Current Developments in Quality Assurance and Management at MMU

1. Current Developments in Quality Assurance and Management at MMU Peter Leyland and Julie Watson Centre for Academic Standards and Quality Enhancement (CASQE)

2. Contents • Introduction of the QAA Institutional Review Process • Introduction of the new Continuous Monitoring and Improvement Process • Introduction of the new Structure and Operation of Assessment Boards • Exceptional Factors and Extension Requests • Terms and definitions • Academic Calendar • EQAL

3. Introduction of the QAA Institutional Review • Replaces Institutional Audit • Introduced from September 2011 • Dates for 1st year institutions agreed • 2nd year institutions alerted • MMU not included in first two years of introduction. (Last audit November 2009).

4. Key Principles • Flexibility • Clarity and simplicity • Recognition of the importance of public information • Public assurance about threshold academic standards • Minimising the administrative burden • Student-centred quality assurance

5. Flexibility • Institutional Review planned on a rolling cycle with flexibility to respond to public and sector demands • Reports comprise 2 parts: - Core section, leading to judgements; - Thematic elements, which are non judgemental. • “Themes” spread over 1 year, resulting in sector-wide conclusions and report. • The theme for 2011-12 - “The First Year Student Experience” • Review reports to be published within 12 weeks (20 weeks for institutional audit)

6. Clarity and Simplicity • Clearer use of language in formal judgements • Shorter reports with a summary aimed at a wider public audience

7. Recognition of the importance of public information • All institutions will be required to produce public information for applicants and students • Review reports will include a formal judgement of the quality of that information Institutions need to be considering their approach to the publication of information sets now. See additional document “Requirements for student work and student course evaluations” QAA, 2011.

8. Public assurance about threshold academic standards • This topic has been the subject of much debate in recent times • Important that institutions can identify minimum academic standards for its awards • Important to be able to articulate academic standards at different levels; ie Pass through to First class at undergraduate level • The role of assessment criteria crucial • Review teams will seek to be assured of the parity of academic standards across an institution and with its partners • Formal judgements will be made on the institution’s engagement with the Academic Infrastructure (FHEQ and the QAA Code of Practice)

9. Minimising the administrative burden • The QAA is keen to streamline the review process, for example, through the use of:- electronic documentation; better use of video and teleconferencing; no further requirement for a 3-day briefing visit.

10. Student-centred quality assurance Key issues from video “Overcoming Challenges” QAA June 2009 • Clear objectives at institution level • Important that students are supported and trained • Fully representative • Time and opportunity • Incentivising student involvement • Commitment from all levels • Listening and talking • Closing the feedback loop • What does student engagement really mean for your institution?

11. Student-centred quality assurance • The institutional review process has been developed to add new ways for students to engage in their institution • Review teams will meet and gather information from more students and in more depth • Greater emphasis to be placed on the evidence provided by students • Institutions are compelled to prepare and publish a post-review action plan that fully engages its students • Student members will be included in review teams • Each institution must appoint a lead student representative to help coordinate the review visit, including the identification of students to meet the review team

12. Institutional review and collaborative provision • No changes to the process for the review of collaborative provision for the time being • Current WIP on how collaborative and overseas provision will be reviewed in the future. Envisaged that the new process will be introduced in 2013-14 • Currently 3 types of CP review:- i) within the standard IR model; ii) through a hybrid IR model; iii) through separate review activity (No such reviews are planned in 2011-12 or 2012-13) See additional document “ Reviewing Collaborative Provision” QAA 2011

13. MMU’s Continuous Monitoring and Improvement Process Aim The aim of Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is to support the maintenance of standards, to assure the consistency of learning opportunities and to enhance the quality of the learning experience for students by continually reviewing provision, identifying areas for improvement and acting on these. Whilst this process applies to all taught courses of study offered by MMU whether they are delivered on-site or through collaborative partner organisations, collaborative partners will use their own systems for gathering and using data to evidence the process.

14. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement • “Live” process to be applied at unit, course and institutional level utilising objective core data gathered primarily from student records. • Clear locus of responsibility for the ownership of improvement actions • Requires the development of a Continuous Improvement Plan at course level, which provides the definitive source of all issues raised and agreeing actions and responsibilities to address them • The format of the Continuous Improvement Plan is prescribed to ensure a consistent approach. • The new process will be introduced from September 2011

15. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is achieved through the: • systematic, effective and transparent use of available data and evidence to inform improvement actions; • early identification of areas for improvement to ensure the maintenance of academic standards and/or to enhance the quality of student learning opportunities; • prompt implementation of improvement actions; • prompt referral of any issues requiring institutional action to the appropriate service area; • early identification, recording and dissemination of good practice in a timely manner; • tracking of all issues and improvement actions, from identification, through reporting on actions so that students, staff, external examiners and relevant others are aware of such actions

16. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement The following key indicators will inform academic teams in their analysis:   • the reports of external examiners; • Programme Performance Indicators (PPIs) from Uniview (see below); • student comments including evidence drawn from the polling, analysis and response to the opinion of current students (the student voice), including key issues raised in unit evaluations and external surveys, in particular the National Student Survey; International Student Barometer and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey; • DLHE data including students employed (graduate track) or in study; • feedback from former students, staff, employers and professional bodies (PSRBs) as appropriate and other reports; • discussion points raised at Programme Committees and student-staff consultative committees • recommendations made by programme approval, review and modification (PARM) panels.

17. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement.Arrangements for Collaborative Provision • issues and good practice specific to collaborative arrangements with partner organisations must be clearly distinguished in the Continuous Monitoring and Improvement process, so that the University can achieve a clear institutional overview of the quality of the student experience in all settings. • additional consideration given to the particular circumstances and/or nature of the provision in accordance with the University’s Institutional Code of Practice for Collaborative Provision.

18. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement.Arrangements for Collaborative Provision(Continued) • Where collaborative provision is linked to a MMU home programme (normally through a franchise arrangement), a separate Continuous Improvement Plan must be maintained by each partner organisation / institution. • Where delivery at the partner is limited to single units of study, unit reports should be completed. • Partner Continuous Improvement Plans must be considered alongside the home programme Continuous Improvement Plan, comparisons should be noted and good practice shared as part of the departmental and faculty management of the Continuous Monitoring and Improvement process.

19. Continuous Monitoring and Improvement.Arrangements for Collaborative Provision(Continued) • The Continuous Improvement Plans for externally validated programmes should be completed by the Partner Programme Leader and submitted to and discussed with the Head or equivalent of the relevant MMU department for inclusion in the Departmental Planning Process.

20. Further Reading! • QAA SERIES ON OUTCOMES FROM COLLABORATIVE PROVISION AUDIT • http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/outcomesCPaudit.asp • Approval and review of partnerships and programmes October 2010 • Frameworks, guidance and formal agreements October 2010 • Student representation and mechanisms for feedback December 2010 • Student support and information December 2010 • Assessment and classification arrangements January 2011 • Progression and completion information January 2011 • Use of the Academic Infrastructure March 2011 • External examining arrangements March 2011 • Learning support arrangements in partnership links April 2011 • Arrangements for monitoring and support April 2011