ELIR

1
ELIR Bob Craik Senate Council Dec 2003
2

Enhancement LedInstitutional Review (ELIR)

• What is the new enhancement model (of which ELIR
  is part)
• How do we manage quality assurance
• Internal reviews

3

Quality assurance before ELIR

SHEFC
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)

• institutional audit
• subject review

HWU
4

Findings from audit

• From all HEI audit and 400 subject reviews
• Only 3 problems at subject level
• HEIs take responsibility for quality assurance
• HEIs want more emphasis on becoming better
  (enhancement)

5

SHEFC/HEI agenda

• Engagement with enhancement themes (assessment
  and student needs)
• Engagement with students
• Accurate public information
• Rigorous internal review
• ELIR (enhancement led institutional review)

6

Enhancement themes

• Funded by SHEFC, managed by QAA for all HEIs
• Assessment increasing efficiency and
  effectiveness
• Meeting students needs

• Linked to HWU concerns about over assessment (see
  LTB report)
• Linked to HWU strategic objective of improving
  student experience

7

Engagement with students

• All HEIs are encouraged to have more engagement
  with students
• Students should be involved with quality
  assurance and with enhancement
• SHEFC have funded SPARQS to provide students with
  support and training

• HW has students involved with internal reviews
• Sabbatical officers are involved with many
  committees and are increasingly being consulted

8

Public information

• All HEIs are required to publish information
  about themselves (in England the Cooke data set)
• How do we know that what we say about ourselves
  is accurate, fair and complete

9

Quality Assurance Responsibilities

• HWU undertakes subject review
• HWU provides an effective structure for managing
  quality assurance and enhancement
• QAA reviews the management of quality

10

Enhancement-led

• Managed enhancement
• Planned
• Resourced
• Evaluated
• Disseminated
• Engage with wider community

• Enhancement is a strategic theme
• Resources EDU and through schools (individual
  projects)
• Evaluation by schools with EDU
• Dissemination by HW conference (see LTB report)
  and others

11

ELIR

• Visit in 2005/06 but supplemented by annual
  visits
• How effective are we at managing quality
  assurance and enhancement

12

ELIR comments on

• internal programme review method
• published information
• The effectiveness of policies and strategies for
• promoting student learning
• improving the quality of teaching and learning
• implementing a quality enhancement strategy

13

Timetable (long term)

• 2003/04 Implement and streamline new system (QA
  framework and internal review) then review
  effectiveness of process
• 2004/05 Embed in culture, continue reviews,
  draft ELIR report
• 2005/06 ELIR

14

HWU QA framework
School

• Planning round to set budget
• LTB review of strategy
• 5 year review

Programme

• 5 year review (quinquennial)
• Annual programme monitoring
• External examiners

Review at module level, review of ASCs etc
15

Under consideration

• How do we ensure an appropriate quality of
  student experience for distance learning students
  (including student at approved support centres)
• Are we making best use of student feedback (both
  at module and programme level)
• Are we making best use of links with industry,
  employers, PSBs

16

Programme level review

• What is a programme?
• QAA the level of department
• HWU a collection of similar courses
• there are about 20
• What does QAA want (expect)
• What do we (HWU) want

17

QAA requirements

• Review at subject level
• Must have at least 1 external member
• Must have at least 1 student member
• Must use trained reviewers
• Must review all provision UG, PGT, PGR, ft, pt,
  distance and distributed learning

18

Programme review should consider

• Use of external references (benchmark statements,
  SCQF framework, Code of Practice)
• PSB reports
• Student views
• Graduate and employer views

19

Review is split
Programme subject specific matters, standards,
industry links, syllabus etc School PhD, student
support, management of quality TEX, PET, EBS
combined in one review SBE (4 or 5), EPS(5 or 7),
MACS(3), SML(5), SLS(4)
20

HWU requirements

• Senate assurance of the quality and standards of
  awards made in its name.
• PME assurance that resources are correctly used
  and that schools are properly managing quality
  assurance and enhancement
• evidence on effectiveness of policies
• School assurance that programmes are well run
  and providing high quality student experience

21

Timetable (2003/04)

• Dec finalise review procedures, identify 4
  subjects/schools for review in 03/04, provide
  provisional guidance to schools
• Jan discuss with schools how they want to use
  review data
• March-May first 4 (or 5) reviews
• May-June review process
• Annual monitoring and internal review must align
  with school needs

22

Summary

• SHEFC agenda has changed in response to requests
  from HEIs
• We need to be clear how we manage quality
  assurance and enhancement
• ELIR review will take place in 2005/06
• Internal review process will change this year

23
ELIR Bob Craik Dec 2003