44806UniUK Guide Lores

Quality and standards in UK universities: A guide to how the system works

Understanding the sector

About Universities UK

This publication has beenproduced by Universities UK,which is the representative bodyfor the executive heads of UKuniversities and is recognised asthe umbrella group for theuniversity sector. It works toadvance the interests ofuniversities and to spread goodpractice throughout the highereducation sector.

Universities UKWoburn House20 Tavistock SquareLondonWC1H 9HQ

telephone+44 (0)20 7419 4111

fax+44 (0)20 7388 8649

[email protected]

webwww.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk

© Universities UKISBN 978 1 84036 190 2November 2008

Quality and Standards cover 27/10/2008 12:06 pm Page 4

The copyright for this publication is held by Universities UK. The materialmay be copied or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledgedand the material, wholly or in part, is not used for commercial gain. Use ofthe material for commercial gain requires the prior written permission ofUniversities UK.


100%

This product has been manufactured on paper fromwell managed forests and other controlled sources.It is manufactured using the FSC Chain of Custodyand by a company employing the ISO14001environmental standard.

2 Executive summary

3 Quality assurance in UK universities: Who does what?

4 University role in quality and standards

7 Universities and the Quality Assurance Agency:External review

9 The role of other bodies in quality andstandards

10 Improvement and enhancement

11 Student involvement

12 If things go wrong

14 International context

15 Conclusion

17 Annex A: Background to quality assurance inUK higher education: recent history

19 Annex B: The Academic Infrastructure

21 Annex C: UK differences

23 Notes

Many sections of this paper comprise text whichhas been extracted in full or paraphrased, withgrateful acknowledgement, from QualityAssurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)documents. www.qaa.ac.uk

Contents

Universities UK Quality and standards 1

Quality and standards in UK universities

Quality and Standards rep 27/10/2008 12:07 pm Page 1

Executive summary

2

1UK universities are widely regarded as beingamong the best in the world. Maintaining thehighest academic quality and standards1 iscrucial to that reputation. This paper explainshow universities ensure that students can haveconfidence that the time and money that theyinvest in their education are well spent.

2The UK model for assuring quality and standardsin universities is sound and well-established. It is also well-respected internationally and hasinfluenced parallel developments worldwide. It is a system which has evolved over time andwhich encourages universities to learn fromexperience, and each other, in seekingcontinuously to improve what they do.

3Each university2 has the responsibility formaintaining the quality of the education itprovides and the standards of the qualifications itoffers. Universities are their own awarding bodiesand they continually assess their systems andtheir courses to ensure that they are fit forpurpose. They do this on an annual basis, forexample, by considering reports by externalexperts and evaluating student performance andfeedback; and through Periodic Reviews involvinginternal and external peers, students and recentgraduates of the course. As well as regularscrutiny at the level of individual courses,universities also conduct their own, wider,subject-level reviews. In addition, all universitiesuse a network of external experts – calledexternal examiners - to advise on whether thestandards a university sets are appropriate.

4Universities also engage collectively in a range of activities designed to secure and enhance thereputation of the sector as a whole. Alluniversities use a common set of tools, called the‘Academic Infrastructure’ to underpin their workto maintain quality and standards. The AcademicInfrastructure, described in detail in Annex B,includes: Frameworks for Higher EducationQualifications, describing the standardsrepresented by each qualification; SubjectBenchmark Statements, setting out how thosestandards apply in particular subject areas; andthe Code of Practice for the Assurance ofAcademic Quality and Standards in HigherEducation, which sets out precepts and guidancefor universities about the management ofacademic quality and standards, coveringeverything from external examining to careerseducation.

5 In addition to this work, all universities subscribeto the Quality Assurance Agency for HigherEducation (QAA). This is an independent agencywhich, on behalf of the universities collectively,and the higher education funding bodies in theUK, reviews how individual universities meettheir responsibilities for maintaining quality andstandards, including by making regular visits toall universities to scrutinise, and report on, theirinternal processes for maintaining quality.

6Universities also work with professional,statutory and regulatory bodies and otheremployer groups to ensure their graduates are fitfor the world of work. They work with the HigherEducation Academy, which supportsprofessionalism in teaching and continuousefforts to improve the student experience.

7This paper describes how the quality assurancesystem works in all parts of the UK. It sets out therole of all the bodies involved, including the QAA,and is intended to provide a clear explanation ofhow the different parts of the system fit togetherfor anyone with an interest in how universitieswork.



8 The assurance of standards and quality in the UKis led by the universities themselves, andexternally checked by the Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Education (QAA).

9 The current system has evolved over time from amore inspection-based model (see Annex A), toone which is designed to ensure that universitiesmanage their own quality and standardseffectively and, increasingly, to develop a cultureof continuous improvement and enhancement.

10 Students are increasingly involved in bothinternal and external review, as are otherstakeholders such as employers andrepresentatives of professional, statutory andregulatory bodies. The aim is to improve qualitythrough self-regulation with a strong input fromstakeholders, other organisations and bodies.

11 While the details of the quality assurancemechanisms vary between the four countries ofthe UK, the QAA has adapted the overarchingsystem to accommodate national differenceswhilst providing a coherent force behind it. Allfour countries work to common principles andwithin a common Academic Infrastructure (seeAnnex B). The main differences between the fournational systems are set out at Annex C.

Quality assurance in UK universities: Who does what?


4

with the appropriate Subject BenchmarkStatements as well as the institution’s own award regulations.

16 Programme Approval Panels usually includeacademic staff from other universitydepartments not involved in the delivery of theproposed degree and in most cases will includeacademic peers and subject experts from other universities. They may also includerepresentatives from professional, statutory andregulatory bodies (PSRBs) or from industry orrelevant employer groups (see paragraph 53below). This externality helps to provideindependence and objectivity and thus additionalconfidence that the standards and quality of the degree are appropriate.

Current courses: monitoring and review

17 Universities routinely monitor and review theeffectiveness of each of their courses to ensurethey remain current and vital.

18 Annual Monitoring, either on–going throughoutthe year, or in the form of annual reports, involvesa process of critical self evaluation by the teamproviding a course. They reflect on informationfrom a variety of sources including externalexaminer reports, data on student performance,feedback from staff/student consultation,feedback from employers or PSRBs and anyinformation generated through modulemonitoring activity or student surveys. As aresult of reviewing this information, course teamsmay decide to make changes to course content,structure, assessment or delivery to furtherenhance the student learning experience.

19 In addition to Annual Monitoring, universitiesregularly conduct more formal and extensivereviews of courses. Such Periodic Reviews arenormally conducted every five or six years andserve to:

■ ensure that courses remain current and valid inlight of developing knowledge in the discipline,and practice in its application;

■ evaluate the extent to which the intended learningoutcomes are being attained by students;

■ evaluate the continuing effectiveness of thecurriculum, for example by talking to employersand looking at post-graduation employmentinformation; and

■ ensure that recommendations for appropriateactions are followed up to remedy any identifiedshortcomings.

12 Each university is a degree awarding body in itsown right and is responsible for its own qualityand standards.3 Individual universities have theprimary, longstanding and legal responsibility for managing their quality to ensure that theirstudents have a good experience and formaintaining standards to protect the value andcurrency of awards.

13 Universities fulfill their responsibilities forassuring standards and quality through:

■ regulations for awarding degrees and otherqualifications;

■ procedures for the design, approval, monitoringand review of the courses of study they offer;

■ the assessment of students, which includesmaking use of external examiners;

■ mechanisms designed to engage and involvestudents, with the aim of involving them as ‘co-creators in their own learning’, in all aspectsof quality assurance;

■ responding to feedback and interaction withstudents, employers and professional, statutoryand regulatory bodies;

■ exchanging good practice, and dialogue withother universities and QAA, and participation incollective quality initiatives; and

■ co-operation with the QAA and funding councilrequirements for regular institutional review,including the provision of publicly availableinformation.

14 Each university discharges these responsibilitieswith reference to the QAA Code of Practice andQAA, in turn, checks how they do this through itsreview process which results in a publishedstatement about the degree of confidence thatcan be placed in each university’s ability tomanage standards and quality.

New degree programmes

15 Every new degree programme proposed within auniversity will undergo a rigorous process ofprogramme approval.4 The departmentsuggesting the degree must present a sound caseto a Programme Approval Panel on the proposedcontent, structure, resources, longevity andmarket. The Panel ensures that decisions areinformed by full consideration of academicstandards and of the appropriateness of thelearning opportunities that will be offered tostudents. It also considers the planned outcomes,their delivery and assessment and links toreference points of the Academic Infrastructure,for example ensuring that standards are in line

University role in quality and standards



overarching commitment to enhancing quality inhigher education.

Assessment

24 Assessment is an important part of how studentslearn, as well as the means of producing the finalsummary judgement about how they haveperformed. All universities have regulationsabout how student work is assessed to ensurethat standards are maintained at the appropriatelevel, and that student performance is properlyjudged against this. These are underpinned by asection of the QAA Code of Practice which relatesspecifically to the assessment of students.

25 To achieve equity, validity and reliability in theassessment of student work, universities alsohave policies in relation to internal and externalmoderation of assessed work. Internalmoderation may take various forms but typicallywill involve a second academic reviewing asample of student work and verifying that themarks allocated are appropriate. In the event ofany dispute about marks the external examiner,who will have been appointed in recognition oftheir subject expertise, can be asked to moderateand their academic judgement will normally beaccepted as both objective and definitive.

External examiners

26 All UK universities have long made use of anetwork of independent and impartial academicadvisers, called external examiners. These aredrawn from other institutions, or from areas ofrelevant professional practice. Externalexaminers report to the Vice-Chancellor of theuniversity on whether the standards set areappropriate, by referring both to their experienceof standards in other universities, and to theAcademic Infrastructure established by the QAA(the Code of Practice, Subject BenchmarkStatements, the Frameworks for Higher EducationQualifications, and institutional ProgrammeSpecifications) . The aim is to ensure that thethreshold standards of student performance arecomparable with those of students followingsimilar courses in other UK universities.

27 External examiners provide authoritative adviceon the extent to which the processes forassessment, examination and the determinationof awards are sound and have been applied fairly.External examiner reports have significant statuswithin the university. They are directed to theVice-Chancellor and are considered at, and usedby, the department and university in internalquality assurance committees.

20 A Periodic Review is a strategic piece of work andtypically involves engagement with internal andexternal peers and with current students andgraduates of the course. At the conclusion of thereview exercise, the university will decidewhether to extend the period of approval of acourse for a further five year period and whatchanges need to be made to ensure thecontinuing validity and relevance of the provision.

Withdrawing courses

21 As a result of the monitoring described above, theuniversity may decide to close a course or degree.If closure is recommended, measures must betaken to notify and protect the interests of thoseinvolved, in particular those of students enrolledon, or accepted for admission to, the course. The QAA Code of Practice states clearly thatprocesses for managing change and the orderlywithdrawal of courses are as important as thosefor design, approval and review.

Subject-level review

22 As well as considering individual courses,universities are responsible for carrying outregular, wider, reviews at subject level. The QAA(and, in Scotland, the Scottish Funding Council(SFC)) provides guidance for universities inconducting such reviews, for example, in the useof trained reviewers and an element of externalitywithin review teams. In England, the HigherEducation Funding Council (HEFCE) expectsuniversities to make information about theprocess and outcomes of these reviews publiclyavailable, as does the Higher Education FundingCouncil for Wales (HEFCW) in Wales, thoughthere is no statutory requirement to publish theoutcomes. In Scotland the SFC receives an annualsummary of internal and external reviews fromeach university, and expects the QAA to draw onthem in its own annual report to the Council.Some Scottish universities make their ownreports available, in addition to the reports of theQAA, which are published for each institution.

Reviewing the review arrangements

23 In addition to all of this, universities must have inplace a means of assessing the effectiveness oftheir course design, approval, monitoring andreview practices. QAA expects to see evidence ofthis in the self-assessment documentation itreceives from universities prior to institutionalreview (see paragraph 34, below). This focus onevaluating the effectiveness of internal qualityassurance processes is part of the sector’s


6

28 The QAA Code of Practice provides guidance onthe use of external examiners and, in England,Wales and Northern Ireland, universities areexpected to share external examiner reports as a matter of course with student representatives.

Public Information provided by universities

29 Alongside the mechanisms described in thissection, universities make a range of informationavailable for students, employers and the generalpublic. Universities publish ProgrammeSpecifications, providing details of undergraduatecourses and the knowledge and understanding astudent will be expected to have on completion,and how they are to be achieved. In addition, mostuniversities participate in a National StudentSurvey, which gathers feedback from final yearstudents about their perceptions of their course.The results of this survey are published on thenew Unistats website,5 alongside key statistics,including data on students’ entry qualifications,progression, the completion of awards andsubsequent employment.



Universities and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education: External review

evaluation document is the keystone of the reviewprocess and review teams use it as a baseline insetting the agenda for the visit.

Visits

35 Review visits take place in two parts. First, thereview team makes a briefing visit to eachuniversity, lasting about three days, to ensurethey have a good understanding of the institutionand to clarify any issues in the university’s self-assessment document. This is followed, aboutfive weeks later, by the main visit which usuallylasts five days. During this time the review teammeets managers, academic staff and studentsand, sometimes, associated employers. At theend of the visit, the team makes a judgementabout whether the university is meeting nationalexpectations for the management of its standardsand quality, and also the reliability of informationit has provided about them.

Student focus

36 Student interests are central to the principalfocuses of review. Review teams scrutinise arange of matters directly relevant to students,including: the accuracy of the informationprovided for them; the ways in which theirlearning is facilitated and supported; the meansby which they can give feedback on the quality of provision; the means by which they can make a complaint or an academic appeal; and theirinvolvement in internal reviews.

37 In addition, student representatives are activelyengaged in the key stages of the process. Theirrepresentative body, normally the students'union, or equivalent, is invited to participate in thepreliminary meeting between the QAA and theinstitution, as well as the review team meetingstudents during the main visit. In England, Walesand Northern Ireland they are also invited tomake a written submission to the team inadvance of the review visit, whilst in Scotland,students are expected to have input into eachstage of the university’s submission and officersof the representative body and other students areinvited to participate in all stages of the process.

Report and judgement

38 Following their visit, the review team prepares areport which discusses the university'sarrangements for maintaining appropriateacademic standards and quality. It coversinstitutional strategies for enhancing the qualityof its educational provision. It also comments onthe accuracy and completeness of theinformation that the university publishes about

30 In addition to their own systems for safeguardingstandards and enhancing the quality of theirprovision, universities are also subject to arigorous external review process conducted byQAA.

The review process

31 The QAA undertakes regular, formal, externalreviews of universities, called ‘Institutional Audit’in England and Northern Ireland, ‘InstitutionalReview’ in Wales, and ‘Enhancement-ledInstitutional Review’ (ELIR) in Scotland. Theseoccur every six years in England, Wales andNorthern Ireland, and every four years inScotland.

32 Although the review process varies in the differentparts of the UK, its function is to examine theuniversity’s internal quality assurance and qualityenhancement policies and processes, and toassess and report publicly on the level ofconfidence that can be placed in them. The QAAalso uses reviews of institutions both to identifywhat it sees as good practice, and also to makerecommendations about ways in whichimprovements might be made to the managementof quality and standards. Institutional review istherefore the main way in which the QAA gathersevidence of the university’s management ofquality and standards.

33 While universities themselves are responsible forreviewing courses at subject level, QAA reviewfocuses on examining internal quality assuranceand enhancement systems and strategies. TheQAA uses a peer review process, in which teamslargely comprising academic staff from otherinstitutions, visit universities. In Scotland theteam includes an international reviewer. Astudent is also included in Scottish teams andthere are moves towards making similararrangements in England and Wales andNorthern Ireland. Appointment to the reviewteam is by nomination/application and eachpotential team member is considered againstpublished criteria. Care is taken to ensure thereviewer cohort reflects appropriate sectoral,discipline, geographical, gender and ethnicbalances. All reviewers must attend trainingprior to participating in a review.

Self-assessment document

34 Before the review visit, the university provides theQAA with a written self-evaluation document.6

This document provides details of arrangementsfor internally managing quality and standards,and the institution’s views of the effectiveness ofthose structures and mechanisms. The self-


8

46 Where a judgment of confidence has been made,universities prepare a commentary stating howthey are building on the strengths identified bythe review team and addressing any aspects inneed of improvement. Funding bodies use alsouse the information provided by the report as partof the evidence base for their regular discussionswith the institutions they fund.

47 Where a judgment of limited confidence has beenmade, within three months the university mustsubmit an action plan to QAA indicating how itintends to address the recommendations in thereport, and must provide, subsequently, aprogress report on how the action plan has beenimplemented. The review is not formally signedoff until QAA is satisfied that the action plan hasbeen implemented successfully, with a maximumtime limit of 18 months. If, at that point, concernsremain about the effectiveness of the remedialaction, QAA will conduct a further visit.

48 A judgment of no confidence would indicate thatthere was substantial evidence of serious andfundamental weaknesses in the university’scapacity to secure the academic standards of itsawards and/or maintain the quality of itseducational provision. Within three months ofreport publication the university must submit anaction plan to QAA with implementation timeswithin 18 months, indicating how it intends toaddress the recommendations in the report. It must then provide quarterly progress reportson how the identified weaknesses are beingaddressed. After 18 months, QAA would carry outa follow-up enquiry visit to the institution to checkprogress. The review would not be formallysigned off until QAA was satisfied that the actionplan had been implemented successfully.

49 Failure to satisfy the QAA could result in theintervention of the relevant funding body,8 andQAA bringing forward the date of the next visit. In all cases where the QAA has made a judgementof no confidence, the university has respondedpositively.

Public Information provided by QAA

50 The documentation published by QAA as a resultof the review process is directed at the universitybeing reviewed and how it might improve and assuch tends to be technical. However, it isimportant that information is also available andaccessible to other interested parties, includingpotential students. To address public informationneeds, the QAA produces a summary of eachreport for a general audience.9

the quality of its educational provision and thestandards of its awards. These reports identifyfeatures that the review team considers goodpractice, and makes recommendations aboutways in which the institution could improve.

39 In the report, the team expresses a summaryjudgment on the soundness of the university’smanagement of the quality of its courses and the academic standards of its awards, expressedas ‘confidence’, ‘limited confidence’, or ‘noconfidence’.

40 In general terms, if the review team judges thatthe university is managing quality and standardssoundly and effectively, and that its futurecapacity for maintaining quality and standardsappears good, ‘confidence’ will be expressed.

41 If the team has doubts, about either the currentassurance of quality and standards, or about theinstitution's capacity to maintain quality andstandards in the future, it will express ‘limitedconfidence’. A judgement of limited confidence isnot a judgement of failure. It indicates an outcomethat is positive but that improvements need to be made.

42 However, in extreme cases, if there is “substantialevidence of serious and fundamental weaknessesin the institution's capacity to secure theacademic standards of its awards and/or maintainthe quality of its educational provision”7 a reviewteam will make a judgement of ‘no confidence’.The team will indicate clearly the reasons andareas of concern that had given rise to thisjudgement. Although cases of unsatisfactoryacademic standards of provision have been veryrare in UK higher education, where they haveoccurred the universities in question have movedswiftly to address shortcomings. The QAA’sjudgment is made public since students and otherstakeholders have a right to know whereproblems have been identified, and to be informedabout how the situation has been addressed.

43 Review reports also discuss the accuracy,integrity and completeness of the informationthat the university publishes about the quality ofits courses and the academic standards of itsawards. In Wales, England and Northern Ireland,an additional separate summary comment ismade about this.

44 Review reports, containing the summaryjudgments, are published on the QAA website.

Follow-up

45 Following the QAA’s visit, universities respond tothe review team’s report, and use it to improvetheir own performance.



The role of other bodies in quality and standards

accredited courses will be able to practise in theprofessional area concerned. This is animportant safeguard for the public who useservices provided by such professionals. Forexample, the General Medical Council accreditscourses in Medicine. PSRBs and employers areinvolved in the design, approval, monitoring andreview of courses with some universities havingarrangements for joint accreditation and/orvalidation events. Members of PSRBs andemployer representatives may also be used asexternal assessors on approval panels.

54 Courses are re-accredited on a regular basis,typically every five or six years, although PSRBsmay accredit for longer or shorter periods in linewith their own priorities. Re-accreditation maytake place as a joint exercise with the universitywhere accreditation and university approvalperiods are the same, but some bodies prefer toconduct separate visits. The PSRB will provide theuniversity with a report of its conclusions and theperiod of further accreditation awarded. Suchreports will normally be considered atdepartment, school, faculty and university leveland the university will seek assurance that actionis being taken to address any matters identifiedby the PSRB.

The National Health Service

55 The health service contracts with universities fornursing, midwifery and allied health professionseducation, and Strategic Health Authorities (inEngland) also take account of quality assurancematters in their contract monitoring activities.Their systems are designed to operate alongsidethose of universities and relevant PSRBs, and are being refined in the light of health service re-organisation and the work of the ‘Council forHealthcare Regulatory Excellence’, which isresponsible for consistency and good practice in healthcare regulation.

The funding bodies

51 By law, the UK funding bodies have a duty toprovide for the assessment of the quality of theprovision they are funding. Each of the fundingbodies10 contracts with the QAA for qualityassurance services. They each receive a copy ofthe full QAA report for each university within theirjurisdiction. In discharging their quality remit, the funding bodies take account of these reportsand may decide to comment on reports or to raisespecific issues with individual universities. Each funding body meets regularly with theuniversities it funds and the outcome of QAAreviews are used routinely as a basis fordiscussion. Throughout the UK, if a funding bodywas not satisfied with a university’s performance,it could ultimately withhold funding until theissues were addressed satisfactorily.

The Higher Education Academy

52 All UK universities currently subscribe to theHigher Education Academy,11 which also receivescore funding from the UK funding councils. TheAcademy’s major function is qualityenhancement. Its mission is to support the highereducation sector in providing the best possiblelearning experience for all students. It plays animportant role in assisting universities andcolleges to improve the quality of teaching andthe student experience in higher education,working closely with them and with the QAA. TheAcademy accredits over 200 programmes andprofessional development schemes in teachingfor academics. It offers recognition of individualachievement through its fellowships and seniorfellowships across the UK and the NationalTeaching Fellowship Scheme in England andNorthern Ireland. It provides a UK-wideframework of support for learning and teaching atdiscipline level through its 24 Subject Centres,and it supports universities and colleges inbringing about strategic change that will benefitthe quality of the student experience, including bysharing good practice. The Academy developedthe UK Professional Standards Framework forthe sector. The framework applies to all staff whoteach and support learning in higher education.

Professional, statutory and regulatory bodies

53 Although each university approves its owncourses, individual courses that lead to aprofessional or vocational qualification, orexemption from a professional examination, areusually accredited by a professional, statutory orregulatory body (PSRBs). For professions whichare regulated by statute, only graduates of


10

Improvement and enhancement

62 Universities also routinely seek to benchmarktheir own performance against published sector-wide data and other sources of information, anduse this intelligence to improve what they offer,for example by providing greater flexibility inaccess to library or IT resources as a result ofchanging study patterns in the student body, orthe development of a new subject area inresponse to employer demand for graduates with specific knowledge or skills.

56 Continuous improvement and enhancement12 ofthe quality of provision offered to students formsan important part of the overall quality assurancephilosophy in UK universities.

57 All universities are involved individually andcollectively in improvement and enhancementactivities and such activities take place at manylevels within the institution, from the strategic tooperational. In addition to responding to theconclusions and recommendations of approval,accreditation and review exercises, course teamswill engage with students, including throughformal processes such as Staff StudentConsultative Committees and feedbackquestionnaires. The National Student Survey isanother important tool which universities use toimprove the student experience.

58 Universities also use the review reports publishedby the QAA to improve what they do, and the QAAfollows-up on each review to check the extent towhich universities have responded to the issuesidentified in its report. In its work in all fourcountries of the UK, the QAA places an increasingemphasis on enhancement as a key aspect ofmanaging quality.

59 The substantial amounts of valuable informationand data generated by the QAA enableuniversities to identify and consider generalthemes emerging within UK higher education,and this forms a key element in universities’improvement and enhancement activities.Themed reports, for example, the Outcomes fromInstitutional Audit 13 series in England andNorthern Ireland, and initiatives such as‘Enhancement Themes’ in Scotland,14 collecttogether the information which has emergedfrom review visits to universities, and encourageacademic and support staff and students to sharecurrent good practice and learn from each other.

60 The Higher Education Academy also providessupport to universities collectively through itsnetwork of Subject Centres; its initiatives tosupport professionalism in teaching; and its workin ensuring that universities have an opportunityto learn from each other by sharing good practice.

61 As well as responding to feedback from studentsand graduates, universities also routinely engagewith employers and, in health and social carerelated areas, user groups, to ensure thatcourses are providing graduates with theappropriate mix of skills.15 Universities use thisfeedback to inform both evolution in the deliveryof the course and longer term decisions aboutcourse direction and content.



Student involvement

63 Universities involve students routinely in qualityprocesses through regular feedback andStaff/Student Consultative Committees, as wellas in the formal annual monitoring and periodicreview activities.

64 The Scottish quality assurance system givesstudents a central role, through the fullinvolvement of student representatives atnational, university and course level, andstudents are already part of QAA review teams in Scotland. Student course representativesreceive training by their universities and via adevelopment service called ‘Student Participationin Quality Scotland’ (Sparqs). Sparqs alsoprovides consultancy to students’ associationsand universities, advice to the QAA and fundingcouncil and contributes to national debates ongood practice in all matters relating to the qualityof the student learning experience.

65 In England and Northern Ireland, training forstudent course representatives, run byuniversities and students’ unions, iscomplemented by national training andinformation events run jointly by QAA and the National Union of Students. Similararrangements are in place in Wales. The QAAplans to introduce student membership of reviewteams shortly. The QAA Board, the QAA ScotlandCommittee and the QAA’s Advisory Committeefor Wales all have a student member.

66 These activities are firmly in line with Europeandevelopments. Promoting greater studentinvolvement and engagement in qualityprocesses is an aim of the countries involved inthe Bologna Process, as encapsulated in theStandards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.16


12

If things go wrong

the Ombudsman's remit, as do complaints aboutthe quality of teaching or assessment. Like theOIA, the SPSO will consider complaints about theprocess followed by a university whenconsidering academic or disciplinary appeals.The SPSO’s reports, including, whereappropriate, recommendations for action, arelaid before the Scottish Parliament. In 2007–08, of a student population of over 200,000, 60complaints were made to the SPSO (not all ofwhich will have been made by students). Of all thecomplaints determined in that year, one was“fully upheld” and two were “partially upheld”.

73 In Northern Ireland, the universities make use of what is known as the Visitor system as the final stage in their complaints and appealsarrangements. The role of the Visitor is to ensurethat the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations ofthe university have been properly observed andcarried out and that natural justice is observedwithin the institution. The Visitor’s powers do notextend to matters of academic judgement and theVisitor is normally concerned with such mattersas procedural propriety, fairness, prejudice andirregularity.

Institutional matters: The QAA ‘Cause forConcern’ procedure

74 The QAA also has a procedure for handlinginstances where a ‘Cause for Concern’ has beenidentified. Separate, but similar policies coverEngland, Wales and Northern Ireland, andScotland. A ‘Cause for Concern’ is “any policy,procedure or action implemented, or omitted, by a higher or further education institution…whichappears likely to jeopardise the institution’scapacity to assure the academic standards andquality of any of its higher education programmesand/or awards”.21

75 Where QAA receives information, supported byevidence, from a reputable source, thatsomething is seriously amiss, the causes forconcern process would be invoked allowing forimmediate and direct intervention by QAA.“Reputable sources” include a range of namedorganisations in the UK , such as the Government,funding bodies, National Union of Students andmany PSRBs. QAA will also investigate“student/public/other stakeholder complaintsabout serious systemic shortcomings (excludingcomplaints or appeals relating to individuals)provided they are accompanied by substantiatingdocumentary evidence”. They will also investigatewhistleblowing by institutional staff, “providedclaims are accompanied by substantiatingdocumentary evidence”.22

67 Both at university and sector level, there aresystems in place to ensure that complaints andconcerns can be raised and investigated.

Student complaints and appeals

68 All universities have their own internalcomplaints procedures, supported by the QAACode of Practice, which contains a section oncomplaints and appeals. The code states that alluniversities should have fair, effective and timelyprocedures for handling students' complaintsand academic appeals, and that informationabout the procedures should be publiclyavailable. Most complaints are resolvedinternally and the code encourages informalresolution at an early stage before formalprocedures are initiated or completed.Universities do not normally allow appealsagainst the exercise of academic judgment,17 andthis approach has been supported by case law.18

Independent adjudication of student complaints

69 In England and Wales, if a student has exhaustedthe internal complaints procedures of theiruniversity and is still unsatisfied they can ask theOffice of the Independent Adjudicator for highereducation (OIA) to consider their complaint.19

70 Anyone who was, or is, registered as a student ata higher education institution20 in England orWales can complain to the OIA about:

■ A programme of study or research for which he orshe is or was registered;

■ A service provided to him or her by a highereducation institution; or

■ A final decision by a higher education institution’sdisciplinary or appeal body.

71 If the OIA upholds a complaint, either fully of inpart, it will make a recommendation to theuniversity about how the situation should beaddressed, for example, by paying compensation,assisting the student in some way or asking theuniversity to reconsider a case because of adefect in the handling of the original complaint. In2007/08, of a student population of over 2 million,600 eligible complaints were made to the OIA in2007, of which 11% were found to be “justified”and a further 15% “partly justified”. Seven percent were settled without the need for a fullinvestigation.

72 In Scotland, student complaints may be referredto the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman(SPSO). As with the OIA, academic judgementsabout marks, grades or a final award lie outwith



76 The process is one of gradually escalatingintervention. Initially, and within a month of QAA’sagreement to investigate, a senior member ofQAA’s staff conducts a brief preliminary enquiryto establish whether there is a case for furtherinvestigation. If so, a full investigation isundertaken by a team appointed by QAA with aremit to report within eight weeks. The team’sreport is published on the QAA website. QAA willdiscuss the outcome with the universityconcerned and request an action plan, withtargets for rectification of the shortcoming.


14

International context

77 Higher education is an international business. In acompetitive global marketplace, the assurance ofquality and standards in universities is a majorfeature in attracting overseas students to the UK.UK universities are highly regardedinternationally and value this reputation greatly.

78 QAA represents UK interests in a range ofinternational fora. It monitors and incorporatesinto the UK arrangements, as appropriate,developments in quality assurance at Europeanlevel, as part of the Bologna process. The UKAcademic Infrastructure is consistent with theStandards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance inthe European Higher Education Area.23 QAAcontributes to, influences and learns frominternational quality assurance throughmembership of many international organisationsand involvement in higher education projects. It isinvolved in a wide range of international qualityassurance initiatives and, in particular, EuropeanUnion and Bologna Process matters. Thisincludes membership of the InternationalNetwork of Quality Assurance Agencies in HigherEducation (INQAAHE) and the EuropeanAssociation for Quality Assurance in HigherEducation (ENQA). Interest in quality assurancearrangements for UK higher education is suchthat QAA receives around 50 parties ofinternational visitors per annum.

79 As part of ongoing monitoring, QAA was reviewedearly in 2008 by an independent external teamappointed by its main stakeholders, to confirmthat it continues to meet the membership criteriaof ENQA.24



Conclusion

80 Robust arrangements for assuring quality andsecuring standards are in place in UKuniversities, led by universities themselves. The combination of thorough internal processes,rigorous external review, and a commitment tocontinuous improvement is designed tosafeguard quality and standards, and helpuniversities enhance the student experience. It is an approach which is widely admiredinternationally, and has influenced thedevelopment of quality assurance systemsworldwide.

81 However, UK universities are not complacentabout quality or standards, and the qualityassurance system is kept under review andcontinues to evolve in the light of experience.




Annex ABackground to quality assurance in UK highereducation: Recent history

many of the non-awarding functions of CNAAthereby adding a quality enhancement role to itsaudit function. Meanwhile the legislation thatestablished the territorial funding bodies in 1992required them to form quality assessmentcommittees and to secure the assessment ofquality in the sectors they were funding. The twoprocesses of audit and assessment (which cameto be known as “teaching quality assessment”)worked in parallel for the next eight years.

Teaching quality assessment (TQA)

5 In response to the legislation, the fundingcouncils established departments staffed withquality assessors and an extensive programme of “teaching quality assessment” (TQA) wasintroduced in each of the jurisdictions. TQA wasconducted on a subject-by-subject basis by teamsof academic assessors that considered a self-assessment document prepared by eachuniversity department, generally followed up byvisits. The assessment team’s considerationswere noted in institutional reports and asummarising judgement given to eachdepartment. The whole cycle took around fiveyears to complete and each of the funding bodiesmade several adjustments to the process as itdeveloped in practice.

6 By 2001 almost all UK academic departments hadbeen assessed of which only a tiny number wereconsidered “unsatisfactory”. TQA enabled thesector to confirm comparability of standardsacross the whole of the UK higher educationsystem and provided an invaluable set of baselinedata on the quality of UK higher educationprovision. It was, however, highly resource-intensive, both for the funding bodies’assessment directorates and for universities,which often had to prepare more than onedepartment for assessment at a time. Thisprompted the Dearing Committee to concludethat “given that the vast majority of outcomeshave been satisfactory, we are not convinced thatit would be the best use of scarce resources tocontinue the system in the long term”.25 Thedepartmental focus did not address the fact thatquality assurance is a university-wideresponsibility. In addition, its inspectorial natureled to an element of “gamesmanship” in theprocess, with departments hoping the assessorswould not uncover any areas of weakness, at theexpense of the university having a full and frankexchange about areas for improvement.Crucially, there was accumulating evidence thatapplicants to university were not using theinformation provided by the review reports inmaking their choices, even though a rolling

1 The roots of the current system lie in thelegislation of the late 1980s and early 1990s, a time when government deliberately stimulatedboth demand and supply in higher education,dramatically increasing the numbers of studentswithout a commensurate increase in funding,leading in turn to a lowering of the “unit ofresource” per student. It also bestowed universitytitle on more than thirty polytechnic institutions,which were largely responsible for the expansionin student numbers during this period. Theincreasing diversity of the sector gave rise toquestions about the changing nature of highereducation and, inevitably, its quality andstandards. In addition, the former polytechnicsector had been subject to external regulation of its quality and standards via the Council forNational Academic Awards (which validated theirdegrees) and this model proved attractive togovernment.

2 As a consequence of the development of a masshigher education sector, government interest insecuring greater accountability and assuringmeasurable outputs and outcomes from highereducation also grew. As part of this, a renewedfocus on “quality” led to the adoption of newprocesses – characterised by a move away from areliance on the judgement of professional staffdelivering the service towards inspectorial-stylejudgements made by external bodies. Thisinformation was intended to be used to informusers about provision and to provide governmentwith assurances about value for money. TheWhite Paper Higher Education: a New Framework,issued in 1991, proposed the establishment of thefour, territorial, UK higher education fundingbodies. It also considered quality anddistinguished between two types of externalquality assurance mechanisms:

■ ‘Quality audit’ – external scrutiny aimed atproviding guarantees that institutions havesuitable quality control mechanisms in place;and

■ ‘Quality assessment’ – the external review of, and judgments about, the quality of teaching andlearning in institutions.

3 Quality audit would be the responsibility of a unitowned by higher education institutions andquality assessment that of the funding councils.

4 To consider issues that fell into the remit of audit,universities and colleges of higher educationestablished the Higher Education Quality Council(HEQC) in 1992. Most of the functions of the CNAAwere no longer required, now that polytechnicswere universities with their own degree-awarding powers, and it closed. HEQC absorbed


18

programme of league tables began to appear inthe media as soon as the summary judgementswere published. As universities responded to thereview reports, information rapidly became out of date and ceased to be useable.

7 TQA ended in Scotland and Wales in 1997 after thefirst cycle. It took until 2001 for the largercombined sector of England and Northern Irelandto complete. Meanwhile, the staff and functions of the HEQC, along with the quality assessmentdivisions of the English and Welsh fundingcouncils, were absorbed into the new QualityAssurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA).This had been proposed by the Joint PlanningGroup for Quality Assurance in Higher Educationand was provided with an agenda by the DearingReport in 1997. Whilst bringing both aspects ofexternal quality assurance together within asingle central organisation was rational andappropriate, universities were now enduring twoseparate external processes, carried out by thesame agency, and pressed QAA to streamline thisinto a single mechanism. The intervening period,until the current quality assurance system wasintroduced in 2002, was characterised by thecompleting of TQA in England and NorthernIreland, new subject reviews in Scotland and atwo-year period of developmental engagementsin Wales.

8 TQA/subject review was, therefore, a robust firststage process but, for universities and theirstudents to fully benefit, it needed to evolve to fitwith a system that encouraged self-criticaldebate within universities and emphasised theirown and ongoing management and qualityimprovement tools and processes. The work ofHEQC, alongside the practice of TQA, hadhighlighted learning and teaching issues withininstitutions and generated a huge, creative and,ultimately, constructive debate in the highereducation sector about the nature, purposes andexecution of quality assurance. The language of quality, and thinking about its application,became widespread in the sector. This thinkinghas matured and in so doing, has clarifiedprinciples and objectives and assisted theemergence, after several different incarnations,of the system, adapted and appropriate to highereducation, in operation today.



Annex BThe Academic Infrastructure

traditions etc, will find it relevant. The Code ofPractice can be found on the QAA website.28

Frameworks for Higher EducationQualifications

5 The two qualification Frameworks describe themain attributes of the major higher educationqualifications – the levels of achievement theyrepresent. The frameworks are designed toensure that universities use the titles ofqualifications consistently and as a tool to ensurethat they assign the appropriate level to newqualifications that they are developing. Theytherefore provide a crucial set of points ofreference for setting and assessing the standardsof their courses. In this way they also assistexternal examiners and QAA reviewers.

6 They are also intended as a guide for prospectivestudents and employers so they can see howdifferent qualifications relate to one another andthus what might be the next step in theirprogression.

7 To give an example, at Honours level a graduatewill be expected to have developed “anunderstanding of a complex body of knowledge,some of it at the current boundaries of anacademic discipline. Through this, the graduatewill have developed analytical techniques andproblem-solving skills that can be applied inmany types of employment. The graduate will beable to evaluate evidence, arguments andassumptions, to reach sound judgements, and tocommunicate effectively. An Honours graduateshould have the qualities needed for employmentin situations requiring the exercise of personalresponsibility, and decision-making in complexand unpredictable circumstances.”29

8 In acknowledgement of the different types ofqualifications that are available in different partsof the UK, there are two frameworks: one forEngland, Wales and Northern Ireland and anotherfor Scotland. Details of each of the frameworkscan be found on the QAA website.30

Subject Benchmark Statements

9 Universities are responsible for determining theirown curricula and there is no national curriculumin higher education. As part of the AcademicInfrastructure, however, Benchmark Statementsset out expectations about standards of degreesin each subject area such as history orengineering. The benchmark statementdescribes what gives a discipline its coherenceand identity, and defines what can be expected ofa graduate in terms of the abilities and skills

1 The UK Academic Infrastructure is key to theprocess of assuring quality and standards acrossUK higher education. It comprises a collection ofintegrated concepts and documentation that havebeen developed by QAA and universities andprovides a self-regulating national frameworkwithin which autonomous universities candescribe and manage their academic standardsand quality. Although it is, by its nature, a singleset of external reference points, the AcademicInfrastructure allows for diversity and innovationwithin courses offered by individual universities.All universities subscribe to the AcademicInfrastructure and QAA judges the extent to whichthey make use of it in managing the standardsand quality of their courses. It is kept undercontinual review and is revised as appropriate.The UK Academic Infrastructure is unique andmuch admired internationally. It is consistentwith the Standards and Guidelines for QualityAssurance in the European Higher Education Area26

although it is more detailed than the Standardsand Guidelines and more specific to theexpectations of UK higher education.27

2 The four elements of the Academic Infrastructureare:

■ the Code of Practice for the assurance ofacademic quality and standards in highereducation;

■ Frameworks for Higher EducationQualifications in England, Wales and NorthernIreland, and in Scotland;

■ Subject Benchmark Statements; and

■ Programme Specifications.

3 These four individual elements relate to oneanother so that, for example, the learningoutcomes detailed in the ProgrammeSpecification will relate to the SubjectBenchmark Statement and be located in theQualifications Frameworks at the appropriatelevel.

The Code of Practice

4 The Code of Practice for the Assurance ofAcademic Quality and Standards is essentially aset of guidelines on good practice in universities.Its ten themed sections range from admissions tocourse design, assessment and careers adviceand provide a framework within which individualuniversities can consider the effectiveness oftheir approaches to learning and teaching-related activity. The Code is designed so thatevery institution, regardless of its size, subjectbase, physical environment, population mix,


20

needed to develop understanding or competencein that subject. Benchmark Statements for somesubjects, such as Chemistry, include corecontent. Others, such as History, allow for a morevaried curriculum. Benchmark statements havebeen developed by, and agreed with, the relevantacademic subject communities and nationalacademies of learning, professional bodies andemployers as appropriate. This process isdynamic, with existing Subject BenchmarkStatements undergoing systematic review overthe past few years and new statements beingdeveloped as the need arises.

10 Subject Benchmark Statements, therefore, allowindividual universities flexibility and innovation incourse design, within an overall conceptualframework established by the wider academicsubject community. Standards in most highereducation subjects apply UK-wide. There areexceptions in a few cases of professionalqualifications where there are particularstandards applying in different parts of the UK,for example in Teaching and in Nursing andMidwifery. Some benchmark statementscombine or make reference to professionalstandards required by external professional orregulatory bodies in the discipline.

11 Subject Benchmark Statements are published onthe QAA website. They are largely intended toassist academic staff involved in course design,delivery and review but they may also be ofinterest to prospective students and employers,seeking information about the content, natureand standards of awards in a subject area.

Programme Specifications

12 In addition to these external reference points, alluniversities are expected to produce ProgrammeSpecifications, which provide information abouteach programme of learning leading to aqualification, that they offer. The programmespecification describes the intended outcomes of learning from a course and the means by which these outcomes will be achieved anddemonstrated. Programme Specifications wereproposed by the Dearing Committee as a meansof informing applicants to university, studentsand employers about the “knowledge andunderstanding that a student will be expected to have upon completion”.31



Annex CUK differences

Engl

and/

N. Ir

elan

d

Scot

land

Wal

es

Revi

ew

Inst

itutio

nal A

udit

involv

ing al

l univ

ersiti

esov

er a s

ix-ye

ar cy

cle

Enha

ncem

ent-L

edIn

stitu

tiona

l Rev

iew

(ELI

R)inv

olving

all

unive

rsitie

s ove

r a fo

ur-ye

arcy

cle.

Inst

itutio

nal R

evie

winv

olving

all u

nivers

ities

over

a six-

year

cycle

Self

asse

ssm

ent

docu

men

t

Inst

itutio

nal B

riefin

gPa

per.

Visiti

ng te

am w

illus

e it t

o con

sider

the e

xtent

to w

hich i

nstit

ution

al-lev

elap

proa

ches

to qu

ality

enha

ncem

ent m

ake

syste

matic

use o

fma

nage

ment

infor

matio

n.

Refle

ctiv

e Ana

lysi

s(R

A).U

nivers

ities

use i

t to

docu

ment

their

entir

e ran

geof

quali

ty as

suran

ce an

den

hanc

emen

t acti

vities

Self-

Eval

uatio

nDo

cum

ent (

SED)

also

indica

tes w

here

“them

atic

trails

” migh

t be p

icked

up

by th

e rev

iew te

am.

Stud

ent s

ubm

issi

ons

Stud

ent r

epres

enta

tives

expe

cted t

o mak

e a se

parat

esu

bmiss

ion of

their

own

along

side t

he in

stitu

tion’s

docu

ment

Stud

ents

do no

t mak

e ase

parat

e sub

miss

ion, b

ut ar

einv

olved

at ea

ch st

age o

f the

instit

ution

al pr

oces

s of

subm

itting

the R

eflec

tive

Analy

sis.

Stud

ents

enco

urag

ed to

make

sepa

rate s

ubmi

ssion

ifth

ey w

ish

Visi

ts

In tw

o part

s: A ‘

brief

ing vi

sit’,

lastin

g thr

ee da

ys, fo

llowe

dby

the f

ormal

audit

visit

,wh

ich us

ually

lasts

five

days

.

Usua

lly la

st be

twee

n five

and s

even

days

, in tw

o part

s

Usua

lly la

st be

twee

n five

and s

even

days

, in tw

o part

s

Judg

emen

ts

As w

ell as

a su

mmar

yjud

geme

nt ab

out t

heso

undn

ess o

f the

unive

rsity’

sma

nage

ment

of th

e qua

lity

of its

cour

ses a

nd th

eac

adem

ic sta

ndard

s of it

saw

ards,

review

team

also

make

s a co

mmen

t on t

heac

curac

y, int

egrit

y,co

mplet

enes

s and

fran

knes

sof

the i

nform

ation

that

the

instit

ution

publi

shes

abou

tth

e qua

lity o

f its c

ourse

san

d the

acad

emic

stand

ards

of its

award

s.

Summ

ary j

udge

ment

s are

made

abou

t the

soun

dnes

sof

the u

nivers

ity’s

mana

geme

nt of

the q

ualit

yof

its co

urse

s and

the

acad

emic

stand

ards o

f its

award

s. Ot

her is

sues

are

capt

ured

in bo

dy of

repo

rt.

As w

ell as

a su

mmar

yjud

geme

nt ab

out t

heso

undn

ess o

f the

unive

rsity’

sma

nage

ment

of th

e qua

lity

of its

cour

ses a

nd th

eac

adem

ic sta

ndard

s of it

saw

ards,

a com

ment

is al

soma

de ab

out t

he ac

curac

y,co

mplet

enes

s and

relia

bility

of th

e inf

ormat

ion th

at an

instit

ution

publi

shes

.

Reco

mm

enda

tions

The p

ublis

hed r

eport

includ

es th

e aud

it tea

m's

recom

mend

ation

s for

cons

iderat

ion by

the

instit

ution

, cat

egori

sed i

nord

er of

prior

ity: “

esse

ntial

”,“ad

visab

le” or

“des

irable

”.

Thes

e are

cont

ained

in

the b

ody o

f the

text.

Thes

e are

cont

ained

in

the b

ody o

f the

text.

Follo

w up

A pap

er-ba

sed e

xerci

se in

which

the Q

AA lo

oks a

tde

velop

ment

s sinc

e the

audit

. The

insti

tutio

n is

aske

d to c

omme

nt on

actio

ns th

ey ha

ve ta

ken

since

the a

udit r

eport

and

any o

ther

chan

ges.

Occu

rs at

the t

hree

-yea

r mid-

cycle

point

One y

ear a

fter r

eview

, the

unive

rsity

prov

ides w

ritten

upda

te to

QAA i

ndica

ting

actio

n to b

e tak

en in

the

light

of its

repo

rt. Th

ispr

ovide

s bas

is for

disc

ussio

nat

the a

nnua

l mee

ting e

ach

instit

ution

has w

ith th

eAg

ency

.

The r

eview

ed un

iversi

tysu

bmits

a wr

itten

prog

ress

report

to th

e QAA

in m

idcy

cle, p

rior t

o a m

eetin

gbe

twee

n the

insti

tutio

n and

the A

genc

y.



Universities UK Quality and standards

SectionA head

23

Notes

13 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/default.asp

14 For information about ‘Enhancement Themes’ seewww.enhancementthemes.ac.uk.

15 According to the HEFCE Higher EducationBusiness Interaction Survey, 78% of HEIsreport that employers are actively engagedin the development of content and regularreviewing of curriculum at levels 4 or 5 on a5 point scale (ie the highest level).

16 Standards and Guidelines for QualityAssurance in the European Higher EducationArea, European Association for Quality inHigher Education (ENQA) (2005).

17 Other than where there has been aprocedural irregularity, or where there aremitigating circumstances which for goodreason were not presented at an earlierstage.

18 It is clear from settled case law that auniversity’s own rules are the sole forum for dispute resolution in relation to purelyacademic matters (R v University of AstonSenate ex parte Roffey 1969). The courts willnot second guess academic judgment butwill be concerned with the proceduralfairness aspects (Clark v University ofLincolnshire and Humberside 2000)

19 The Office of the Independent Adjudicator(OIA) was established in July 2003 andcommenced a voluntary student complaintsscheme in March 2004. It superseded theformer visitorial system. The OIA was givena statutory footing in the Higher EducationAct 2004 which requires all universities inEngland and Wales comply with the rulesfor resolving student complaints.

20 A student who is at another institution, but undertaking a course of study orprogramme of research leading to the grant of an award validated or franchised by a higher education institution, is alsocovered by the OIA scheme.

21 A Guide to Causes for Concern (England andWales), QAA, http://www.qaa.ac.uk/aboutus/policy/concern.asp Page 2 paragraph 1.

22 QAA ibid Page 2 paragraph 5.

23 ENQA 2005 ibid at 15.

24 The report of the ENQA Review Panel will beconsidered by the ENQA Board in November2008 and the result published athttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/qual/review.asp

25 National Committee of Inquiry into HigherEducation: Higher Education in the LearningSociety (The Dearing Report) HMSO(1997)paragraph 10.68.

26 ENQA 2005 ibid at 15.

27 Handbook for institutional audit: Englandand Northern Ireland 2006 (with additionalcommentary) http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/handbook2006/handbookComments.asp

28 see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/codeOfPractice/default.asp

29 Framework for Higher EducationQualifications in England, Wales andNorthern Ireland http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWNI/default.asp

30 Details of the Frameworks for qualifications,including level descriptors can be found at:http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/default.asp

31 The Dearing Report, (1997)Recommendation 21 paragraph 9.53.

Many sections of this papercomprise text which has beenextracted in full or paraphrased,with grateful acknowledgement,from Quality Assurance Agency forHigher Education (QAA) documents.www.qaa.ac.uk

1 Academic ‘standards’ describe the level ofachievement (the threshold) that a studenthas to reach to gain a particular degree orother academic award. Academic ‘quality’describes the effectiveness of the learningexperience provided by universities to theirstudents, ie the appropriateness andeffectiveness of learning, teaching,assessment and support opportunitiesprovided to assist students achieve theirlearning objectives.

2 For ease of reading we have used the term‘university’ throughout this document.Other Higher Education Institutions are alsosubject to the measures described. Thereare specific arrangements for monitoringthe quality of collaborative provision, andhigher education provided in furthereducation colleges, which are not describedhere. For further information see:www.qaa.ac.uk

3 The QAA advises the Privy Council on thegrant of degree awarding powers and the‘university’ title. The criteria can be found athttp://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/dap/briefGuideDAP.asp

4 In some universities this process is knownas ‘validation’.

5 www.unistats.com

6 In England and Northern Ireland this iscalled a “Briefing Paper”, in Scotland it is a “Reflective Analysis” and in Wales“Self-Evaluation Document”.

7 Handbook for Institutional Audit: Englandand Northern Ireland, Quality AssuranceAgency for Higher Educationhttp://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/handbook2006/default.asp

8 HEFCE has developed a policy foraddressing unsatisfactory quality. Seehttp://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/circlets/2008/cl21_08/

9 As part of the main report in England, Walesand Northern Ireland, and in a separatedocument in Scotland.

10 The Higher Education Funding Councils forEngland, Scotland and Wales, and theDepartment for Employment and Learningin Northern Ireland.

11 The Higher Education Academy wasestablished in 2004 and is an independentcompany which is jointly owned by therepresentative bodies for higher education(Universities UK and GuildHE).

12 'Enhancement' being the deliberate stepsan institution takes at a strategic andmanagerial level to bring about'improvement'.



The copyright for this publication is held by Universities UK. The materialmay be copied or reproduced provided that the source is acknowledgedand the material, wholly or in part, is not used for commercial gain. Use ofthe material for commercial gain requires the prior written permission ofUniversities UK.


100%

This product has been manufactured on paper fromwell managed forests and other controlled sources.It is manufactured using the FSC Chain of Custodyand by a company employing the ISO14001environmental standard.

Quality and standards in UK universities: A guide to how the system works

Understanding the sector

About Universities UK

This publication has beenproduced by Universities UK,which is the representative bodyfor the executive heads of UKuniversities and is recognised asthe umbrella group for theuniversity sector. It works toadvance the interests ofuniversities and to spread goodpractice throughout the highereducation sector.

Universities UKWoburn House20 Tavistock SquareLondonWC1H 9HQ

telephone+44 (0)20 7419 4111

fax+44 (0)20 7388 8649

[email protected]

webwww.UniversitiesUK.ac.uk

© Universities UKISBN 978 1 84036 190 2November 2008


Date post:	28-May-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nguyen-hung
View:	225 times
Download:	0 times

44806UniUK Guide Lores

Documents