THE UJTHE UJ QUALITY PLAN: QUALITY PLAN:
2005 - 20082005 - 2008Anci du Toit Anci du Toit on behalf of on behalf of Gerrie JacobsGerrie Jacobs
•Towards new quality Towards new quality management systems management systems
in merged institutions…in merged institutions…
QUALITY QUALITY CHALLENGESCHALLENGES: : FIRSTFIRST MERGER YEAR MERGER YEAR
Interim Council, MEC, Deans, HoDs
Interim Vision, Mission and values – no strategic direction
Inherited QA policies, structures and practices
Merger dynamics/loyalties to former QA systems
Compromise not reached in the 1st merger year
‘Comprehensive’ university?
Lack of security
ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UJ UJ QUALITY PLANQUALITY PLAN
Feb 2005: UJ joined SA-FinlandSA-Finland project (via HEQC)
UJ QUALITY PLANUJ QUALITY PLAN: Senate-approved May 2005 (tedious lobbying and change management process)
Four Quality Project TeamsProject Teams (QPTs): QPT1: Quality management structuresstructures (all levels) QPT2: Analyse inherited and develop new UJ policiespolicies QPT3: Single strategic planstrategic plan (incl. vision & mission) QPT4: New academic programme structureacademic programme structure (APS)
Steercom & representative soundboardsoundboard (USB)
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC GOALSGOALS
1.1. A reputable brandbrand
2.2. Excellence in teaching and learningExcellence in teaching and learning
3.3. Internationally competitive researchresearch
4.4. An engagedengaged university
5.5. Maximize intellectual capitalintellectual capital
6.6. Institutional efficiencyefficiency and effectivenesseffectiveness
7.7. Culture of transformationtransformation
8.8. Competitive resourcingresourcing
9.9. The preferred student experiencestudent experience
10.10. Focus on the Gauteng city regionGauteng city region
GOAL 2: GOAL 2: EXCELLENCE IN EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING & LEARNINGTEACHING & LEARNING
To promote and sustain excellence in teaching and learning by quality assurance practices and actively
developing and implementing cutting
edge teaching, learning and
assessment strategies.
Key PerformanceKey PerformanceIndicators (KPIs)Indicators (KPIs)
1.1. LearningLearning excellence;
2.2. TeachingTeaching excellence;
3.3.RRelevance/impact/diversity of programmesprogrammes;
4.4.CCutting edge teaching and learning strategiesstrategies;
5.5. LifelongLifelong learning
METRICS?METRICS?
METRICSMETRICS1.1. Degree credit success rates HEMIS dataHEMIS data
2.2. Student satisfaction with teaching SurveysSurveys
3.3. Employability Graduate & employer surveysGraduate & employer surveys
4.4. Impact: innovative teaching & learning Impact studiesImpact studies 5.5. Participation in lifelong learning programmes
Existing database to be customisedExisting database to be customised
Attainment of critical learning outcomes by students ?Attainment of critical learning outcomes by students ?
Assessment of outcomes per Assessment of outcomes per programme/major?programme/major?
QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: QUALITY STRUCTURESSTRUCTURES
DVCDVC: Strategic & Instit Planning & Implementation (incl. QA)
OIEOIE: Mission is not just an empty promise (QA + Planning)
Quality Task TeamQuality Task Team: Steered QA and Planning in 2005
TwoTwo standing Senate committeesSenate committees in 2006 (SQC & SAPC)
End of 2006: ONEONE Academic Planning & Quality Committee
2008: Senate Quality Committee –all strategic goals
HE policy analysis, Link QP and all functions of University (Plan & HE policy analysis, Link QP and all functions of University (Plan & Policy)Policy)
Appropriate resources utilisation
National & Prof Body reviewsNational & Prof Body reviews
FacultyFaculty Quality Committees (FQCs) established (diverse)
QUALITY PROJECT TEAM:QUALITY PROJECT TEAM:PROGRAMME REVIEWSPROGRAMME REVIEWS
Phase in the merger where Tyre Hits The RoadTyre Hits The Road – academics talked to each othertalked to each other about the institution’s core business
PurposePurpose: In-depth investigation of all programmes to: promote the quality of programmes (HEQC programme criteria)
align programmes with the new UJ vision, mission and strategic goals
establish a new Academic Programme Structure (APS) for UJ
DecisionsDecisions taken regarding each programme: C = C = continue unchanged ; or
C =C = consolidate with another programme(s) ; or
C =C = effect (substantial) changes ; or
C =C = cancel or discontinue and phase out
CONDUCTING PROGRAMME REVIEWS
INTERNALINTERNAL
Peer Peer reviewreview
ADJUST ADJUST PORTFOLIOPORTFOLIO
(Electronic Electronic templatetemplate)
EXTERNALEXTERNAL
Peer reviewPeer review
REPORTINGREPORTING(Per programme
and module - Forms 1 +2)
SELF-EVAL SELF-EVAL PORTFOLIOPORTFOLIO
(per (per programme programme
group group – most – most HEQC criteria)HEQC criteria)
PWG & PWG & SENATESENATE
NEW NEW APS!!APS!!
PROGRAMME REVIEWSPROGRAMME REVIEWS(3)(3)
MASSIVEMASSIVE venture!! : Quality “tsunami” or “massacre”?
Some numbersSome numbers: 9 faculties offering 14771477 programmes (Form 1s)
3636 capacity building workshops (using an electronic template)
28 00028 000 modules in OBE format (34563456 Form 2s reviewed) – Phase 1
External peer reviews, template and paperwork close to R3,5 R3,5 millionmillion
R349,194R349,194 SA-Finland project money – to 9 faculties (R38,800 each)
R98,000R98,000 due in 2008 also payable to faculties
R140,000R140,000 forthcoming research on impact + capacity buildingSee PRODUCT!:PRODUCT!: UJ UJ Academic Programme StructureAcademic Programme Structure + +
A quality ethosethos & quality “champions”“champions” in faculties…??
LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: QUALITY LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: QUALITY PERCEPTIONSPERCEPTIONS
2 questions: To what extent do FQCs perceive2 questions: To what extent do FQCs perceive - -
QA and QPromotion as indicators of effectiveness and themselves as “true owners” of quality matters?
PROJECT FINDINGSPROJECT FINDINGS (1999, 2002, 2005 & 2008)
QA/QP climate changedchanged: Quality must be shownmust be shown to exist
11stst research question? - ; 22ndnd question? – ??????
QA “champions withinchampions within”” the faculties Quality Quality AssociatesAssociates appointed SA-Finland funding utilised (Thank you!Thank you!)
EXPECTEXPECT QA & QP from academic leaders?
Difference: LadyLady and Flower girlFlower girl (Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady)
Aftermath of the programme reviewsResearch
• Role of PRs in establishing Quality Management Structures- FOTIM, AUQF• Quality Structures at Faculty level – Fotim• Quality management at faculty level – Fotim, AIR• Programme Reviews: A question of value - Transformational value – Role in QM System established? - Institutional Quality Awareness - Acceptance of responsibilityTHANK YOU HEQC!UJ and NMMU: SANTED project – comprehensive universities
• Collaboration Edge Hill University, UK
QUALITY PROJECT TEAMS:QUALITY PROJECT TEAMS:POLICIES AND PLANNINGPOLICIES AND PLANNING
New UJ policiesNew UJ policies: Task Teams developed more than 20 policies thus far – still a few to go, e.g. Policy for Quality Promotion – submitted to Senate
UJ Quality Promotion Plan
ChallengeChallenge: Institutional participation and buy-in
UJ strategic planUJ strategic plan: Immense amount of work done in strengthening institutional mission attainment
ChallengesChallenges: Strategy management support and monitoring progress wrt the goals of the plan
LESSONS LEARNT
• Coordination and support at management level crucial• Interim management detrimental – lack of decision-making
powers• Profound effect of merger politics• Strategic planning – Goals, KPIs, Metrics, Actions NB• QM structures – only once MEC established, Strategic plan
developed and responsibilities assigned• Faculty Q structures mirror institutional Q structures• Programme reviews was a MAJOR challenge – healing in end• Lack of capacity – HE QM, Curriculum development• Loyalties to existing policies and practices – detrimental effect
“Fastest” post-merger focus= Quality Quality planningplanning SA-Finland project main contributor!!
We’re building a new, bigger plane, while simultaneously trying to fly it qualityquality & & identityidentity dialoguesdialogues lag behind, but QA awarenessawareness excels…
QM cycle implementation takes timetime in merged HEIsmerged HEIs PROLONGED FINLAND PROLONGED FINLAND INVOLVEMENTINVOLVEMENT?
“Training” of QA practitioners
Coherent curriculum development (a new HEQF waits…)
Impact analyses (student learning scorecard), etc., etc.
Thanks HEQC (Herman) & DoE, CEPD & Fins!
We’re still enjoying it here! Mukavaa olla Mukavaa olla ttäöllö !!äöllö !!
IN CONCLUSIONIN CONCLUSION
