Appendix QMEC 3/23 (11-12)
Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
Internal Quality Review Working Group
REVIEW OF IQR PROCESS 2011-12 – Final Report
________________________________________________________________________
Summary:
In January 2012, a working group of QMEC, the IQRWG, was charged to review the scope,
methodology and timing of IQR and its continued fitness for purpose. The group’s interim report
to QMEC on 13 March 2012 contained a number of overarching recommendations concerning
the continued focus and content of IQR which were approved. This, the IQRWG’s final report to
QMEC, sets forth the group’s recommendations for enhancing the IQR process.
Action proposed to the Committee:
QMEC is invited to endorse (i) the recommendations for enhancing the IQR process set out
below and summarised at section 3 and (ii) the associated implementation plan at Appendix A.
Authors:
Professor David Shanks, Head of the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences/Chair of
the IQRWG;
Ms Sandra Hinton, Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Academic Support/member of the IQRWG.
Abbreviations:
AC
AM
AMR
AugAM
AugAMR
CSS
DLTS
DocTC
DSSCC
DTC
ESCILTA
FTC
HEAR
HEFCE
HEI
HoD
IQR
IQRWG
JSSC
KIS
PGR
PGT
PSRB
QAA
QME
QMEC
SES
StAR
UCLU
UG
Academic Committee
Annual Monitoring
Annual Monitoring Report
Augmented Annual Monitoring
Augmented Annual Monitoring Report
Corporate Support Service
Departmental Learning and Teaching Strategy
Doctoral Training Centre
Departmental Staff Student Consultative Committee
Departmental Teaching Committee
Executive Sub-Committee for Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Faculty Teaching Committee
Higher Education Achievement Record
Higher Education Funding Council for England
Higher Education Institution
Head of Department
Internal Quality Review
IQR Working Group
Joint Staff Student Committee
Key Information Set
Postgraduate Research (student)
Postgraduate Taught (student)
Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body
Quality Assurance Agency
Quality Management and Enhancement
Quality Management and Enhancement Committee
Self-Evaluative Statement
Student Academic Representative
UCL Union
Undergraduate
1
BACKGROUND
1.1
The most recent QAA Institutional Audit of UCL in March 2009 identified IQR as an
example of institutional good practice. This can be taken as evidence that the process is
largely robust, effective and consistently applied. Since its inception in 1992, the IQR
methodology and its practical implementation have been periodically subject to a number
of major reviews and in addition, to continuous minor revision and enhancement by
QMEC, the IQR Panel and by Academic Support1. It was in keeping with this ethos of
continuous enhancement therefore, that QMEC agreed that it would be timely to review
IQR once more to ensure that it remained fit for purpose. A working group, the IQRWG,
was established to review the scope, methodology and timing of IQR and to report its
findings to QMEC. The Terms of Reference and Membership of the IQRWG can be
found at Appendix D to this report.
1.2
The IQRWG has now met three times; on 9 February, 19 April and 29 May 2012. On 13
March 2012, the working group submitted an interim report2 to QMEC which detailed the
preliminary discussions of the working group on some overarching questions regarding
the future focus and content of IQR and which made a number of recommendations in
respect of these which QMEC approved. These were as follows:
(i)
That the normal unit of review for IQR should continue to be the academic department,
with the process being adapted where necessary.
(ii)
That the focus of IQR should remain on the management and delivery of teaching and
the student experience and not be expanded to incorporate periodic programme review.
(iii)
That a working group of QMEC be set up specifically to review the periodic programme
review process (AugAM) at UCL.
1.3
In the course of the working group’s discussions regarding the optimal unit of review
which would enable all the issues covered by IQR to continue to be adequately explored,
the group noted the proliferation of alternative units (centres, institutes, DocTCs etc.) for
the management and delivery of some or all of these elements. In view of the increasing
complexity of these units, the IQRWG recommends that, although the normal unit of
review for IQR should continue to be the academic department or equivalent (and as
formally constituted by UCL Council), UCL should review the criteria for assessing how
IQR should be conducted in respect of these alternative units. To this end, QMEC
officers will develop appropriate criteria for defining whether a unit should, in broad
terms, be reviewed discretely or as part of the IQR of the academic department with
which it is most closely associated. Officers will then consult with individual Faculty
Tutors to confirm how the individual units in each faculty are to be treated in accordance
with these criteria.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(iv)
That QMEC officers (i) develop appropriate criteria for the application of the IQR process
to those academic groupings which are not formally constituted academic units by UCL
Council and (ii) consult with each Faculty Tutor to confirm the treatment of individual
units within his/her faculty.
1
See APPENDIX QMEC 2-16 (11-12) Review of IQR 2011-12: Interim Report for detailed information on previous
reviews of, and refinements to, the IQR process. This can still be viewed on the QMEC Sharepoint at:
https://sharepoint.adm.ucl.ac.uk/sites/QMEC/default.aspx
2 See APPENDIX QMEC 2-16 (11-12) Review of IQR 2011-12: Interim Report.
2
2
ENHANCING THE IQR PROCESS
2.1
Having received QMEC’s approval to proceed on the basis that the focus of IQR should
remain, for the time being, the same and that the normal unit of review for IQR should
remain the academic department or equivalent, the group then met to consider how the
IQR process might be further refined and enhanced and how engagement (particularly
student engagement) with it might be further increased. The group’s discussions on the
remaining issues set out in its terms of reference can be found under the relevant
headings below and have given rise to a number of recommendations for action which
are also summarised at section 3 below. QMEC is invited to discuss and approve these
recommendations and the associated implementation plan, which can be found at
Appendix A to this report. Also, in the context of this implementation plan, it is
suggested that the IQRWG is not stood down but retained as a useful source of advice
and expertise for the resolution of any issues which may arise in implementing the
recommendations.
2A
Links between IQR and other internal planning and review processes
Background
2A.1
The IQRWG concentrated particularly on those review processes for strategic academic
and resource planning, with a view to identifying and eliminating any perceived
duplication or overlap between them. UCL has a number of internal procedures, both
annual and periodic, for which staff in departments, faculties and the CSS divisions are
required to complete documentation of varying kinds. These procedures are intended to
serve different purposes, and to meet a number of requirements, both internal and/or
external. Details of some key processes can be found at Appendix B to this report.
2A.2
It can be seen that while the purposes of each of the internal procedures listed at
Appendix B are fairly distinct, some of the information required, particularly factual
information about a department (etc)’s provision, are similar. In particular there appeared
to the IQRWG to be some duplication of information required for the DLTS with that
required for IQR and AM/AugAM. This duplication, whether real or perceived carries with
it the potential to jeopardise staff engagement with IQR and AM/AugAM and for this
reason, the IQRWG considered that it should be addressed.
IQR and other internal procedures
2A.3
The procedures for AM, AugAM and IQR were developed, (and are continuously
reviewed, monitored and refined) with full committee and academic staff oversight (by
QMEC and its IQR Panel). These processes have been explicitly developed to inform
one another3. However, while the 2007 iteration of the DLTS proforma and guidance was
developed with oversight from AC’s Executive Sub-Committee for Innovation in Learning,
Teaching and Assessment4 (ESCILTA), the circumstances of the most recent DLTS
initiative within the Office of the Vice-Provost (Education) were less well known and the
role and purpose of the DLTS initiative seems also to have been insufficiently
3
Regular programme monitoring (AM) informs, in an agreed cycle (every five years), periodic programme review
(AugAM) and AugAM is articulated with IQR by ensuring that the AugAM of all programmes within a department is
undertaken in the year preceding the department's IQR, with the AMRs and AugAMRs forming part of the IQR
information requirement.
4 In March 2007, the (then) Vice-Provost (Academic & International) wrote to Heads of Departments, requesting that
departments produce revised DLTSs by 31 October 2007 which were then scrutinised by a subgroup of ESCILTA.
ESCILTA was subsequently disestablished in 2010.
3
communicated to departments. The DLTS review group5 charged with reporting to AC on
emerging outcomes of DLTSs completed in March 2012 acknowledged in its report to AC
on 10 May 2012 that ‘many drafters had found the template unwieldy, and found the
format of the guidance restrictive (and an invitation to repetition)’. The review group
concludes that ‘although many strategies were comprehensive and thoughtful
documents, a full review of the template is necessary to make the process of completing
a strategy document a more user-friendly experience’.
2A.4
On 15 May 2012, three IQRWG members6 met with the Vice-Provost (Education) and
staff from his office to (i) discuss the role, purpose and format of the DLTS proforma and
(ii) consider how this and the information requirement for IQR, AM and AugAM might be
more effectively integrated. A productive discussion was had in which it was agreed that
there was certainly scope for ensuring a closer integration between the DLTS and other
review processes. Also, and as noted in its report to AC, the review group will consider
the timing of future DLTS requests, to ‘ensure that drafters have sufficient time to plan for
and complete the document, and to ensure alignment with other strategic planning and
reporting activity.’ Finally, the Vice-Provost (Education) will also (at his request) be
included in the membership of the working group of QMEC proposed by the IQRWG to
review AugAM (see 1.2 (iii) above) where the fit between AugAM and the other review
processes can be more fully explored.
2A.5
By these means, it is hoped that the future development of these key internal review
processes can be conducted in a more joined-up way and with clearer institutional
oversight of the full range of processes in which staff are required to participate, their role
and purpose and their relevance to one another. Certainly any reduction in duplication of
effort, whether real or perceived, would be one way to increase engagement with all
processes.
IQR and resource planning
2A.6
Turning to the link between IQR and strategic or academic resource planning, the
IQRWG noted that sometimes, an IQR may explore issues relating to the student
experience which are the consequence of planning and resource allocation decisions
made by units other than the departments being reviewed (ie. Faculties and CSS
divisions). Where these processes are being investigated in IQR, it has occasionally
been suggested that IQR is straying beyond its remit. However, where institutional
issues or strategies are clearly impacting on the student experience (eg. in its first year of
implementation, issues relating to the functioning of Portico featured in several IQRs) the
Group felt that was right that IQR teams should have a view on these issues; they are
integral to the student experience and delivery of teaching and review teams cannot
therefore ignore them. However, it is sometimes a delicate matter for review teams to
make recommendations on resourcing issues without feeling that they are straying
beyond the boundaries of the IQR. Also, departments may well, in light of the new
funding regime scheduled to begin in 2012-13, increasingly point to resourcing issues as
a legitimate response to any criticisms raised by IQR. Teams will need to be sensitive to
the financial context in which the department is operating and may need to be given
more pre-visit information/data in this respect; for example, the departmental SES could
give contextual information regarding the department’s overall financial position and
strategic plan.
5
The review group comprised Professor Anthony Smith, Vice-Provost (Education) (Chair); Mark Blakeley (Graduate
Tutor, Laws); Clare Goudy (Senior Advisor, Education); Ken Marsden (Deputy Director, CALT); John Mitchell
(Engineering) and Dr Fiona Strawbridge (Head, Learning Technologies Support Service).
6 The Chair, Professor David Shanks, Ms Sandra Hinton and Dr Robin Aizlewood.
4
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(v)
That the departmental SES should give additional, contextual information regarding the
department’s overall financial position.
2B
Student engagement with the IQR process
Background
2B.1
Following full discussion at its meeting of 9 March 2010, QMEC approved a number of
measures to increase student engagement with IQR. Interviews with students have
always been key to the IQR process. Students (including UG, PGT and PGR students)
are interviewed during the IQR visit without departmental staff present and minutes of the
DTC and the DSSCC, which have student representation, form part of the documentation
for the review. However, in March 2010, the IQR Panel and QMEC discussed and
approved a number of measures to further increase student engagement with IQR.
These were:
- the draft SES must be discussed by the DTC prior to its submission to the Review
Team;
- departments must submit the IQR Report and Action Plan to the DTC for discussion (in
addition to their current discussion by FTCs, which are also attended by student
representatives);
- departments must make the final IQR reports and action plans accessible to students
in the department, e.g. by making these public on departmental intranets;
- a student representative on the IQR Panel.
2B.2
These were implemented in session 2011-12 and initial feedback received suggests that
they are working well. However, the measures stopped short of inviting students to
become members of IQR teams. Having considered all the issues, QMEC considered at
the time that extensive efforts to include student reviewers on IQR Teams might divert
existing resource and attention away from more productive means of student
involvement in IQR without delivering real benefits, but agreed to review this position
when necessary. QMEC also resolved to monitor the development of pilot projects to
include student members on internal review teams at Anglia Ruskin and Roehampton
Universities and a chart showing emerging outcomes from these can be found at
Appendix C to this document.
Changes to the higher education landscape
2B.3
New arrangements which the QAA introduced from September 2011 emphasise the
need for students to act as participants in quality assurance as well as to be recipients of
information on outcomes. Each institutional review team now includes a student and
there are various opportunities for QAA review teams to seek the views of students built
into the new review method. The June 2011 Government White Paper – Higher
Education: Students at the Heart of the System, emphasises the general intention for
students to be more active participants in QME issues which affect their education,
particularly in light of the introduction, in 2012, of the new funding regime. The new UK
Quality Code effective from 2012-13, also emphasises a move away from the traditional
‘representational’ model of student engagement towards a more participatory approach.
There is a greater focus on students being increasingly active participants in their own
education and they therefore can and should be directly involved in their own institution’s
approaches to QME. In the view of the working group, students can also bring a valuable
perspective and experience to internal QME processes. It is therefore now the right time
5
for UCL to include students as members of IQR teams and the group considered how
this might most effectively be done. Discussions with the universities piloting use of
student members of internal review teams (see Appendix C) reveals concerns that
students might be added in a ‘tokenistic’ way in order to satisfy external scrutiny, rather
than to enhance the process. The IQRWG was therefore determined to ensure that the
necessary thought be given to maximising the benefits both for the student reviewers and
for the IQR process and to providing appropriate training and support.
Identification and recruitment
2B.4
The inclusion of student members on IQR Teams involves a number of practical
challenges, the first of which is in identifying appropriate students to be reviewers. The
IQRWG first considered, given the time commitment involved in IQR, how and on what
basis should student reviewers be, identified/selected, and briefed/trained and the locus
of responsibility for this. Team members participating in UCL’s IQR process make a one
day visit to the department, attend a planning meeting, a follow-up meeting and read the
department’s SES and supporting material. This time commitment has the potential to
impact negatively on the studies of student reviewers and HEIs have a duty of care to
students to ensure that extra-curricular enabling activities do not impinge on their
academic studies. UCL, in common with all HEIs, experiences difficulty in recruiting
adequate student representation to fill some of its existing committees, etc. (although
there are a number of initiatives underway to address this such as the Student Academic
Representatives (StARS) programme). Sufficient numbers of students would need to be
willing to give up significant amounts of time in order to participate on IQR Teams. If a
‘pool’ of student reviewers were used, the ‘pool’ would have to be sufficiently large so as
to ensure the selection of a student for each IQR who was neither a member of the
department nor the faculty being reviewed. A student’s year of study will also have a
bearing on the identification of potential student reviewers and thus on the number of
reviewers available. (eg. first-year students might not have sufficient experience to
comment on departmental matters, third-year students might be focusing on final-year
exams).
UCL Union Sabbatical Officers
2B.5
UCL Union Sabbatical Officers were considered to be well placed to be student
reviewers with their institutional knowledge of UCL and experience of its committee
system. However, of the six full-time officers only two (i.e. the Education and Campaigns
Officer and the Welfare Officer) would not require extensive training for IQR; the other
four roles do not engage with institutional QME as a matter of routine and would require
more extensive training. In any event, the IQRWG felt that it would be unreasonable to
expect the Sabbatical Officers to cover all IQRs (usually around twelve per year), but
agreed that they should certainly form part of any pool of student reviewers.
Student Academic Representatives
2B.6
There are now nearly 500 StARs, of whom over 200 have received formal training as
student representatives. The StARs system is run jointly by UCL and UCLU with a
Steering Group which reports to JSSC. All SSCC student representatives are StARs. In
principle, this should be a good source of student reviewers although account will need to
be taken of the StAR’s year of study and other commitments. StARs will also require
more IQR-specific training. Second year continuing undergraduate StARs and PGR
StARs would, it was felt, be most suitable for training. There are fewer PGT StARs,
mainly due to the shorter duration of their programmes. JSSC is currently considering
ways to increase their numbers.
6
2B.7
Having considered both types of potential student reviewer, the IQRWG recommends
that they be drawn from both the UCLU Sabbatical and part-time Officers and the StARs,
subject to consideration of their year of study and workload.
Briefing and support of student reviewers
2B.8
Responsibility for briefing and supporting the student reviewers will rest primarily with
Academic Support, with additional support from the UCLU. Given the necessary turnover
of both StARs and Sabbatical Officers and in order to provide longer-term institutional
knowledge and support, the UCLU Representation and Campaigns Manager will be the
permanent UCLU Officer designated to liaise with Academic Support in the recruitment,
briefing and support of student reviewers for IQR. The IQRWG recommends that student
reviewer training should provide some background on the IQR process (including role
and purpose and matters of ‘etiquette’), the national QME framework, UCL policies and
procedures and issues of particular interest to students. Student reviewers may be
interviewed before the IQR to clarify expectations of the process and register any
previous experience. They will also be invited to participate in the IQR “wash-up” session
which is held annually to enable reviewers who have participated in an IQR in the
previous session to feed back on their experiences.
2B.9
Although IQR visits are normally held in term-time (to allow students from the department
to be interviewed by the Team), if the Team contains a student reviewer, IQR planning
and follow-up meetings should, ideally be held in term-time. This will pose a challenge for
scheduling and attendance. For this reason, the IQRWG recommends that the flexibility
in respect of attendance at the follow-up meeting which is currently extended to its
external reviewers (who are invited but not obliged to attend) should also be extended to
student reviewers if it should prove necessary to schedule the follow-up meeting outside
term-time.
Briefing of departments
2B.10 IQR is a system of peer review, which depends partly for its success on the knowledge
and experience of the review team and the fact that they are practising academic and
administrative staff who have sufficient experience of UCL’s policy framework to enable
the department being reviewed to (i) have faith in their judgements and
recommendations and, perhaps more importantly, (ii) feel confident enough to speak
freely about issues and difficulties within the department. The phrase ‘in partnership’ is
key in this context. The IQRWG is conscious that the introduction of student reviewers
will need to be carefully managed in order not to affect the candour with which staff in the
department being reviewed are prepared to discuss departmental issues with the Team.
The student reviewer may bring a fresh perspective to the process, but the value of this
will be diminished if staff interviewed are inhibited by their presence. Briefing of
departments will therefore be key to the introduction of student reviewers and will begin
with individual briefings to HoDs whose departments are identified as participants in a
proposed pilot scheme in 2012-13. See 2B.12 below.
Remuneration
2B.11 UCL pays its IQR externals a nominal honorarium. The IQRWG considered whether it
would be reasonable to remunerate student reviewers for their time in a similar way.
However, unlike externals, (who often pay their honoraria back to their own institutions in
part-compensation for the time they have taken away from their duties there), Sabbatical
officers are in paid posts and in common with the other internal IQR team members, they
7
are from within the UCL community. StARs are volunteers and are not paid for their role
on DSSCCs and other UCL committees. For these reasons, the IQRWG recommends
that student reviewers should not be financially remunerated for the role, but that
consideration should be given to fully recognising their contribution (and recording the
transferable skills acquired) in other ways; for example by recording this in the HEAR.
Pilot Scheme in 2012-13
2B.12 The IQRWG recommends that student reviewers become full members of IQR teams
from 2012-13 but, in order to work though any logistical issues or challenges during the
first, transitional year, that a pilot scheme of three IQRs should operate in 2012-13, using
one Sabbatical Officer and two StARs. This will also allow for any necessary refinements
to be made to recruiting/briefing/training and for feedback to inform the process prior to
its implementation across the full quota of IQRs in 2013-14.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(vi)
That QMEC support the principle that all IQR teams should contain a student reviewer.
(vii)
That a pilot of student reviewers of three IQR teams be conducted in the 2012-13
session using a mixture of Sabbatical Officers and StARs.
(viii)
That individual briefings be given to HoDs whose departments are participants in the
proposed pilot scheme in 2012-13.
(ix)
That further consideration be given to institutional recognition of the contribution of
student reviewers (and recording the transferable skills acquired); for example, by
recording this in the HEAR.
2C
Review of participation of external members in the IQR process
Background
2C.1
IQR external reviewers are senior academic and administrative staff from a range of
universities, who have experience of dealing with QME issues in their own institutions.
External team members can play a particular role in the team dynamic. They are experts
in QME but they can also bring to bear an external perspective which may challenge
entrenched assumptions. They have proved invaluable to the IQR process since they
were introduced in 2001. UCL currently has nine reviewers (four from pre-92, five from
post-92 institutions) to undertake an average of twelve reviews per year. Some external
reviewers are happy to do two reviews per year, others can only do one. We need more
external reviewers. They are currently identified by QMEC and Academic Support
Officers and invited to submit a short CV. They are then approved by the Chair of QMEC.
Identification and recruitment
2C.2
The IQRWG considered other ways in which external reviewers might be recruited and
agreed that, given the sensitivity required to maintain the integrity of this peer-review
process, it remained appropriate that candidates for UCL external reviewer posts should
be professionally known to QMEC and/or Academic Support Officers. This knowledge
could be acquired via sector networking groups such as the Academic Registrars’
Council Quality Practitioners’ Group, or via sector-wide consultations, seminars or
workshops, such as those held regularly by the QAA. However, the IQRWG agreed that
8
this approach might be broadened by asking members of UCL’s existing pool of IQR
externals to nominate suitable candidates for consideration.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(x)
That existing UCL IQR externals be invited to nominate suitable candidates for
consideration by QMEC/Academic Support Officers.
2D
Review of the selection and briefing/training of all members of Review Teams.
Background
2D.1
In keeping with UCL’s academic-led approach to QME, IQR reviewers are mainly drawn
from the current and recent former membership of key UCL committees. However, owing
to staff retirements, taking up other posts etc, the number of reviewers has declined. The
pool of reviewers currently stands at fifty eight, including Team Leaders. In a normal
year, there will be approximately twelve IQRs, requiring thirty six reviewers. However, not
all reviewers will be available every year (owing to sabbaticals etc.) and because the
administrative complexities involved in making up the teams to ensure an appropriate
blend of experience and gender and to ensure that members of the team are not from the
department or faculty being reviewed mean that it is useful to have at least seventy
reviewers to choose from. At least twenty more reviewers are needed.
Identification and recruitment
2D.2
The IQRWG considered that members of key UCL committees should be made fully
aware by Secretaries that their membership of these committees entails a commitment to
act as an IQR reviewer if required (and subject to appropriate briefing). Furthermore, that
Heads of Department/Chairs of DTCs might be enlisted to help in nominating staff to act
as reviewers. The ‘job description’ for IQR reviewers, currently circulated prior to
reviewer briefing sessions (see 2D.3 below), could be circulated to HoDs/Chairs of DTCs
with an invitation to nominate suitable members of academic staff for the role of IQR
reviewer. Participation in IQR as a reviewer should also be encouraged as a rewarding
and enabling activity which allows good practice to be more widely shared. It is
recommended that in order to make the role of the reviewer more attractive to staff,
attention should be paid to increasing institutional recognition of IQR participation as an
enabling activity. Advice on this might be sought from UCL Human Resources.
Briefing/training
2D.3
We currently brief all new reviewers and any who require a refresher. The Chair of the
IQR Panel, Director of Academic Support, Chair of QMEC and an experienced Team
leader give a talk, distribute a ‘job description’ and invite questions. However, attendance
at these sessions can be patchy. The IQRWG considered how attendance at
briefing/training might be encouraged further and agreed that it should be mandatory to
the extent that no new reviewer should be permitted to undertake an IQR without having
first undergone the relevant training.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(xi)
That HoDs/Chairs of DTCs be invited to nominate suitable members of academic staff for
the role of IQR reviewer.
(xii)
That no new IQR reviewer should be permitted to undertake an IQR without having first
undergone the relevant training.
9
(xiii)
That members of key UCL committees should be made fully aware by Secretaries that
their membership entails a commitment to act as an IQR reviewer.
(xiv)
That (subject to advice from UCL Human Resources), attention should be paid to
increasing institutional recognition of IQR participation as an enabling activity.
2E
Review of the fit of IQR with relevant external reference points, including national
regulatory frameworks for higher education and, where appropriate, the
requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs), employers
and other stakeholders.
Background
2E.1
IQR has to fulfil a necessary internal quality monitoring role but it also has to serve as a
source of evidence to external audiences (primarily the QAA but also HEFCE,
government and the media) that UCL’s processes are robust and effective. IQR has been
designed to review a department’s QME operations and processes in relation to
statements of policy and good practice which appear in the UCL Academic Manual which
were, in their turn, developed to ensure they met the requirements of the QAA Academic
Infrastructure. This was tested in the most recent QAA Institutional Audit of UCL in March
2009 where IQR was identified as an example of good practice. However, the new UK
Quality Code, launched on 15 December 2011 and replacing the Academic Infrastructure
from the 2012-13 session, is a restructuring of the content of the existing Academic
Infrastructure and although no substantive changes have been made to the content of
any element of the Academic Infrastructure, a number of additional chapters and
elements are still under development by the QAA. Officers will need to review the fit of
UCL’s existing QME processes with the requirements and expectations of these
additional elements as they are published and they may well have an impact on IQR.
Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
2E.2
In respect of the needs of PSRBs; feedback from HoDs has suggested that the
documents required for IQR do not always dovetail usefully with the documentation
requirements of various PSRBs/accreditation events etc. Attempts have been made in
the past to streamline the documentation needed for the IQR process. The Administrative
Secretary to the review will also discuss in detail with the departmental representative
whether any documentation prepared for the PSRB can be submitted for the IQR.
However, the requirements of the two processes are often incompatible, particularly
where PSRB accreditation concerns itself primarily with curriculum and programme
content issues and requires different documentation. The length, intensity and level of
intervention of PSRB events are also so variable that requests to reproduce the
documentation prepared for a PSRB event for an IQR are usually considered on a caseby-case basis between the Administrative Secretary and the Department (as is deferral
of an IQR on the grounds of an imminent PSRB event).
Although complaints about IQR’s lack of fit with PSRB requirements have been a theme
in the past, far fewer complaints have been received recently, partly, it is thought,
because of PSRBs’ own growing awareness of HEIs’ internal regulatory demands. UCL
Officers have also recently interceded with one PSRB on behalf of a very heavily
regulated programme (the MBBS) to help increase this awareness.
10
Careers advice and graduate employment
2E.3
Graduate employability is frequently the subject of discussion in IQR but the discussion is
seldom informed by any real expertise or knowledge. Given the increased emphasis
nationally under the new funding regime, in the new Quality Code, and in the Key
Information Set (KIS) on the employability of graduates (the KIS will publish graduate
average annual salaries six months after graduation), it is possible that this could usefully
be explored further within IQR and if so, that careers advisors might in future play a
greater role in the IQR process.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(xv)
That Officers review the fit of UCL’s existing QME processes with the requirements and
expectations of the revised Quality Code when these are published before assessing
their impact on IQR.
(xvi)
That further consideration be given to how employability and careers advice is addressed
in IQR and that the IQR guidance offer more explicit direction to departments to address
careers and employability issues more fully in the SES.
2F
Review of the IQR follow-up process, including the effective identification and
dissemination of good practice arising from IQR.
Background
2F.1
The QAA’s citing of IQR as a feature of good practice in its March 2009 IA, noted
particularly IQR’s ‘capacity to capture aspects of good practice for institution-wide
dissemination’. Currently, the follow-up process is as follows:
-
-
-
-
2F.2
About one year after an IQR has taken place, the report and action plan are
submitted to the Panel and the HoD or his/her representative is invited to attend the
meeting to discuss progress in implementing the action plan.
one year after the Panel meeting, departments are asked to submit a further
response on progress in implementing the action plan (although this is a written
response and the HoD is not required to attend the Panel meeting).
At the end of the discussion, HoDs are always asked to comment on how they found
the process as a whole.
Recommendations are also made to bodies outside the department being reviewed
eg Deans, relevant committees, CSS divisions and these are also followed-up by the
Panel.
Preparation of the annual summaries of recommendations and good practice which
are then circulated to HoDs, Deans of Faculty, CSS Directors and the Head of the
Graduate School and posted on the Academic Support Website.
the Panel submits an annual report to QMEC.
Feedback on IQR is usually positive. All HoDs - including those who might have been
sceptical about the process when they began to prepare for the IQR - comment that they
found the process useful and helpful. However, the follow-up process while rigorous, can
seem very attenuated.
Follow-up Actions by the Department
2F.3
The IQRWG considered whether the two-year-on follow up, particularly where the
recommendation concerned is ‘desirable’ only and often fairly trivial, was necessary in all
11
cases and considered the possibility that IQR should only follow up two years on for
‘necessary’ recommendations. However the group agreed that the action plan was an
important driver for change arising from the IQR and also provided a useful record of how
departments engaged with the process. Some “desirable” recommendations might attain
an increased significance when reviewed one or two years on and an example was noted
of where a department had rejected a “desirable” recommendation one year on, but,
prompted by the requirement to provide a two year on response, had reversed the
decision as circumstances had changed. The IQRWG resolved that the follow-up
process should be retained as an important element of IQR but with some additional
refinements in the recording and dissemination of good practice noted in IQR (see
2F.4 below).
Dissemination of good practice
2F.4
Good practice noted in departments reviewed will spread via reviewers talking to one
another and a great deal of good practice takes place across UCL that is not necessarily
explicitly named ‘good practice’. However, effective institutional capture of this remains a
matter for ongoing discussion. The annual summaries of recommendations and good
practice are currently the only systematic method by which good practice noted in IQR is
disseminated. These summaries comprise all good practice noted (and a summary of
recommendations) arising from IQR every year and they are submitted to the IQR Panel
and then disseminated to HoDs, Deans of Faculty, CSS Directors and the Head of
Graduate School. Further dissemination within departments is dependent on the HoD,
and this can be variable across UCL. The following recommendations are made to
address this:
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(xvii) That the follow-up process should be retained as an important element of IQR.
(xviii)



That the Annual Summary of Recommendations and Good Practice arising from IQR:
be circulated to HoDs for submission to DTCs;
be circulated to Faculty Tutors for submission to FTCs;
be submitted to QMEC.
Follow-up Actions outside the Department
2F.5
Currently, recommendations for action outside a department (e.g. to UCL Estates or HR)
are sent to the relevant CSS Director (etc.) for action. Some CSS Heads of Division have
complained of receiving multiple requests for responses on similar issues (e.g. lack of
space) every year. However, the IQRWG considered it an important point of principle that
CSS Heads of Division should be required to respond to IQR recommendations, in the
same way that academic departments are required to. However, it recommends that
further consideration be given to combining this process with the follow-up process for
issues arising from AM, which often produced similar feedback from staff and students to
which CSS Heads of Division are required to respond.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(xix) That recommendations to CSS Heads of Division arising from IQR continue to be
followed up by the IQR Panel, but that further consideration be given to combining this
process with the follow-up process for issues arising from AM.
12
2G
Review of the IQR dataset
Background
2G.1
No feedback has been received from IQR teams which suggests that the IQR dataset is
not fit for purpose but it is also some time since this has been reviewed and refreshed.
The Graduate School Training Board has recently requested that uptake of the online
Research Student Log by a department’s research students should become a formal IQR
performance indicator. Use of the Research Student Log is mandatory for all UCL
research students, and is a condition of upgrade from MPhil to PhD. Although uptake is
good (approximately 98% overall according to figures obtained from the Graduate
School), there are still some departments at UCL which are not yet fully compliant.
Additions to the IQR Dataset
2G.2
Incorporating data on Log uptake would, the IQRWG agrees, ensure that this issue is
highlighted and that departments are encouraged to enhance the quality of engagement
with the Log. The Graduate School produces Log Uptake data which can be made
accessible to IQR Teams. It is also able to give Panel members access to a particular
department’s Log records if a member would like to look at the quality of Log use in more
detail.The IQRWG also suggested additional data to enhance the IQR process, including
statistics for upgrade, data on Staff Appraisal and data on Peer Observation of Teaching.
RECOMMENDED TO QMEC
(xx)
That Officers expand the IQR dataset to include data on uptake of the online Research
Student Log;
(xxi)
That Officers explore further the possibility of adding to the dataset statistical data on:
 Upgrade;
 Staff Appraisal;
 Peer Observation of Teaching.
3
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1
In summary, the IQRWG recommends the following to QMEC:
(i)
That the normal unit of review for IQR should continue to be the academic department,
with the process being adapted where necessary.
(ii)
That the focus of IQR should remain on the management and delivery of teaching and
the student experience and not be expanded to incorporate periodic programme review
(iii)
That a working group of QMEC be set up specifically to explore the periodic programme
review process (AugAM) at UCL and to consider ways in which both the process and
engagement with the process might be improved
(iv)
That QMEC officers (i) develop appropriate criteria for the application of the IQR process
to those academic groupings which are not formally constituted academic units by UCL
Council and consult with each Faculty Tutor to confirm the treatment of individual units
within his/her faculty.
13
(v)
That the departmental SES should give additional, contextual information regarding the
department’s overall financial position.
(vi)
That QMEC support the principle that all IQR teams should contain a student reviewer.
(vii)
That a pilot of student members of three IQR teams be conducted in the 2012-13 session
using a mixture of Sabbatical Officers and Student Academic Representatives (StARs)
(viii)
That individual briefings be given to HoDs whose departments are participants in the
proposed pilot scheme in 2012-13.
(ix)
That further consideration be given to institutional recognition of the contribution of
student reviewers (and recording the transferable skills acquired); for example, by
recording this in the HEAR.
(x)
That existing IQR externals be invited to nominate suitable candidates for consideration
as externals.
(xi)
That HoDs/Chairs of DTCs be invited to nominate suitable members of academic staff for
the role of IQR reviewer.
(xii)
That no new IQR reviewer should be permitted to undertake an IQR without having first
undergone the relevant briefing/training.
(xiii)
That members of key UCL committees should be made fully aware by Secretaries that
their membership entails a commitment to act as an IQR reviewer.
(xiv)
That (subject to advice from UCL Human Resources) attention should be paid to
increasing institutional recognition of IQR participation as an enabling activity.
(xv)
That Officers review the fit of UCL’s existing QME processes with the requirements and
expectations of the revised Quality Code when these are published before assessing
their impact on IQR.
(xvi)
That further consideration be given to how employability and careers advice is addressed
in IQR and that the IQR guidance offer more explicit direction to departments to address
careers and employability issues more fully in the SES
(xvii)
That the follow-up process should be retained as an important element of IQR.
(xviii) That the Annual Summary of Recommendations and Good Practice arising from IQR:



be circulated to HoDs for submission to DTCs;
be circulated to Faculty Tutors for submission to FTCs;
be submitted to QMEC.
(xix)
That recommendations to CSS Directors arising from IQR continue to be followed up by
the IQR Panel, but that further consideration be given to combining this process with the
follow-up process for issues arising from AM.
(xx)
That Officers expand the IQR dataset to include data on uptake of the online Research
Student Log.
14
(xxi)
That further consideration be given to updating the dataset for IQR to include data on:



Upgrade;
Staff Appraisal;
Peer Observation of Teaching.
DS/SCH June 2012
15
Appendix A
Internal Quality Review Working Group 2011-12 – Draft Implementation Plan
Recommendation
Person/body
responsible
Action
Date
(i) That the normal unit of review for IQR should
continue to be the academic department, with the
process being adapted where necessary.
Academic Support
Officers/QMEC
Officers
Ongoing
(ii) That the focus of IQR should remain on the
management and delivery of teaching and the
student experience and not be expanded to
incorporate periodic programme review
Academic Support
Officers/QMEC
Officers/Vice -Provost
(Education)
(iii) That a working group of QMEC be set up
specifically to explore the periodic programme review
process, (AugAM) at UCL and to consider ways in
which both the process and engagement with the
process might be improved
(iv) That QMEC officers (i) develop appropriate
criteria for the application of the IQR process to those
academic groupings which are not formally
constituted academic units by UCL Council and
consult with each Faculty Tutor to confirm the
treatment of individual units within his/her faculty.
(v) That the departmental SES should give additional,
contextual information regarding the department’s
overall financial position
(vi) That QMEC support the principle that all IQR
teams should contain a student reviewer.
QMEC Officers
To continue to monitor the situation.
The current unit of review should be
retained at least until the picture is more
settled and the fundamental review of
the undergraduate curriculum
experience proposed by the White
Paper has been completed in all
faculties.
To continue to monitor the situation for
at least the next two years until the
operation/purpose of the wider UCL
programme/curriculum reviews have
been clarified
Officers to establish a working group to
meet over the summer and make an
interim report to QMEC at its first
meeting of the Autumn Term.
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton
QMEC
Required amendments to be made to
the Procedure for the Conduct of IQR
(Academic Units and Programmes).
(vii) That a pilot of student members of three IQR
teams be conducted in the 2012-13 session using a
mixture of Sabbatical Officers and Student Academic
Representatives (StARs)
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton/
Quality Assurance
Officers to meet to as soon as possible
after QMEC on 19 June to discuss:
(i)
Identification of IQR
Departments for the pilot;
QMEC Secretary Ms
Sandra Hinton/ Mr
Jason Clarke with
Faculty Tutors
Notes
Ongoing
October
2012
End of July
2012
July 2012
19 June
2012
June 20 –
July 20
2012
Membership to
include The ViceProvost
(Education).
Officer, Mr Rob
Traynor/ UCLU
Representation
Officer, Mr Simon To
(ii)
(viii) That individual briefings be given to HoDs whose
departments are participants in the proposed pilot
scheme in 2012-13
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra
Hinton/IQR
Administrative
Secretary (to be
notified)
(ix) That further consideration be given to institutional
recognition of the contribution of student reviewers
(and recording the transferable skills acquired); for
example, by recording this in the HEAR.
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra
Hinton/Director of
Student Services, Mr
David
Ashton/Manager
Curricular
Development and
Examiners, Ms Irenie
Morley
(x)That existing IQR externals be invited to nominate
suitable candidates for consideration as externals.
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton
(xi) That HoDs/Chairs of DTCs be invited to nominate
suitable members of academic staff for the role of
IQR reviewer.
Chair of QMEC,
Professor Mike
Ewing/QMEC
Secretary, Ms Sandra
17
Briefing selected
Departments;
(iii)
Identification of student
members of teams;
(iv)
Briefing of students.
Once individual IQR review teams have
been assigned and departments
notified, briefings for IQR departments
identified for the pilot will be
incorporated into the individual briefings
which the IQR Administrative Secretary
(to be accompanied by the SQAO) give
to the HoD prior to organising the IQR
visit day.
For discussion by named officers and
possible further discussion by
Education Committee at its Autumn
Term meeting.
When externals are contacted in early
July to ask whether they are prepared
to assist with IQR in 2012-13, the
Senior Quality Assurance Officer will
invite them to nominate suitable
candidates.
Email from Chair of QMEC to invite
HoDs/Chairs of DTCs to nominate staff
to be IQR reviewers.
AugustSeptember
2012
Given the tight
timescales, it may
be sensible to
choose IQRs
scheduled to take
place in Spring
2013 for the pilot
exercise.
October
2012
In respect of the
HEAR: the HEAR
template has
been signed off.
However, the
Manager
Curricular
Development and
Examiners, Ms
Irenie Morley
confirms student
eligible
achievements can
be added each
year to the
template.
July 2012
July 2012
(xii) That no new IQR reviewer should be permitted to
undertake an IQR without having first undergone the
relevant training.
(xiii) That members of key UCL committees should
be made fully aware by Secretaries that their
membership entails a commitment to act as an IQR
reviewer.
(xiv) That (subject to advice from UCL Human
Resources) attention should be paid to increasing
institutional recognition of IQR participation as an
enabling activity.
(xv) That Officers review the fit of UCL’s existing
QME processes with the requirements and
expectations of the revised Quality Code when these
are published before assessing their impact on IQR.
(xvi) That further consideration be given to how
employability and careers advice is addressed in IQR
and that the IQR guidance offer more explicit
direction to departments to address careers and
employability issues more fully in the SES
Hinton
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton
Vice-Provost
(Education)/Chair of
AC, Professor
Anthony Smith/
Director Academic
Support/AC
Secretary, Mr Jason
Clarke
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer
/QMEC Secretary Ms
Sandra Hinton
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer
/QMEC Secretary Ms
Sandra Hinton
Ms Karen Barnard,
Head of UCL Careers
and Lead Officer/
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer,
Ms Sandra Hinton
(xvii) That the follow-up process should be retained
as an important element of IQR.
(xviii) That the Annual Summary of
Recommendations and Good Practice arising from
IQR:
(i)
be circulated to HoDs for submission to
DTCs;
(ii)
be circulated to Faculty Tutors for
Monitor attendance at briefings to
ensure that all new reviewers attend.
Ongoing
Secretaries of committees reporting to
AC to be notified of this requirement at
the meeting of Chairs and Secretaries
scheduled for 12 July 2012. Secretaries
to inform committee members
thereafter.
12 July
2012 and
from
beginning
of 2012-13
session
To follow the matter up with UCL
Human Resources.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Required amendments in respect of (ii)
to be made to the Procedure for the
Conduct of IQR (Academic Units and
Programmes).
QMEC
Senior Quality
Assurance Officer
/IQR Panel
Secretary, Ms Sandra
Hinton
Summary to be circulated as
recommended after its initial submission
to the IQR Panel on 6 July 2012.
Required amendments to be made to
18
July 2012
19 June
2012
After 6 July
2012
July 2012
submission to FTCs;
be submitted to QMEC.
(xix) That recommendations to CSS Heads of
Division arising from IQR continue to be followed up
by the IQR Panel, but that further consideration be
given to combining this process with the follow-up
process for issues arising from AM.
(xx) That Officers expand the IQR dataset to include
data on uptake of the online Research Student Log
(iii)
(xxi) That further consideration be given to updating
the dataset for IQR to include data on:
 Upgrade;
 Staff Appraisal;
 Peer Observation of Teaching;
Chair of QMEC,
Professor Mike
Ewing/QMEC
Secretary, Ms Sandra
Hinton
Quality Assurance
Officer Rob Traynor
/Graduate School, Mr
Ben Colvill
IQRWG
19
the Procedure for the Conduct of IQR
(Academic Units and Programmes).
Issue to be referred to QMEC in the
Autumn Term for further consideration.
October
2012
That best way to include this data be
discussed and agreed prior to the
release of IQR data in September 2012.
August
2012
For further discussion by the working
group.
Ongoing
Appendix B - Analysis of Key UCL Internal Review Processes
PROCEDURE
FREQUENCY
Documentation
Annual
Monitoring (AM)
EVERY YEAR
Proforma at
Module,
programme,
department and
Faculty level
KEY FEATURES AND PURPOSE OF PROCESS
Key features: AM consists of a pyramidal reporting process whereby every year AM reports
(AMRs) are completed at module, programme, department and faculty levels, each using
specially developed proforma. An important aspect of the process is that issues are discussed
and action taken at the appropriate level, with upward reporting confined to issues which can
best inform discussion at the next level up. Departmental AMRs are discussed by
Departmental Teaching Committees (DTCs) and Departmental Staff Student Consultative
Committees (DSSCCs) to ensure that student views on key issues are noted before being
submitted to the Faculty Teaching Committee (FTC) to allow the consideration of larger issues
arising which have implications for the Faculty, including and especially good practice which
can be shared. FTCs produce a summary report for QMEC to allow QMEC to identify matters
for institutional consideration. QMEC advises Academic Committee (AC) of these and
responses to key institutional issues are sought. Faculties are informed of any institutional
responses/outcomes and faculties, in turn, inform departments.
Purpose: primarily review/reflection leading to enhancement. AM is an essentially
reflective process which also provides an opportunity for self-evaluation, self-reflection, scrutiny
and reporting upwards of key issues to institutional level.* See also shaded note below.
Key features: AM also involves, in an agreed cycle (every five years), an element of
Augmented
EVERY FIVE Programme
Organisers’
‘Augmented' Annual Monitoring. This is UCL’s periodic programme review process, whereby all
Annual
YEARS
proforma
Programme Organisers in a department produce an augmented report summarising
Monitoring
developments in the programme over the review period by drawing on the evidence provided
(AugAM)
by the four previous AMRs. In the year in question these augmented reports are substituted
External
for, not additional to, the normal Programme Organisers' AMRs. The AugAM procedure also
Scrutineers’
involves a person external to UCL, (the ‘External Scrutineer') who is asked to comment upon
proforma
the Programme Organiser's augmented report and accompanying documentation.
Purpose: primarily review/reflection leading to enhancement. To enable Programme
Organisers to evaluate, comment upon and monitor the impact on their taught programmes of
cumulative, incremental change over a longer review period and to identify further opportunities
for enhancement of the student learning experience.* See also shaded note below.
*NB: The QAA UK Quality Code, Chapter B8: Programme Monitoring and Review
(http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B8.aspx) sets out its Expectation that ‘Higher education providers
will have effective procedures in place to routinely monitor and periodically review programmes.’
Internal Quality
Key features: IQR operates on a five-yearly cycle. Each academic department of UCL is
EVERY FIVE Departmental
Review (IQR)
Self-evaluative
normally reviewed once during each cycle, as are a number of interdisciplinary degree
YEARS
Statement.
programmes. Each department being reviewed is required to submit a Self-evaluative
Statement (SES) which will include a summary statement on the department’s students, staff
Guidance notes.
and learning resources, a description of the department’s quality management and
enhancement (QME) framework and its articulation with faculty and institution-level QME
20
Departmental
Learning and
Teaching
Strategies
(DLTSs)
EVERY
THREE
YEARS
Departmental
proforma
Faculty/Corporat
e Support
Service (CSS)
Financial
Planning/Budget
Setting process
EVERY
THREE
YEARS
Guidance Notes
frameworks and a candid self-analysis, including a summary of perceived strengths and
weaknesses A Review Team comprising UCL academic and administrative staff and one
external member then visits the department to conduct interviews with students and staff.
Purpose: primarily review/reflection leading to enhancement. To review a department's
management of its quality assurance processes and structures in relation to statements of
policy and good practice which appear in UCL's Academic Manual. IQR also aspires to be a
genuinely developmental process - an opportunity for departments to review and, in
partnership with the review team, identify opportunities for enhancing their existing quality
assurance structures and systems.
Key features: All UCL departments offering undergraduate or Master's degree programmes
must produce a DLTS every three years. This process is currently managed by the Office of
the Vice-Provost (Education) and reports were due on 1 March 2012. The guidance and
template, including prompts, has been recently revised. It consists of two main stages. Stage 1,
which is intended to give drafters the opportunity to make a strategic statement about what the
department stands for and summarise where the department hopes to direct its efforts over the
next three years in support of its teaching programme, outlining the strategic thinking behind
this plan. Stage 2 guides the drafter, via a series of prompts, through various strategic issues
related to learning and teaching in a more systematic way and to locate their strategy within a
broader UCL context. Faculties also produce an LTS linked to these DLTSs.
Purpose: primarily strategic forward planning with elements of review/reflection leading
to enhancement. To stimulate reflection and to encourage departments to produce an
'individual' document that accurately reflects their own circumstances; To support departments
to produce documents which are aligned with institutional strategies; To provide Faculties with
the information required to produce an overarching Faculty strategy for teaching and learning
which takes account of the needs and strengths of constituent departments. The DLTS is
expected to contain an element of self-analysis.
Key features: In January 2012, Faculties, CSS Divisions and other key areas of UCL are
asked to produce three year plans and financial projections for the 2012-15 Planning Period.
The plans/projections will be reviewed in a series of meetings with the Vice-Provost
Operations), Director of Finance and the Director of Financial Planning & Strategy in early May.
A summary will then be presented to SMT prior to inclusion in the UCL-wide Budget and
Forecasts submitted to Finance Committee, Council and the High Education Funding Council
for England (HEFCE) in June/July. There is no standard proforma but the plans have to reflect
UCL’s strategic objectives and other supporting strategies and should concentrate on planned
changes in the main activities of Teaching, Research, Enterprise, International activities and
Support functions, with a full statement on the reasons for the change, an indication of the
source of any new funding and the timescale for the planned change. The plans are also asked
to address any major staffing issues, equalities profile and staff training & development.
Purpose: primarily strategic forward planning. To produce three year plans and financial
projections for the 2012-15 Planning Period. Linked to the Strategic Aims of the White Paper.
21
Appendix C
EMERGING OUTCOMES OF PILOTS OF STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON INTERNAL REVIEW PANELS AT
ROEHAMPTON AND ANGLIA RUSKIN UNIVERSITIES
Institution
Date of
Pilot
ROEHAMPTON
UNIVERSITY
200910
session
Type and
average
number of
review (s)
New
Programme
Approvals
and
Periodic
Programme
Reviews.
Type of
student
(s)
Number
of
students
Training
Trainers
Other
meetings/training
Recognition/Reward
Emerging
Outcome of Pilot
Sabbatical
Officers
4
Yes- in the
‘concept’ of
peer review
Head of
Learning
Teaching and
Enhancement
Unit
Programme
Representative
training (held by
SU)
Roehampton Award,
presented by the VC
(in recognition of
achievements of
students outside their
formal academic
learning).
Yes- in the
‘concept’ of
peer review
SU President
It is stressed to the
students how they
can transfer the
experience into
something they can
sell to potential
employers.
Broad
explanation
of principles
of UK QA
SU Academic
Support
Adviser
In advance of
each panel, a
meeting with a
member of
Academic Office
office, the student
and the Chair of
the panel
After the final
panel of the year,
an informal
feedback over
lunch
Explanation
of the
Head of
Academic
Impressed by
their
professionalism
and lack of
intimidation. Keen
to avoid
‘tokenism’ and so
for 2010-11 will
endeavour to get
students on as
many panels as
possible, including
new programme
approval panels.
Held a training
event for some 12
or 15
students/student
officers recently
and although this
was generally
about QA matters,
devoted a section
to approval and
periodic review
and used the
opportunity to
seek out new
recruits in addition
to those trained
last year. Will
13 events
in 2009-10
Pilot only
included
students on
Periodic
Reviews
22
Institution
Date of
start of
Pilot
ANGLIA
RUSKIN
UNIVERSITY
201011
Type and
average
number of
review (s)
Periodic
Programme
Review
3 (2 x
February
2011, 1x
March)
internal
processes
of review
with copies
of real
programme
documents
Office
provide more
focused training
for these in
February 2011.
Type of
student
(s)
Number
of
students
Training
Trainers
Other
meetings/training
Recognition
Emerging
Outcome of Pilot
Sabbatical
Officer
1
Training on
student
involvement
in QA
processes
provided by
the QAA in
January
2011
QAA
None
N/A
A little too soon at
the moment to
give an idea as to
the impact of the
SU involvement although the initial
signs are that it
will bring an
additional/different
perspective to
reviews.
23
Appendix D
Terms of Reference
A Working Group has been established by the Quality Management and Enhancement
Committee (QMEC) to conduct a review of the IQR process. The Working Group is charged with
the following:
(1) to review the scope, methodology and timing of IQR and its fitness for purpose, including:




consideration of whether the normal unit of review for IQR should, in most cases,
continue to be the academic department, in light of major changes to UCL departmental
and faculty structures;
consideration of whether the essential focus of IQR should continue to be the
management and delivery of programmes of study and the student experience or
whether IQR’s focus should be widened to include issues relating to programme content;
consideration of how IQR relates to other internal quality management and enhancement
processes, especially Annual Monitoring and Augmented Annual Monitoring;
a review of the IQR follow-up process, including the effective identification and
dissemination of good practice arising from IQR.
(2) to review the membership of IQR Teams, including:



a review of the participation of external members in the IQR process;
a review of student engagement with the IQR process;
a review of the selection and briefing/training of all members of Review Teams.
(3) to review the links between IQR and other internal planning and review processes,
particularly those for strategic academic and resource planning, with a view to identifying and
eliminating any perceived duplication/overlap with those processes.
(4) to review the fit of IQR with relevant external reference points, including national regulatory
frameworks for higher education and, where appropriate, the requirements of professional,
statutory and regulatory bodies, employers and other stakeholders.
(5) to report to QMEC by means of an interim report in March 2012, with a final report in June
2012.
Membership
Professor David Shanks, Head of Division of Psychology and Language Sciences (Chair);
Dr Robin Aizlewood, Director of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies/Chair of
QMEC’s IQR Panel;
Mr Jason Clarke, Director of Academic Support;
Mr Luke Durigan, Education and Campaigns Officer, UCL Union;
Ms Sandra Hinton, Senior Quality Assurance Officer, Academic Support;
Dr Caroline Selai, Institute of Neurology;
Rob Traynor, Quality Assurance Officer, Academic Support (Secretary).