ENQA QAA meeting 8 9 December 2005 Birmingham
ENQA – QAA meeting 8 -9 December 2005 Birmingham, UK 9 December, 10. 45 – 12. 30 Feedback from workshop groups
International experts l Judgement or enhancement l l Prestigious universities want prestigious benchmark Easier in audits than in programme/subject review l Recruitment sometimes difficult l Easier for English-speaking countries?
International experts (2) l Students as panel members l l Representativity is difficult l Students interviewing student groups separately? Stakeholders l Conservative force? l Higher learning or employability?
Bologna l In the countries where the European standards match the national requirements, the integration of ESG is part of the regular revision of procedures l l In the countries where the ESG do not match the national requirements, there is action to change requirement through legislation Important that standards are seen as guidelines
Students l Two areas of student involvement l l Panel members l Involvement in institution being involved Panel members: l Purpose of involvement – role to be played l Full member? l Single voice, not student voice l Only student areas of interest l Reporting involvement
Students 2 l Students in institutions Number of approaches to ensuring panels hear from students l l Involvement in writing evaluation document l How representative are student groups l Political difficulties associated with student unions l Institutional concerns
Quality enhancement in institutional audit l Planned enhancement – more realistic with strong subject/professional influence l l Building on quality assurance – generally an applicable and desirable route for improvement Much information - but little analysis of how it can generate the basis for improvement Communication – between managers and faculty needs to be good – in both directions Leadership – needs to be strong to overcome internal tensions associated with the risks of enhancement vs. the stability of assurance
Reports l Clarity regarding purpose, and therefore target readership l l Multiple or complex purposes may require particular structure(s) l Multi-part single reports l Separate reports l Reports for student information (too sensitive) Reports will also have regard for: l National legal and political context l Freedom of information etc
Reports 2 l Publish or not? Negative reports and institutional reputation; bad news may be softened or disguised l Tension between public accountability and institutional improvement? l Who owns the report? Institutions may decide on publication l l Institutions need clear messages but more coded reports may protect institutions
Reports 3 l Approaches to communication of difficult critical points ‘below the line’ l l ‘pre-report’ draft l In ‘exit’ feedback l Not published but reported to institution Issues around quality of draft text l Reviewers or officers produce report l Training and report frameworks/templates l Evidence base
Reports 4 l Continuity strengthens significance l How to make sure the report is understood and used l Leave messages for next time round l Check in follow-ups
Internal/external l How detailed should/may the criteria be that govern the audits, determining: l The scope and conduct of the audit? The institution’s QA systems or capacity to respond to external QA – mature institution does not always mean mature QA l l What are the limits to what audits may legitimately assess? How to avoid the stagnation of procedure? (Moving the goalposts? ) The possibilities for having flexible ‘dynamic’ audits
Internal/external (2) l Materials presented and materials available (avoid bumph? ) l l l Properties of good QA systems l Integrated processes l Wide participation l Wide ‘ownership’ ‘exceptionalism’ of subject communities vs the generalist approach of audit QA systems of possible ‘power instruments’ for management; faculty squeezed between management and student demands
Internal/external (3) l Achieving trust and openness in a situation that will always be tense.
- Slides: 14