A presentation outlines a new risk-based approach to quality assurance in England. Key outcomes of the HEFCE consultation include longer six-year or shorter four-year review cycles based on institutional risk factors. Reviews will have greater transparency and be more tailored to individual institutions. The new approach focuses on continued enhancement and keeping students at the heart of quality assurance, while reducing unnecessary burden through a lighter-touch system relying more on risk triggers and the QAA Concerns Scheme. Implementation will begin in 2013 with the first reviews under the new method starting in early 2014.
Questions and Challenges for Quality Management in Language Educationeaquals
Over the past 20 years QM approaches have developed widely in language education and a good degree of community of practice has been established – with a major contribution from EAQUALS in this area. But there are still challenges to be faced: there are various models for QM - client satisfaction, fitness for purpose etc. Does it make sense to bundle them together under a single label "QM"? Is there any research evidence of the effectiveness of QM approaches? Is there a risk that quality labels and inspection / audit procedures encourage a superficial conformity? Is it enough to have QM procedures which identify and eliminate defects, or can we also do more to promote positive quality?
Questions and Challenges for Quality Management in Language Educationeaquals
Over the past 20 years QM approaches have developed widely in language education and a good degree of community of practice has been established – with a major contribution from EAQUALS in this area. But there are still challenges to be faced: there are various models for QM - client satisfaction, fitness for purpose etc. Does it make sense to bundle them together under a single label "QM"? Is there any research evidence of the effectiveness of QM approaches? Is there a risk that quality labels and inspection / audit procedures encourage a superficial conformity? Is it enough to have QM procedures which identify and eliminate defects, or can we also do more to promote positive quality?
Evidence Example -presentation from SWSSF Vision and Strategy Improving use of evidence scoping workshop 4th November 2015, Strathclyde University, Glasgow
VU University Amsterdam
Quality Improvement
Health Care Delivery
Hospital Quality
Low and Middle Income Countries
Developing Countries
Resource-Restricted Settings
The Value Summary creates a common language of value improvement in healthcare through a one-page summary document. It is more than a form; it is a planning guide, a way to share and spread ideas, and a path to earn continuing education credit. It is the currency of value improvement work at University of Utah Healthcare.
Beneficiary feedback in evaluation ukes methods workshopLeslie Groves
“Beneficiary feedback” means different things to different people. It is also under-utilised in development evaluation. There are no clear frameworks for engaging beneficiary feedback in evaluation. This has resulted in poor practice; confusion; a lack of rigour in application; lost opportunities for enhancing the quality of evaluations and insufficient attention given to ethical considerations for “beneficiaries” themselves. DFID commissioned a piece of work to develop understanding and guidance on how to improve beneficiary feedback in evaluation.
Objectives
The presentation will shed light on four frequently asked questions:
• How do we define beneficiary feedback in the context of evaluation?
• Is beneficiary feedback an approach, method or principle?
• What distinguishes beneficiary feedback from existing evaluation tools e.g. participatory evaluation?
• How do we meaningfully and ethically engage beneficiary feedback in evaluation?
Methods
This paper is based on:
• a literature review of over 100 documents;
• interviews with 36 key informants representing DFID, INGOs and evaluation consultants/consultancy firms and;
• contributions from 32 practitioners via e-distribution lists and through a blog set up for the purpose of the research.
The snowballing technique was used for data gathering and attempts were made to minimise North-North bias through posting in different forums.
Findings and Learning Points
• Beneficiary feedback is relevant to all types of evaluation design
• It is not a subset of participatory evaluation; and goes beyond data collection. It can engage both extractive and/ or participatory methods.
• There is scope to incorporate beneficiary feedback within formal evaluation quality assurance processes.
The paper outlines a structured, four step approach to beneficiary feedback in evaluation, which incorporates feedback as part of evaluation design, data collection, joint validation / analysis; and on end product / response and follow up. This will be discussed.
Community Nursing Research Strategy Masterclass
13th September 2013
The WSPCR was requested to organise a research masterclass for the Directors of Nursing from all the Welsh Health Boards on Friday 11th Sept. It was funded by the Health Minister and attended by the CNO. It also included the Head of the NISCHR and the manager of AHSC.
http://www.wspcr.ac.uk/community-nursing-research.php
Closing the Gap Between Clinician Education and Quality Improvement Through an Evidence-Based Taxonomy That Links Terms and Interventions: A Two-Part Brainstorming Session for the Alliance for CEhp Quality Improvement Education (QIE) Initiative
Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating...Charles Darwin University
A presentation outlining different approaches to ensuring quality of technology enhanced learning and teaching in higher education. Please cite: Sankey. M. (2017). Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating A Consistent Learning Experience. Online e-Learning Summit 2017. Sydney, 20-21 June.
Evidence Example -presentation from SWSSF Vision and Strategy Improving use of evidence scoping workshop 4th November 2015, Strathclyde University, Glasgow
VU University Amsterdam
Quality Improvement
Health Care Delivery
Hospital Quality
Low and Middle Income Countries
Developing Countries
Resource-Restricted Settings
The Value Summary creates a common language of value improvement in healthcare through a one-page summary document. It is more than a form; it is a planning guide, a way to share and spread ideas, and a path to earn continuing education credit. It is the currency of value improvement work at University of Utah Healthcare.
Beneficiary feedback in evaluation ukes methods workshopLeslie Groves
“Beneficiary feedback” means different things to different people. It is also under-utilised in development evaluation. There are no clear frameworks for engaging beneficiary feedback in evaluation. This has resulted in poor practice; confusion; a lack of rigour in application; lost opportunities for enhancing the quality of evaluations and insufficient attention given to ethical considerations for “beneficiaries” themselves. DFID commissioned a piece of work to develop understanding and guidance on how to improve beneficiary feedback in evaluation.
Objectives
The presentation will shed light on four frequently asked questions:
• How do we define beneficiary feedback in the context of evaluation?
• Is beneficiary feedback an approach, method or principle?
• What distinguishes beneficiary feedback from existing evaluation tools e.g. participatory evaluation?
• How do we meaningfully and ethically engage beneficiary feedback in evaluation?
Methods
This paper is based on:
• a literature review of over 100 documents;
• interviews with 36 key informants representing DFID, INGOs and evaluation consultants/consultancy firms and;
• contributions from 32 practitioners via e-distribution lists and through a blog set up for the purpose of the research.
The snowballing technique was used for data gathering and attempts were made to minimise North-North bias through posting in different forums.
Findings and Learning Points
• Beneficiary feedback is relevant to all types of evaluation design
• It is not a subset of participatory evaluation; and goes beyond data collection. It can engage both extractive and/ or participatory methods.
• There is scope to incorporate beneficiary feedback within formal evaluation quality assurance processes.
The paper outlines a structured, four step approach to beneficiary feedback in evaluation, which incorporates feedback as part of evaluation design, data collection, joint validation / analysis; and on end product / response and follow up. This will be discussed.
Community Nursing Research Strategy Masterclass
13th September 2013
The WSPCR was requested to organise a research masterclass for the Directors of Nursing from all the Welsh Health Boards on Friday 11th Sept. It was funded by the Health Minister and attended by the CNO. It also included the Head of the NISCHR and the manager of AHSC.
http://www.wspcr.ac.uk/community-nursing-research.php
Closing the Gap Between Clinician Education and Quality Improvement Through an Evidence-Based Taxonomy That Links Terms and Interventions: A Two-Part Brainstorming Session for the Alliance for CEhp Quality Improvement Education (QIE) Initiative
Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating...Charles Darwin University
A presentation outlining different approaches to ensuring quality of technology enhanced learning and teaching in higher education. Please cite: Sankey. M. (2017). Governing Quality Of Online Content Through Threshold Standards: Facilitating A Consistent Learning Experience. Online e-Learning Summit 2017. Sydney, 20-21 June.
After completion of the presentation, the participants will be able to know:
- Quality has several definitions
- History of QA
- Functions of QA in Education
- QA Need and QA Model
- Definition of Accreditation
- Purpose of Quality Assurance and Accreditation
- The need for Quality Assurance and Accreditation in
Bangladesh
- Overview of QA and Aim and Objectives of IQAC
- Elements of the Quality Assurance process
- Setting Common Goals among faculty and administrators
- Quality Assurance Need
- Conclusion
How do you think naac is ensuring external and internal quality at higher edu...Abhishek Nayan
National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) was established by the UGC in September 1994 at Bangalore for evaluating the performance of the Universities and Colleges in the Country. NAAC's mandate includes the task of performance evaluation, assessment and accreditation of universities and colleges in the country. Since its eastablishment, NAAC is working towards quality enhancement in Higher education. Check the slides to know more.
New Directions for the Quality Matters ProgramMarylandOnline
From its beginnings as a quality assurance tool for online course design, the Quality Matters Program is evolving to address a broader range of online learning quality assurance and faculty development issues.
Proving to improve - UA Summit of Deans CouncilsMark Freeman
We report a positive benefit-cost ratio for a model of external assurance of learning uncovered by a project called Achievement Matters. It critically relies on and elevates reviewers first developing shared understandings of standards through calibration forums which include practitioners.
Beyond Accreditation and Standards: The Distance Educator’s Opportunity for L...Gary Matkin
This presentation will provide practical suggestions for distance educators to take a leadership position amidst the call from accrediting bodies for institutions of higher education to become more accountable and transparent. Presentation will address content management, learner feedback, “openness”, and the establishment of infrastructure to meet these new requirements.
Impact of SA process on Quality Improvement in HEIsMd. Nazrul Islam
After completion of the presentation, the participants will be able to know the :
- Introduction and background of SA
- Purpose of SA Process
- Quality Assurance in Higher Education of Bangladesh
- Self-Assessment Process at the program level
- IQAC at SAU
- Conclusion
At the second Quality Council of India (QCI) National Quality Conclave in Feb 2007, Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the then President of India, stressed the need for development of a standard for the schools to ensure quality of education across the nation.
In line with his recommendation, QCI has developed the ACCREDITATION STANDARD
FOR QUALITY SCHOOL GOVERNANCE.
This standard provides a framework for the effective management and delivery of the HOLISTIC EDUCATION program aimed at OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS
“Lightening the Admin Burden” - Mary Curnock Cook, Chief Executive, UCAS
“A more risk-based approach to quality assurance” - Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive QAA
1. A MORE RISK-BASED APPROACH
TO QUALITY ASSURANCE
Anthony McClaran
Chief Executive, QAA
Monday 12 November 2012
2. Presentation
i) Update on QAA
ii) Background to a more risk-based approach to
quality assurance in England
iii) Outcomes of the HEFCE consultation
iv) Next steps & issues for consideration
3. QAA TODAY
Some of QAA’s main UK activities today:
Review and audit programmes for
universities, further education colleges and
private providers
Adviser to Privy Council on applications for
degree-awarding powers and university title
Provider of Educational Oversight, on behalf
of UK Border Agency, for ‘Highly Trusted
Sponsor’ status for independent institutions
with overseas students
UK Quality Code for Higher Education
4. BACKGROUND TO A MORE RISK-BASED
APPROACH TO QUALITY ASSURANCE
5. White Paper:
Students at the Heart of the System (June 2011)
Technical Consultation:
A New Fit-for-Purpose Regulatory Framework for
the Higher Education Sector (August 2011)
6. “The consultation has reinforced our view that a
risk-based approach is the most desirable means
of regulating higher education in England.”
BIS statement (June 2012)
7. OUTCOMES OF THE
HEFCE CONSULTATION:
A RISK-BASED APPROACH TO
QUALITY ASSURANCE
8. SCOPE OF THE HEFCE CONSULTATION
Varying nature, frequency &
intensity of reviews
Risk ‘triggers’, concerns and out-
of-cycle interventions
The role of enhancement
Student engagement in
quality assurance
Data sources and information
‘Core’ and ‘module’ approach
9. THEMES EMERGING FROM CONSULTATION
RESPONSES
Building on existing Institutional Review method
Reducing unnecessary burden and achieving better regulation
Greater transparency
Tailoring reviews to individual circumstances
Continued emphasis on enhancement
Students as full partners in the process
10. KEY OUTCOMES: REVIEW CYCLES
Six year review cycle
For those with longer track records of successfully
assuring quality and standards
Minimum of two institutional reviews
Four year review cycle
For those with shorter track records
Not yet undergone two successful reviews
Or had an investigation under the QAA Concerns
Scheme upheld since last review
Or has undergone significant material changes
such as takeover, merger or expansion of
activities
11. KEY OUTCOMES: GREATER TRANSPARENCY &
TAILORED REVIEWS
Greater transparency:
Publication of review programme on
QAA website
Reviews tailored to individual providers
Single review visits:
End of separate review of collaborative
provision
Working towards an integrated review
method for all providers of higher education
12. KEY OUTCOMES: MID-CYCLE REVIEW AND
QAA CONCERNS SCHEME
End of mid-cycle reviews
Safeguarding through QAA Concerns
Scheme
Investigating concerns about standards
and quality raised by students, staff
and other parties
Public reports published on outcomes
of investigations
13. KEY OUTCOMES: ENHANCEMENT & STUDENTS
AT THE CENTRE
Continued focus on enhancement:
Student learning opportunities
Thematic element of review
Sharing good practice
Students remain at the heart of the
quality assurance and review process
14. DROPPED PROPOSALS
Reviews: Route A and Route B
Annual review of data
Core and module approach
More detailed plans for streamlining
reviews of QAA and professional, statutory
and regulatory bodies (PSRBs)
16. PROVISIONAL TIMETABLE
Date Activity
Nov 2012 HEFCE publishes response to the consultation
QAA produces draft Operational Description and
Handbook
Dec 2012 – QAA holds consultation on Operational Description and
Feb 2013 Handbook
March 2013 Handbook published
May 2013 Institutional briefings begin on the revised method
onwards
Reviewer training begins
Sept 2013 Implementation of the new method
Jan 2014 First reviews begin, under the new method
2015-16 Independent evaluation
17. ISSUES & CHALLENGES
Achieving the right balance of interests:
Lighter touch
Students at the heart
Transparent and consistent
QAA’s professional judgement
Building a truly tailored approach for each institution
Establishing a robust process with a clear framework
19. BREAK-OUT GROUP QUESTIONS
i) What are the benefits of this new approach?
ii) What are the likely impacts of new alternative providers on
quality and reputation in UK higher education?
iii) How do we ensure that a more risk-based system can still
nurture innovation?