Quality
matters
A guide for University staff on the management
of academic quality and standards at the
University of Hull
3rd edition, February 2009
Published by the University Quality Office
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
FOREWORD
Welcome to the 3rd edition of Quality matters, an overview of the way in which the University
manages the assurance of quality of academic programmes and the maintenance of the standards
of our awards. It indicates how internal mechanisms operate across the three tiers of our structure
– university, faculty and department – and how they are influenced by external expectations
(primarily those laid down by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA)).
Building on the secure foundations of assurance and the experience of two QAA audits (2004,
2006) we continue to take deliberate steps to improve the quality of the student learning
experience. During 2008 the University approved the revised Learning and Teaching Strategy and
approved a document entitled Approach to Quality and Standards which provides a framework
designed to articulate the enhancement of quality in the context of the management of quality and
standards.
Quality matters is written primarily for the benefit of staff new to the University, but will also serve
as a useful reminder and update on recent changes for those who have been here longer. It
identifies who is responsible for quality and standards, the key processes for assuring quality and
maintaining standards, summarises the emphasis we are placing on an enhancement-led
approach, and highlights the mechanisms through which we communicate changes to our quality
and standards framework.
University regulations and codes of practice are set out in the Quality Handbook
www.hull.ac.uk/quality. Further information is available from the University Quality Office.
Frances Owen
Quality Director, University Registrar and Secretary
February 2009
This document is available in alternative formats from the
University Quality Office
1
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
CONTENTS
OUR STRATEGIC DIRECTION ........................................................................................................................ 3
The Strategic Plan (2007-12) ...................................................................................................... 3
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY ........................................................................ 4
Deliberative responsibilities ........................................................................................................ 4
Executive responsibilities ............................................................................................................ 5
The Students’ Union ................................................................................................................... 6
Hull York Medical School (HYMS)............................................................................................... 6
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS .................................................................................................................... 7
QUALITY AND STANDARDS FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................. 9
Terminology ................................................................................................................................ 9
Processes for managing quality and standards ......................................................................... 10
Scope of the Framework ........................................................................................................... 11
Accuracy and completeness of published information ............................................................... 11
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR QUALITY AND STANDARDS .............................................................................. 12
Academic Staff ......................................................................................................................... 12
Officers ..................................................................................................................................... 12
Support and guidance ............................................................................................................... 13
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ............................................................................................................................ 14
Our strategic approach ............................................................................................................. 14
Enhancing our communication of the Framework ..................................................................... 14
THE EXTERNAL QUALITY AND STANDARDS ENVIRONMENT ................................................................. 16
The QAA Academic Infrastructure ............................................................................................ 16
Progress Files ........................................................................................................................... 18
Higher Education Credit Framework for England ...................................................................... 19
(NATIONAL) QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK ................................................................................... 20
Institutional audit ....................................................................................................................... 20
Teaching Quality Information (TQI) ........................................................................................... 20
The European Dimension: the Bologna Process ....................................................................... 20
Future developments ................................................................................................................ 21
FURTHER INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK ................................................................................................ 22
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................. 23
2
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
OUR STRATEGIC DIRECTION
The Strategic Plan (2007-12)
The new Strategic Plan sets out a framework for the development of the University over the next
five years. The plan is a blend of continuity and change and identifies where the University needs
to meet challenges and fulfil its potential. A significant focus of the plan is an intention to embed an
international perspective across the University.
The vision of the University is:
‘To explore, create and communicate knowledge in order to enhance regional, national and
global communities’.
The University values:
People, by development and reward
Inclusivity, through equity and diversity
Innovation, through learning and discovery
Partnerships, by cooperation and mutuality.
The Plan sets out the following strategic aims:





Providing an outstanding experience for students
Developing sustainable and distinctive academic provision
Expanding and promoting research excellence
Embedding international perspectives across the institution
Leading knowledge transfer and contributing to the social and economic redevelopment
of the locality
 Enhancing cultural and intellectual community life
 Enlarging the student population
 Ensuring sustainable development.
A number of strategies support the implementation of the Strategic Plan:





Learning and Teaching
Widening Participation
Human Resources
Estate
Scarborough campus.
3
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY
Deliberative responsibilities
The Council is the executive governing body responsible for finance, property, investments and
general business of the University, and for setting our overall strategic direction. The Senate,
chaired by the Vice-Chancellor, is the academic authority of the University and draws its
membership from the academic staff and students of the institution. The Academic Board,
chaired by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, reports to Senate and brings together the key strategic
areas of University activity: learning, teaching and assessment; quality and standards; research;
reach-out; educational partnerships; student recruitment; information services. Each of these
areas is overseen by a committee which reports to Academic Board. A significant part of Academic
Board’s role is the alignment of academic plans with the Strategic Plan and priorities of the
University.
Learning and teaching are overseen by the University Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Committee (ULTAC) – chaired by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching). ULTAC
focuses on strategic-level considerations relating to the improvement of learning, teaching and
assessment, including oversight of the Learning and Teaching Strategy. ULTAC is assisted by five
sub-committees:
 Assessment Committee (UAC) – advises ULTAC on the development of assessment
practice and QSC on the development of the processes governing assessment
 Learning and Teaching Enhancement Committee (LTEC) – advises on the
development of the practice of learning, teaching and assessment
 Learning and Teaching Spaces Effectiveness Committee (LTSEC) – advises ULTAC
and Estates and Environment Committee on the development and equipping of teaching
spaces
 Student Experience Committee (SEC) – advises on the development of all aspects of
the student experience
 Widening Participation Committee (WPC) – advises on strategic matters relating to
widening participation and determines the allocation of WP funds.
Quality and standards are overseen by the Quality and Standards Committee (QSC), chaired
by the Quality Director, University Registrar and Secretary (QDURS). QSC is assisted by the
following:
 Programme Approvals Monitoring and Enhancement Committee (PAMEC) –
oversees the on-campus programme approvals process, the approval of international
programmes and international partnership activities
 Collaborative Provision Committee (CPC) – advises QSC on the management of the
quality and standards of UK-based collaborative provision
 Collaborative Programme Approvals Committee (CPAC) – approves UK-based
collaborative programmes
 Research Degrees Committee (RDC) – addresses all aspects of the progress of
research students, including determining eligibility for awards on behalf of Senate
 Student Progress Committee (SPC) – addresses all aspects of the progress of taught
students, including determining eligibility for awards on behalf of Senate
4
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
 External Examining Advisory and Monitoring Panel (EEAMP) – advises the chair of
QSC on matters relating to the appointment of external examiners and oversight of issues
raised by them.
UK and international educational partnerships are overseen by Educational Partnerships
Committee (EPC). EPC is responsible for approving UK and international partnerships; the
activities themselves – progression agreements, dual awards etc – being approved by PAMEC.
Committee terms of reference
The terms of reference of University committees are written using a convention which
distinguishes matters over which the committee has power to determine, and matters which the
committee must oversee. They also include, where appropriate, a Scheme of Delegation,
specifying those matters which have been delegated from a higher committee (often Senate). The
key elements of the terms of reference are:
 ‘Accountable for’ – matters for which the committee has decision making powers over the
matter in question
 ‘Responsible for’ – the committee ensures that specified actions are carried out but is not
required to carry them out itself
 ‘Consulted on’ – the committee has relevant knowledge/expertise to contribute on a given
matter. (The terms of reference will normally indicate who is expected to make sure the
committee is consulted)
 ‘Informed on’ – the committee is told about developments which have taken/are taking
place. (The terms of reference will normally indicate who is expected to make sure the
committee is kept informed).
Executive responsibilities
Led by the Vice-Chancellor, the Senior Management Team ensures clarity of responsibility and
direction of the academic and non-academic areas of the University. The Pro-Vice-Chancellor
Learning and Teaching (PVC L&T) provides leadership in the area of learning and teaching and
the student experience. In addition to leading the revision of the Learning and Teaching Strategy,
and overseeing its implementation, the PVC L&T line manages service areas which are
interdependent with academic provision in ensuring an outstanding student experience (Academic
Services, Student Support Services and Careers Service). Responsibility for quality and standards
is located within SMT through the role of the Quality Director, University Registrar and Secretary
(QDURS). The QDURS and PVC L&T work closely to ensure effective co-ordination of quality and
standards and learning and teaching.
Academic provision in the University is based in seven faculties (Arts and Social Sciences:
Business; Hull York Medical School; Health and Social Care; Institute for Learning; Science;
Postgraduate Medical Institute), and on the Scarborough campus.
Each faculty is headed by a dean or director (who reports to the Deputy V-C; the dean of HYMS
reports to the V-C). Heads of departments are accountable to their respective deans. Both deans
and heads of departments are responsible for academic standards and the quality of the student
learning experience in their areas. The Scarborough campus is also led by a dean who line
5
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
manages (currently) two academic areas based at the campus, and is responsible for leading the
implementation of the campus strategy.
Faculties play an important role in the management of quality and standards, providing oversight
of provision in cognate disciplines. In the larger faculties the dean is supported by a Deputy Dean
Learning and Teaching (DDLT) with responsibilities for overseeing all aspects of learning and
teaching within the faculty and its constituent departments. Each faculty has an administrator with
a remit which includes quality and standards (in two cases this is their sole remit).
The Students’ Union
Integral to our governance and management structure is the role of the Students’ Union (SU),
evidenced in the membership of elected sabbatical officers on University committees and, in cases
such as Senate and Assessment Committee, elected students. The provision of support services
is shared between the University and the SU (the latter for example providing the Advice Centre –
a strength of which is its ability to provide demonstrably independent advice to students). The
Students’ Union makes a valuable contribution to the management of quality and standards
through membership of committees such as ULTAC and QSC, and membership of working
groups.
Hull York Medical School (HYMS)
HYMS is the University’s only collaboration which leads to a Joint Award – where graduates
receive one award from the two Universities. The first cohort graduated in 2008. Because of the
nature of a Joint Award a single regulatory and quality and standards framework was developed
by Hull and York Universities, drawing on elements of each others’ existing frameworks, informed
by the QAA Academic Infrastructure (see below) and the expectations of the relevant regulatory
body, the General Medical Council. Academic provision is approved and overseen by a joint
committee, the HYMS Joint Learning and Teaching Committee, which reports to the HYMS Joint
Senate Committee (HJSC). The HSJC has delegated authority from the Senates of the two
Universities and determines the eligibility of candidates for the Joint Award.
6
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
EDUCATIONAL PARTNERSHIPS
The University of Hull, as part of its strategy to support learning in the region and beyond, has a
range of educational partners in the sub-regions. Some of these partners collaboratively deliver
University of Hull HE Level awards and others work with the University to raise the aspirations of
pre-19 and adult students to progress to Higher Education.
As part of the development of collaborative provision within the region the University has
established partnerships with seven further education colleges which deliver higher education
programmes leading to the University’s awards. The seven FE Colleges are:







Bishop Burton College
Doncaster College
East Riding College
Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher Education
North Lindsey College
Selby College
Yorkshire Coast College.
The Federation of Colleges is a group of institutions delivering Higher Education, whose main
validation partner is the University of Hull. Federation members work between and across
institutions to provide HE-level learning opportunities across the sub-regions.
International Partnerships are an important aspect of the University's relationships and core to
the continuing development of the University’s internationalisation agenda set out in the Strategic
Plan. The University is a member of several international consortia, such as the Global
Universities 8 Consortium (GU8), the UTRECHT Network and the EUA Council for Doctoral
Education. The University both delivers programmes abroad and works with partner institutions
delivering programmes leading to University of Hull awards. Established partnerships are in place
with carefully selected partners in Europe and beyond, ranging from programmes as part of the
European Mundus initiatives to the development of the Joint Logistics Institute with Xiamen
University in China.
The Associate Institutions Advisory Group is a pre-HE partnership with schools and colleges,
with a focus of activity on: social responsibility in addressing the social and economic challenges in
the region; progression and student recruitment; and collaborative debate on pertinent educational
policy and practice, including the implications for teacher training and continuing professional
development.
Widening Participation: The University, in support of widening participation and socio-economic
regeneration, hosts and is a full partner in the Yorkshire and Humber East Lifelong Learning
Network (YHELLN), supporting the development of progression agreements and flexible learning
across key vocational areas.
Aimhigher Humber and Aimhigher North Yorkshire are important partners supporting the raising of
achievement and aspiration of target populations of young people across the sub-regions.
7
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
Other Partnerships include University faculties and colleagues working with sub-regional partners
in local authorities, schools and colleges in fields such as progression to HE, teacher training,
professional development and Every Child Matters. Similarly, health and NHS partnerships, as
well as business groups, are also important areas of engagement for the University and the subregions.
A record of our HE delivery partnerships is published in the University’s Collaborative Provision
Register (available at http://www.hull.ac.uk/policyregister/qualityhandbook/).
8
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
QUALITY AND STANDARDS FRAMEWORK
Our Framework for managing quality and standards comprises regulations approved by Senate
and codes of practice approved by Academic Board. Together with other related documents these
are published in the Quality Handbook, available on-line (only) at:
http://www.hull.ac.uk/policyregister/qualityhandbook/.
An important aspect of the Handbook is the way in which documents are drafted to achieve clarity.
As documents are revised and new ones written the following language convention is applied
(based on a HEFCE approach), with the specified term highlighted in bold:
Must
signifying that the action is mandatory (has to be performed or an explicit
exemption applied for)
Should
Signifying that the action is advisable (justification will be required if the
action is not performed)
May
Signifying that the action is desirable (evidence will be required that the
action has been considered).
Each document (other than annexes) includes a cover sheet providing consistent information
about the regulation/code including details of approval, version number, date coming into force,
and a summary. Each document has a unique reference number. As each document is revised it
will make explicit whether it applies to collaborative provision, and which committee has final
authority on the interpretation and application of the document.
Terminology
In developing and enhancing the Framework we use the definitions set out by the Quality
Assurance Agency (QAA) to ensure alignment with sector practice:
Academic standards are a way of describing the level of achievement that a student has to reach to
gain an academic award (for example, a degree). It should be at a similar level across the UK.
Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help
them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate and effective teaching, support,
assessment and learning opportunities are provided for them.
Note that standards are considered to be absolute – they do not change so that a 2-1 at Hull
should be comparable with a 2-1 at York; a 2-1 in 1990 should be comparable with a 2-1 in 2010 in
the terms of the level of difficulty. For this reason it is normally said that standards are ‘maintained’
or ‘secured’.
Quality can be assured, but it can also be enhanced – see the section below on quality
enhancement.
We also apply the following definitions, based on QAA guidance, to our provision:
‘On-campus’: provision delivered in its entirety by University of Hull staff, irrespective of the actual
location of delivery, provided it is within the UK
‘Collaborative’: provision delivered in whole, or in part, by an approved partner institution of the
University (may be UK or overseas)
9
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
‘Distance taught’: provision delivered outwith the UK entirely by University of Hull staff
‘Distance learning’: provision delivered by University of Hull or partner institution staff through online means irrespective of the location of the students (sometimes referred to as ‘e-learning’)
‘Delivered’ in the above context means teaching, assessing and providing academic and pastoral
support. It excludes providing administrative support for a programme.
Processes for managing quality and standards
Consistent with other institutions our Quality and Standards Framework articulates a number of
processes designed to enable quality to be assured and standards maintained. Some processes
contribute to both quality and standards.
We operate a robust system of quality assurance processes comprising:






programme approvals
annual monitoring of programmes
periodic review
quality enhancement reviews both on campus and at partner institutions
quality audit of partner institutions
partnership approvals.
A number of mechanisms provide input to these processes and enable us to assure and enhance
the student learning experience in a robust way:






feedback from students, employers and graduates
complaints and appeals
admissions and induction
placement learning/work-based learning
external reviews
accreditation by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs).
Processes which are designed to maintain academic standards are:






assessment
external examiners
analysis of progression and completion statistics
feedback to students on assessment
accredited prior learning
accreditation by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs).
We set appropriate standards and ensure that student achievement is judged against these
standards through a combination of:




University regulations governing student progression and degree classification
procedures for boards of examiners
the role of external examiners
moderation
10
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)








appointment of academic contacts within faculties
appointment of academic consultants for non-comparable provision
oversight by Student Progress Committee/Research Degrees Committee
procedures governing unfair means (including cheating and plagiarism)
anonymous marking
mitigating circumstances
treatment of borderline cases
second marking.
Scope of the Framework
Note that the Framework applies to both taught and research degree provision (RDP). In the case
of the latter the Framework has been adapted appropriately, taking due account of the QAA’s
guidance on research degree provision (see Academic Infrastructure below). Thus Section L of the
Quality Handbook contains a number of RDP-specific codes of practice.
Accuracy and completeness of published information
An increasingly important focus of the management of quality and standards is that of ensuring
information which the University publishes about its academic provision, through whatever media,
is accurate and complete, and therefore not likely to mislead members of the public, prospective
students, employers etc. as well as current students (for example in relation to student
handbooks). We have developed procedures to ensure clarity of responsibilities for accuracy and
mechanisms to ensure that information is checked.
11
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
RESPONSIBILITIES FOR QUALITY AND STANDARDS
Academic Staff
Every member of academic staff has responsibility for, and a contribution to make to, the quality of
the student learning experience. Our approach to quality and standards properly places reliance
on the professionalism of our academic staff. We encourage colleagues to become involved in our
committees to strengthen linkages between the individual academic and departmental, faculty and
university committees, and in our quality processes, such as periodic reviews.
Academic staff play a fundamental role in developing modules and programmes as well as in the
delivery of programmes and the assessment of students. This process takes place in the context
of external drivers (such as the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications [FHEQ] and
Subject Benchmark Statements) and internal drivers (such as the Strategic Plan, Learning and
Teaching Strategy and student feedback in developing programmes).
Equally, academic staff are responsible for the maintenance of academic standards: through their
involvement in the setting of individual assessments within University regulations; through
consultation on standards issues; and as members of module and programme boards, and
departmental committees.
Individual academics play a variety of roles at departmental level such as: Examinations Officers,
Admissions Tutors, Library Representatives, Timetabling Officers and Personal Supervisors.
Officers
In addition to the Vice-Chancellor (V-C) who chairs Senate, a number of officers have particular
responsibilities for leadership and/or management in relation to quality and standards, and for
ensuring the effective operation of our processes:
 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor is responsible for integrating academic and support activities
for budget planning purposes. He manages the deans, departments and the Director of
Facilities; has overall responsibility for academic activities; and chairs the Academic
Board
 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Learning and Teaching) is responsible for learning and
teaching, partnerships, and line manages Academic Services and administrative activities
related to the student experience. The PVC chairs the University Learning, Teaching and
Assessment Committee, Educational Partnerships Committee and the Yorkshire and
Humber East Lifelong Learning Network (YHELLN) steering group.
 The Quality Director, University Registrar and Secretary (QDURS) is Chair of the Quality
and Standards Committee. The QDURS also has responsibility for a range of
administrative and governance functions such as health and safety, administrative
services, marketing, legal and recruitment
 The Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and Enterprise) is responsible for research and
enterprise as well as having a strategic academic responsibility for student recruitment
 Deans of Faculties and Dean of the Scarborough Campus
 Chairs of Faculty Learning and Teaching and Quality Committees
 Director of the Graduate School
 Heads of Departments.
12
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
Deans of faculties and heads of departments have defined responsibilities for quality and
standards in relation to taught and research degrees. In specific cases these are delegated to
Deputy Deans or Directors of Learning and Teaching and/or Quality (who may chair the Faculty
Learning and Teaching Committee). The Director of the Graduate School has responsibility in
respect of the Postgraduate Training Scheme.
Support and guidance
The University Quality Office supports quality assurance committees and processes. It has a key
role in the dissemination, implementation and enhancement of quality assurance procedures to
promote consistency and encourages the identification and dissemination of good practice.
Members of the Quality Office take responsibility for specific faculties providing a direct link to and
from that faculty to facilitate communication. They normally attend Faculty Learning and
Teaching/Quality Committees and Planning Permission and Full Approval Panels responsible for
programme approval. Quality Officers are members of Quality and Standards Committee teams
reviewing faculties’ Quality Enhancement Reports and Partner Quality Enhancement Reports, and
contribute to periodic reviews as secretaries and panel members.
UQO has a dedicated team to support partner institutions in the delivery of a wide range of
collaborative programmes and partner institutions have their own staff with responsibility for
maintaining effective processes. There is a handbook for collaborative provision which sets out the
University’s requirements in relation to the delivery of collaborative programmes. Members of this
team also support international partnership activity, including contributing to the development of
the international partnerships strategy, and working with faculties and departments to identify
potential partners, and develop suitable partnerships, and advising on the management of risk.
Increasingly the focus is on a pro-active approach to identifying potential partners.
Each faculty has one or more administrators who play a key role in ensuring that faculty quality
assurance processes operate effectively for both on campus and collaborative provision and in
taking an overview of departmental activities.
13
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
Our strategic approach
As indicated earlier, while academic standards are considered to be absolute, the quality of the
student learning experience can be enhanced. The QAA provides the following definition of
enhancement, which it uses as the basis for its audits of degree awarding institutions:
‘the process of taking deliberate steps at institutional level to improve the quality of learning
opportunities … the emphasis is on how an institution seizes developmental opportunities in a
manner no less systematic and no less based on clear strategic planning than quality assurance …’
The University has developed this definition, setting out its approach in a strategic document
designed to build on the Strategic Plan and the Learning and Teaching Strategy: Approach to
Quality and Standards (A2Q). This document draws a distinction between the enhancement of the
practice of learning and teaching and the enhancement of the systems and processes for
managing quality and standards. The former is the remit of University Learning, Teaching and
Assessment Committee, supported by the Learning and Teaching Support Unit (LTSU) and is
articulated in the Learning and Teaching Strategy. The latter is the remit of the Quality and
Standards Committee, supported by the University Quality Office.
Approach to Quality and Standards commits the University to a rolling programme of reviewing
and enhancing our systems and processes. This rolling programme is set out in a five year plan
approved, and overseen, by Quality and Standards Committee and published in the Quality
Handbook. The programme includes scheduled reviews of all of the regulations and codes of
practice which comprise the Quality and Standards Framework and a number of ‘thematic
initiatives’, projects which will focus on specific aspects of our management of quality and
standards. The first such initiative is focused on developing further opportunities for the
participation of students in our processes.
A fundamental element of our strategic approach is to conduct the above reviews informed by the
following principles, that our framework is:




Clear and accessible to those required to use it
Applied consistently and transparently
Increasingly based on a variation of touch reflecting an identified level of risk
Streamlined and locates responsibility at the most appropriate level of the institution, with
effective institutional oversight.
Enhancing our communication of the Framework
Reflecting the above commitment to clarity and accessibility, a number of initiatives have been put
in place, and are being refined, to ensure that those who need to work with the Framework are
appropriately informed and advised. The approach is underpinned by providing information to
specific role-players making clear their responsibilities in that role (e.g. heads of departments,
chairs of unfair means panels, members of full approvals panels).
14
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
In addition to this document, these initiatives include:
 Publication of regular Quality and Standards Updates (informing staff of proposed and
approved changes to the Framework, and external information such as QAA publications)
 Implementation Guides (advising specific role-players on actions required to implement
new or revised regulations/codes of practice)
 The Departmental Quality Officers’ Network (an informal network for staff in departments
with quality and standards responsibilities designed to facilitate the sharing of good
practice)
 The ‘Working with …’ series of leaflets (for example, on programme design and approval)
 The Quality and Standards theme of the University’s Staff Development Programme and
bespoke staff development events
 Our biannual newsletter for external examiners
 Regular informal liaison meetings with Faculty (Quality) Administrators
 Explanatory Notes (increasingly included in regulations and codes of practice to explain
the thinking behind a provision, or indicate the reason for a change)
 Audit Extra (a regular supplement to the University’s Bulletin, designed to keep staff up to
date with our preparations for upcoming Institutional or Collaborative Provision Audit.
More information about each of the above, including access to specific named documents, is
available through the UQO website: www.hull.ac.uk/quality.
15
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
THE EXTERNAL QUALITY AND STANDARDS ENVIRONMENT
The development of our quality and standards framework is fully informed by a number of external
factors, primarily:
 Sector good practice articulated in the QAA’s Academic Infrastructure
 Expectations set out in the (national) Quality Assurance Framework
 European expectations derived through the Bologna Process and the development of the
European Higher Education Area
 Expectations of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory bodies (PSRBs).
The QAA Academic Infrastructure
The QAA has established and revised, after extensive consultation with the sector, a set of
documents which set out expectations for higher education institutions (HEIs) to follow to ensure
as far as possible that the management of quality and standards is consistent and comparable
across HEIs. The Academic Infrastructure comprises four elements:




The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (2nd ed., 2008)
Programme Specifications
Subject Benchmark Statements (including the Foundation Degree Benchmark Statement)
The Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher
Education.
The first three are designed to relate to the management of standards; the fourth to quality.
Although not formally part of the Academic Infrastructure, the QAA has also published
expectations relating to Progress Files and Personal Development Planning (PDP) and guidelines
on Accredited Prior Learning.
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ)
The main purposes of the FHEQ are stated to be to:
 ‘Provide important points of reference for setting and assessing academic standards to higher
education providers and their external examiners
 Assist in the identification of potential progression routes, particularly in the context of lifelong
learning
 Promote a shared and common understanding of the expectations associated with typical
qualifications by facilitating a consistent use of qualifications titles across the higher education
sector.’
The FHEQ sets out qualification levels (some of which contain more than one qualification):
Typical higher education qualifications within each level
FHEQ level
Doctoral degrees (e.g. PhD)
8
Masters degrees (e.g. MPhil, MRes, MA)
7
Integrated Masters degrees (e.g. MChem, MEng)
16
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
Postgraduate Certificates and Diplomas
Postgraduate Certificate in Education (PGCE)
Honours degrees (Bachelors degrees)
6
Ordinary degrees (Bachelors degrees without Honours)
Professional Certificate in Education (PGCE)
Graduate Certificates and Diplomas
Foundation degrees
5
Diplomas of Higher Education
Certificates of Higher Education
4
The above table has been adapted from the table provided on page 10 of the FHEQ. Note that
different volumes of credit will lead to qualifications within the same level (e.g. a PG Certificate if
60 credits, a PG Masters is 180 credits).
The FHEQ level is now given as a number replacing the titles (Certificate, Honours etc) used in the
1st (2001) edition of the FHEQ.
The framework sets out ‘Qualification Descriptors’ indicating the outcomes of the main qualification
at each level in terms of the outcomes which a student should be able to demonstrate the
achievement of to be awarded the qualification, and in terms of the ‘wider abilities’ which a typical
student could be expected to have developed while undertaking the programme. Descriptors are
written to demonstrate the difference between levels. The impact of the framework within the
University is therefore in two ways:
 In defining the title of a qualification
 In defining the outcomes of a qualification.
Two points about titles must be noted in particular. The term ‘degree’ can only be used for
qualifications of level 6 or above with the specific exception of Foundation degrees. The term
‘postgraduate’ can only be used for qualifications of level 7 and above.
In defining the outcomes of an individual programme leading to a qualification, reference must be
made to the qualification descriptors which are detailed in Section 4 of the FHEQ to ensure that
the outcomes appropriate for the qualification level will be demonstrated by a candidate to whom
the qualification would be awarded on successful completion of the programme. The descriptors
therefore provide a starting point for programme design both in relation to outcomes and to the
assessment of those outcomes. The University’s Learning Outcomes Tool (see Section G, annexe
9 of the Quality Handbook) is designed to help staff write learning outcomes at a given level which
reflect the appropriate qualification descriptor.
Subject Benchmark Statements
QAA has co-ordinated the development of statements of outcomes appropriate to specific subjects
as a way of defining the kind of outcomes which are appropriate for particular qualifications within
given subjects. Over 50 subject benchmark statements (SBS) have been developed by groups of
17
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
subject specialists and more are the subject of consultation. A specific statement has been
produced for the Foundation degree (Fd) qualification, the key characteristic of which is the
requirement for work-based learning to a be feature of all programmes leading to the award of an
Fd.
Programme Specifications
These are intended as a means to provide stakeholders, and especially students, with detailed
information about the intended learning outcomes (ILOs) for each programme and therefore what
will be achieved on successful completion of the programme. The ILOs therefore provide detailed,
programme specific, statements building on the general statements set out in the FHEQ and the
subject specific statements in the relevant SBS. The University has adopted this approach by
requiring completed programme specifications as part of the programme approval process.
Programme specifications for University programmes are published at www.courses.hull.ac.uk.
Programme specifications must also reflect relevant subject benchmark statements which
therefore go a significant way to defining the academic standards for the programme - i.e. the
achievement which must be demonstrated by students to be eligible for the award.
QAA Code of Practice
The Code is a series of 10 sections setting out good practice in relation to different aspects of
quality and standards. Each section includes a number of ‘precepts’ supported by additional notes
for guidance and clarification. As with the rest of the Infrastructure, HEIs are expected to address
the precepts and reflect them in day-to-day practices. The University achieves this by reflecting the
guidance in the Code in our regulations and codes of practice. The 10 sections are:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Postgraduate research programmes
Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)
Students with disabilities
External examining
Academic appeals and student complaints on academic matters
Assessment of students
Programme design, approval, monitoring and review
Career education, information and guidance
Work-based and placement learning
Admissions to higher education.
Although not part of the Code of Practice, the QAA has also published Guidelines on the
Accreditation of Prior Learning, which set out a number of principles to inform APL processes.
Progress Files
In addition to the Academic Infrastructure, the QAA has published guidance on the introduction of
Progress Files for all students. These are intended to be means for recording students’
achievement in completing programmes leading to defined qualifications - therefore linking back to
the general outcomes and qualification descriptors in the FHEQ. One part of each progress file is
the Academic Transcript through which all students on completion (or withdrawal) are provided
with a full break-down of the marks and credits awarded. The other part provides an opportunity
18
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
for students to create their own personal record of their learning, including progress reviews and
plans, and self-reflection on their learning.
Higher Education Credit Framework for England
In 2008 the QAA published guidance for HEIs based on evidence of ‘typical practice’ in the sector
regarding the use of credit for HE qualifications. This reflects, and was partly informed by,
established guidance issued by three Credit Consortia in 2001. The University is a member of one
of these consortia (the Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer)
and had implemented a credit-based system for all its taught awards in 1995-96, expressed in
Senate approved regulations. (Traditional research degrees – such the MPhil and PhD – are not
credit-based).
19
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
(NATIONAL) QUALITY ASSURANCE FRAMEWORK
Explanation of the national picture of quality assurance is completed by outlining what is now
referred to as the Quality Assurance Framework (QAF). This comprises three elements:
 QAA Institutional audit
 QAA Collaborative Provision audit (for those HEIs with large and complex collaborative
provision)
 The publication of information about quality – referred to as ‘Teaching Quality Information’
(TQI).
Institutional audit
The University’s most recent Institutional Audit, in 2004, and Collaborative Provision Audit, in
2006, resulted in the best outcome – ‘broad confidence’ – in each case. The reports produced by
the QAA are published on its website (http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/default.asp). The next
Institutional Audit takes place in April 2009, with the next Collaborative Provision Audit in March
2011.
The focus of institutional audit is on establishing that each HEI is managing quality and standards
in an effective way which ensures comparability of awards in line with the FHEQ, and that the
quality of learning opportunities enable students to achieve the awards they are seeking.
Teaching Quality Information (TQI)
TQI involves making publicly available quantitative and qualitative data about higher education
relating to each institution. The former includes the annual National Student Survey (based on
questionnaire data obtained from final year students), data on the destination of leavers and other
data compiled by the Higher Education Statistics Agency from information supplied annually by
each HEI. A new TQI site – Unistats – was launched in 2007, run by UCAS and targeted
principally at applicants and potential applicants to higher education courses.
Following revision of its expectations for TQI by HEFCE in 2006, HEIs are no longer required to
publish qualitative data such as summaries of external examiners reports and periodic review
reports. However, HEIs are expected to share external examiners reports with student
representatives (an expectation reflected in our code of practice governing External Examining),
and to share other qualitative information internally. To this end the University has developed a
channel on the Portal to make information about the outcomes of periodic reviews available to
students.
The European Dimension: the Bologna Process
The UK assurance of quality must increasingly be understood in the context of European and
international developments, most notably the Bologna Process. This Process is an
intergovernmental process designed to establish the European Higher Education Area by 2010. It
is being achieved through ten ‘action lines’, which have resulted in the introduction of Diploma
Supplements, European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance, and a Europe-wide
Framework for Qualifications. A key aim is to make HE systems across the Area more easily
understood and comparable and therefore support mutual recognition of qualifications from each
member country.
20
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
The main way in which HEIs reflect the expectations of the Process and especially of the
European Standards and Guidelines, is through effective engagement with the QAA’s Academic
Infrastructure (described earlier). A feature of the Bologna-EHEA Process is the qualifications
framework which articulates three sequential levels within which all European HE qualifications are
located. These ‘cycles’ correspond to those of the FHEQ (first cycle – Bachelors degrees; second
cycle – Masters; third cycle – Doctorates). The framework also includes generic qualification
descriptors for each cycle, known as the ‘Dublin Descriptors’.
Future developments
The next development on the horizon for the sector is the introduction of Higher Education
Achievement Reports (HEAR), a more extensive document than the existing transcript, which HEIs
are being encouraged to implement alongside the Honours degree classification by 2010-11.
21
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
FURTHER INFORMATION AND FEEDBACK
Further information about the matters covered in this booklet are available from:







The relevant faculty office
The University Quality Office
The UQO website: www.hull.ac.uk/quality
The Quality Handbook: http://www.hull.ac.uk/policyregister/qualityhandbook/
The Quality Assurance Agency website: www.qaa.ac.uk
The official Bologna website: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/
National Student Survey and TQI – www.unistats.ac.uk.
Feedback, including suggestions for enhancement, on this booklet are always welcome, and
should be directed to any member of the University Quality Office. (Details of UQO staff, including
faculty-links, can be found at: http://www.hull.ac.uk/quality/office/staff/index.html.)
22
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
APL
Accredited Prior Learning
CPC
Collaborative Provision Committee
DVC
Deputy Vice-Chancellor
EPC
Educational Partnerships Committee
FEC
Further Education College
Fd
Foundation Degree
FHEQ
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications
GRD
Graduate Research Director
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for England
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
ILO
Intended Learning Outcomes
NUCCAT
Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer
PAMEC
Programme Approvals Monitoring and Enhancement Committee
PGTS
Postgraduate (Research) Training Scheme
PSRB
Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
PQER
Partner Quality Enhancement Report
PVC
Pro-Vice-Chancellor
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency
QAF
Quality Assurance Framework (National)
QDURS
Quality Director, University Registrar and Secretary
QER
Quality Enhancement Report
QH
Quality Handbook
QSC
Quality and Standards Committee
RDC
Research Degrees Committee
23
Quality matters (3rd edition, 2009)
SBS
Subject Benchmark Statement
SDT
Staff Development Team
SMT
Senior Management Team
SPC
Student Progress Committee
SRAS
Student Recruitment and Admissions Service
SSC
Staff/Student Committee
TQI
Teaching Quality Information
UCoP
University Code of Practice
UCIO
University Complaints Investigation Officer
ULTAC
University Learning, Teaching and Assessment Committee
UQO
University Quality Office
VLE
Virtual Learning Environment
VP (AR)
Students’ Union Vice President (Academic Representation)
WPC
Widening Participation Committee
YHELLN
Yorkshire and Humber Lifelong Learning Network
24