Dear colleague
In CL09/08 (www.qaa.ac.uk/news/circularLetters, 10 November 2008), Peter Williams wrote to inform you of QAA's new arrangements for the notification of publication of our series of Outcomes from institutional audit (Outcomes...) papers. These are thematic accounts of the findings of institutional audit reports. Two series have so far been published: the first covering 70 audits undertaken in England and Northern Ireland between 2002 and 2004 and the second (continuing) covering 59 audits undertaken between December 2004 and August 2006. Each paper deals with a discrete topic and offers a sector-wide overviewof the audit findings for that topic. They provide important information and messages to the sector as a whole and, we hope, will help all those who are responsible for quality and standards in higher education institutions, at all levels, to review and compare their own practice with that of others, and learn from the experience.
I am writing now to inform you of the publication of two further papers in this series: The Code of practice in institutional audit and Validation and approval of new provision, and its periodic review. A summary of these papers is attached. They will be published on 25 June 2010 and will be available from www.qaa.ac.uk/outcomes.
We hope that you will find this advance notice of publication and the summary useful.
Any feedback should be addressed to outcomes@qaa.ac.uk.
Yours sincerely
Anthony McClaran
Chief Executive
Forthcoming Outcomes from institutional audit papers
The Code of practice in institutional audit
This paper will be published on 25 June 2010.
This paper examines the evidence to be found in institutional audit reports relating to the use which higher education institutions make of the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education (the Code of practice) published by QAA. It concentrates on the way in which the Code of practice as a whole informs institutional processes and practices, rather than on the impact of individual sections of the Code of practice, most of which are covered by other publications in the Outcomes series.
The paper identifies three common themes in audit teams’ approaches to analysis of institutional engagement with the Code of practice. These are: the management of responses to individual sections of the Code of practice; institutional attitudes towards the Code of practice and its role; and processes for embedding the Code of practice within institutional practice and procedures.
The evidence cited in the paper suggests that the Code of practice is generally well-embedded within the procedures of individual institutions, and that those procedures have in many cases been modified consequent on consideration of the relevant sections of the Code of practice. Different sections of the Code of practice appear to have had varying levels of impact, with sections 1 (Postgraduate research programmes), 2 (Collaborative provision, reissued as Collaborative provision and flexible and distributed learning (including e-learning)), 4 (External examining), 6 (Assessment of students) and 7 (Programme approval, monitoring and review) having been particularly influential.
The paper also notes two contrasted approaches to the use of the Code of practice by institutions, with some using the language of 'compliance', others referring to 'guidance'.
Validation and approval of new provision, and its periodic review
This paper will be published on 25 June 2010.
The overall conclusion to be drawn from an analysis of the 59 institutional audit reports published between December 2004 and August 2006 is that institutions had put in place processes for the approval of new programmes and their periodic review, which contribute significantly to institutions’ arrangements for establishing and maintaining quality and standards. In designing these processes, on the whole, institutions have drawn upon the guidance contained in the Academic Infrastructure, and particularly in the Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education Section 7: Programme approval, monitoring and review.
Good practice was identified in connection with programme approval related to support given to programme teams; the care taken with the design of the process and of the mechanisms for evaluating its effectiveness; and to the active engagement of external advisers in quality management and course development. Areas which attracted recommendations included adequate use of external advice; clarity for final endorsement of approval decisions; use of reports from the process to ensure accountability and enhance practice; limitations in the use made by institutions of the Academic Infrastructure; and the efficiency and effectiveness of processes.
In the area of periodic programme review, the features of good practice identified cluster around three major themes: the use made of external advice, the balance in the membership of review panels (with specific reference to the involvement of students and inexperienced members of staff), and the effectiveness of the review process itself. Recommendations focused on the efficiency of the procedures, including, for example, delays in responding to review reports; clarity of definition where dual review processes operated; and wider questions of responsibility and accountability, particularly at an institutional level.
The findings of this paper largely reflect those of the corresponding paper in the first series of Outcomes…, but also indicate that concerns that there should be more external involvement in approval and review processes have mostly been addressed and the processes have become embedded within institutional practice.
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube