Question+3

** Scenario 2: The roles and responsibilities for Quality Assurance outside of the institution **

Your programme/course has been selected for an audit by the QAA. Your Department Head/Dean has asked you to lead the team that prepares the documentation and interviewed by the auditors. toc
 * //Question 3. What documentation does the QAA require the Institution keep and present as part of an audit?//**


 * The QAA requires an SED (self evaluation document) from the facility and an SWS (Student Written submission) from the student representative **

= __**Core Professional Documents for School of Osteopathy**__ = **Osteopathy Benchmark Statement (2007)** **GOSC Standard 2000 (S2K) Standard of Proficiency (1999) New additions 2012** **QAA Code of Practice** **? NICE Guidelines on Low back pain** **? GOSC guidelines on Medical imaging**

__ **Core Institution Documents** __ **ESO Memorandum and Articles?** **ESO Strategy plan and Mission statement** **ESO Accounts** **Hierachy of committes (Flow diagram)** **Hierachy of management (Flow diagram)** **ESO Course Prospectus** **Degree Submission** **Module specification** **Course Profiles and Intended Learning Outcomes (ILO's)** **Lecturer lesson Plans** **Student Handbook** **Student Code of Conduct**

__ **Minutes of Relevant Boards and Committees** __ **Board of Trustees and** **Finance Sub Committee** **Academic Board** **Programme Committee (MOst)** **Curriculum Team** **Exams and Assessments Sub Committee** **Board of Examiners** **Board of Tutors** **Staff Student Liaison Committee**

__ **Reports** __ **Reports from Previous University validation events or QAA inspections if relevant** **Validating University Feedback** **External Examiners Feedback** **External/Internal Exam Observers Feedback** **Research working party** **Student Feedback**

__ **Assessments** __ **University of Greenwich (Validating University) Assessment Regulations** **Exam papers with marking criteria and model answers** **External Examiner feedback** **Statistical Analysis of Student performance outcomes and Progression**

__ **Examples of Submitted work** __ **Final year projects**

__ **Research** __ **Institution Publications or papers** **Current projects**

__ **Faculty/Staff** __ **CVs of new Staff and Faculty** **Statistics relating to Faculty Qualifications and Experience (First degrees, Masters, Teaching Qualifications)** **Evidence of Staff Development and Appraisal** = = =SED Paperwork Guidelines= The usefulness of the SED to the review team will be one of the main factors that we shall take into account when we decide the length of your review. The better targeted to the areas of the review, the more carefully chosen the evidence, and the more reflective the document is, the greater is the likelihood that the team will be able to verify your institution's approaches and gather evidence of its own quickly and effectively. The purpose of the SED is to provide the review team with an account of how you know that your institution meets the expectations set out in the judgment scheme. The most useful format in which you can set out the information is, therefore, under the four judgment headings. You might wish to bear in mind not only the broad expectations for each judgment, but also the factors which teams will use to guide them in reaching their judgment. These can be found in Annex 2. The quality of the learning opportunities which students experience in an institution and the standard of the awards that they take away are central to the review process. It will be difficult for a review team to work effectively with a SED that does not start from an awareness of this centrality. It is important that each section of the SED can be clearly identified and that it has a comprehensive index giving references to the evidence that the institution wishes to cite. It is not the responsibility of the review team to seek out evidence to support the institution's views. •Mission •Major changes since last review •Key challenges that the institution faces •Implications of changes and challenges for safeguarding academic standards and quality of students' learning opportunities 31Institutional review of higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland: A handbook for higher education providers The following expectations apply in this area: 1Each qualification (including those awarded under collaborative arrangements) is allocated to the appropriate level of the FHEQ. 2Use of external examiners is strong and scrupulous. 3Design, approval, monitoring and review of assessment strategies is effective in ensuring that students have opportunity to demonstrate learning outcomes of the award. 4Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes enables standards to be set and maintained and allows students to demonstrate learning outcomes of the award. 5Subject benchmark statements are used effectively in programme design, approval, delivery and review to inform standards of awards. In the SED you should list the **evidence that your institution uses to assure itself** that these expectations are being met and that you are managing the area effectively. The review team will need access to the evidence, as explained in Annex 4a. You do not need to write a narrative to link this information. However, you can provide very brief notes or bullet points to contextualise it if you think that it will not make sense to the review team. We do not expect you to spell out how you have evaluated your institution's approach to safeguarding quality and standards. That will be implicit in the choice of convincing and robust evidence. The review team will decide whether the approach is effective or not as part of its judgment. More information about what it might be relevant to consider as you present your evidence is given in the factors listed in Annex 2. 1Professional standards for teaching and support of learning are supported. 2Learning resources are appropriate to allow students to achieve the learning outcomes of their programmes. 3There is an effective contribution of students to quality assurance. 4There is effective use of management information to safeguard quality and standards and to promote enhancement of student learning opportunities. 5Policies and procedures used to admit students are clear, fair, explicit and consistently applied. 6There are effective complaints and appeals procedures. 7There is an approach to career education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) that is adequately quality assured. 8The quality of learning opportunities is managed to enable the entitlements of disabled students to be met. 9The quality of learning opportunities for international students is appropriate. 10Appropriate support and guidance is provided to enable postgraduate research students to complete their programmes and to enable staff involved in research programmes to fulfil their responsibilities. 11The quality of learning opportunities delivered as part of collaborative arrangements is managed effectively to enable students to achieve their awards. 32 Institutional review of higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland: A handbook for higher education providers 12The quality of learning opportunities delivered through flexible and distributed arrangements, including e-learning, is managed effectively. 13The quality of learning opportunities delivered through work-based and placement learning is effective. 14A student charter, or equivalent document, setting out the mutual expectations of the institution and its students, is available. In the SED you should list the **evidence that your institution uses to assure itself** that these expectations are being met and that you are managing the area effectively. The review team will need access to the evidence, as explained in Annex 4a. You do not need to write a narrative to link this information. However, you can provide very brief notes or bullet points to contextualise it if you think that it will not make sense to the review team. We do not expect you to spell out how you have evaluated your institution's approach to safeguarding quality and standards. That will be implicit in the choice of convincing and robust evidence. The review team will decide whether the approach is effective or not as part of its judgment. More information about what it might be relevant to consider as you present your evidence is given in the factors listed in Annex 2. 1Information about academic standards and quality is made publicly available. In the SED you should list the **evidence that your institution uses to assure itself** that these expectations are being met and that you are managing the area effectively. The review team will need access to the evidence, as explained in Annex 4a. You do not need to write a narrative to link this information. However, you can provide very brief notes or bullet points to contextualise it if you think that it will not make sense to the review team. We do not expect you to spell out how you have evaluated your institution's approach to safeguarding quality and standards. That will be implicit in the choice of convincing and robust evidence. The review team will decide whether the approach is effective or not as part of its judgment. More information about what it might be relevant to consider as you present your evidence is given in the factors listed in Annex 2. The following expectation applies in this area: 1Deliberate steps are being taken at institutional level to improve the quality of students' learning opportunities. In the SED you should list the **evidence that your institution uses to assure itself** that these expectations are being met and that you are managing the area 33 Institutional review of higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland: A handbook for higher education providers effectively. The review team will need access to the evidence, as explained in Annex 4a. You do not need to write a narrative to link this information. However, you can provide very brief notes or bullet points to contextualise it if you think that it will not make sense to the review team. We do not expect you to spell out how you have evaluated your institution's approach to safeguarding quality and standards. That will be implicit in the choice of convincing and robust evidence. The review team will decide whether the approach is effective or not as part of its judgment. More information about what it might be relevant to consider as you present your evidence is given in the factors listed in Annex 2. This part of the SED will be asked to address the theme topic, together with an evaluation of the institution's effectiveness of its management in the theme area. QAA provides more information on its website about how you might go about covering the theme topic. 34 Institutional review of higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland: A handbook for higher education providers = = =**Student written submission (SWS) Paperwork**= The SWS provides a means by which students, through their representative body, can inform the review team ahead of the review visit of matters they consider relevant given the purpose of Institutional review. We encourage student representative bodies to use this opportunity to inform review teams of their views and evidence and to work closely with the institution. The SWS is an opportunity for the representative body to give the review team an impression of what it is like to be a student at that institution and how their views are incorporated into the institution's decision-making and quality assurance processes. The SWS should not be over-long (no more than 6,000 words) and should provide an explanation of the sources of evidence that informed its comments and conclusions. The SWS must include a statement of how it has been compiled, its authorship and the extent to which its contents have been shared with, and endorsed by, the student body as a whole. If, for example, the SWS has been prepared entirely from the perspective of undergraduate students or full-time students, then this should be made clear. The review team will welcome a SWS that tries to represent the views of as wide a student constituency as possible. However, questionnaires conducted specifically for this SWS are generally of limited use to the review team. You are encouraged to make use of National Student Survey data and existing internal student surveys. A critical analysis of existing data will be more useful to the review team than a collection of new data. When gathering evidence for and structuring the SWS it will be helpful if you take account of the advice given to institutions for constructing the SED (see Annex 3a). The SED addresses both parts of the review: the core part and the thematic part, and it would be useful if the SWS did the same. As far as the core part of review is concerned, you might particularly wish to focus on students' views on how effectively the institution: •sets and maintains the threshold standards of its academic awards •manages the quality of students' learning opportunities •manages the quality of the public information that it provides, including that for students and applicants •plans to enhance the quality of students' learning opportunities. The thematic part of the review is based on a specific topic which is announced in March each year. It will be helpful to the review team if the SWS includes information about the theme topic, especially whether students think that the institution is managing this area of its provision effectively, and how students are engaged in managing its quality. The SWS should **not** name, or discuss the competence of, individual members of staff. It should not discuss personal grievances. It should also seek to avoid including comments from individual students who may not be well-placed to speak as representative of a wider group. 41Institutional review of higher education institutions in England and Northern Ireland: A handbook for higher education providers If the representative body and institution wish to present a joint SED, this is acceptable so long as it is made clear in the document that the SED is a genuine reflection of student views and the process by which students were involved. More information and guidance about producing the SWS can be found on QAA's website.
 * Guidelines from the QAA booklet on Institutional review for paperwork** **Annex 3a**
 * Guidelines for producing the self-evaluation document (SED) for Institutional review which includes collaborative provision**
 * The SED should indicate how the institution's policies, processes and structures relate to all levels of its provision: undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research postgraduate.**
 * Suggested structure of the SED for Institutional review**
 * ACore element of the review**
 * Section 1: Brief description of the institution (2 pages)**
 * Section 2: How the institution has addressed the recommendations of its last audits/review(s) (2 pages)** Briefly describe how the recommendations from the last audit/review(s) have been acted upon, and how good practice indentified has been capitalised on. Refer to any action plans or progress reports which have been produced as a result of the audit/review(s). You can refer to your institution's mid-cycle follow-up report here.
 * Section 3: The institution's threshold academic standards**
 * Section 4: The quality of students' learning opportunities (teaching and academic support)** The following expectations apply in this area:
 * Section 5: From 2012-13, the quality of public information, including that produced for students and applicants; in 2011-12 a commentary on provision of public information** The following expectation applies in this area:
 * Section 6: The institution's enhancement of students' learning opportunities**
 * BThematic element of review**
 * Format, length and content**