTITUTIONAL QA&E REVIEW <ul><li>Evaluation teams (ET) focus on the following evidence: </li></ul><ul><li>Internal QA rev...
EVIDENCE COLLECTED <ul><li>Self evaluation reports (SER’s) </li></ul><ul><li>Information presented by and gathered from st...
STUDENTS <ul><li>Students are central to the process of review </li></ul><ul><li>The audit will examine: </li></ul><ul><li...
INSTITUTIONAL  SELF EVALUATION REPORT (SER) <ul><li>The self evaluation report is intended to </li></ul><ul><li>address fo...
Institutional SER Content <ul><li>What is the institution trying to do ? </li></ul><ul><li>Mission statement - broad insti...
Institutional SER Content  <ul><li>How is the institution trying to do it ? </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of strengths and ar...
Institutional SER Content <ul><li>How does the institution know that it works? </li></ul><ul><li>Institution Processes for...
Institutional SER Content (cont) <ul><li>How does the institution know it works ? </li></ul><ul><li>Institution Processes ...
Institutional SER Content <ul><li>How does the institution change in order to improve ? </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic manage...
DISCIPLINE REVIEW (DR) <ul><li>To verify that the institutions QA mechanisms are working at course/programme level </li></...
DISCIPLINE REVIEW <ul><li>Comprises five elements: </li></ul><ul><li>Short self evaluation report </li></ul><ul><li>Discus...
DISCIPLINE SELF EVALUATION REPORT <ul><li>The report is an objective, critical self-evaluation of the course/programme by ...
EVALUATION REPORT <ul><li>Relies on the accuracy, integrity, </li></ul><ul><li>completeness and frankness of the informati...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07

791 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
791
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

INSTITUTIONAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT & ENHANCEMENT REVIEW 2006 - 07

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

×