ACADEMIC QUALITY ASSURANCE

1
ACADEMIC QUALITY ASSURANCE

• QUALITY MANUAL PROPOSAL
• QUMAMED

2
Quality Manual Faculty of Medicine Table of
Contents

• Foreword by the Dean
• Legislative overview
• Part A Introductory Sections
• Part B Programme Validation
• Part C Monitoring and Review of
• Academic Activities

3
Quality Manual Table of Contents

• Part A Introductory Sections
• Mission Statement
• General Principles for Quality Improvement
• Roles and responsibilities
• Glossary of terms
• Part B Programme Validation
• Chapter 1 Validation of a new full-time or
  part-time programme

4
Quality Manual Table of Contents

• Part C Monitoring Review of Academic
  Activities
• Chapter 2 Examinations
• Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring
• Chapter 4 Programme Review
• Chapter 5 School Review
• Chapter 6 Faculty Review
• Chapter 7 Quality Assurance in Research
  Degrees

5
Quality Manual Legislative overview

• The University establishment act
• The Government education act
• Other legislation relevant to the Faculty of
  Medicine

6
Quality Manual Part A Mission Statement

• Brief statement of the role and scope of the
  Faculty of Medicine in providing education

7
Part A General Principles for Quality
Improvement

• 1. The procedures contained in this manual apply
  to all programmes leading----------
• 2. Principles underpinning QA in the faculty are
  as follows
• There is always scope for further enhancing
  student experience
• There is a faculty responsibility for the quality
  standards of education provided
• Programmes of study QA systems are subject to
  national international internal external peer
  evaluation review, involving consultation with
  learners stakeholders
• Self-evaluation identifying strengths
  weaknesses is undertaken
• Results of the QA process are published

8
Part A General Principles for Quality
Improvement

• 3. The aims of QA are to
• affirm that the quality of educational provision
  standards of awards are being consistently
  maintained and
• foster curriculum, subject staff development,
  together with research other scholarly
  activity, in order to underpin delivery of the
  curriculum

9
Part A General Principles for Quality
Improvement

• 4.The faculty is committed to the principles of
  good practice set by the European University
  Association (EUA) in the document Strengthening
  the Role of Institutions (2003)

10
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 1.Introduction
• Academic council (?)is responsible under the
  University Act (year?), for developing,
  maintaining enhancing academic standards
  quality in all programmes of the University.
• The faculty of medicine comprising its staff
  students carries these responsibilities in
  respect of the taught research programmes
  offered.

11
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 2.Teamwork for QA and quality improvement
• Academic QA and quality improvement require team
  approach by all members in all activities in the
  faculty university. It also requires
  partnership trust with other outside
  stake-holders such as Government, hospitals
  society.
• Academic staff have central role working in
  Programme teams/committees to set academic
  quality standards, monitor performance and
  initiate action aimed at improvement
• Organisation for the quality improvement process
  is formally structured (Fig1)

12
Part A Roles responsibilities

• This manual is a working document is reviewed
  updated annually or as required based on feedback
  from staff students.
• All staff are invited to recommend improvements
  can do so by informing the Head of School /or by
  --------
• This manual should be read in conjunction with
  other faculty university documents,
  including-----

13
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 3. Delivery of academic quality in the faculty
• Each lecturer is responsible for delivering
  academic quality in all her/his activities,
  including programmes research.
• The group of lecturers working on a programme -
  the Programme Team/Committee is responsible for
• Academic quality quality assurance in the
  overall programme
• Develop academic vision, overall objectives,
  learning outcomes future direction for a
  specific programme.

14
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 4. Programme Teams/Committee
• Have responsibility under the overall guidance of
  the Head of Department the academic leadership
  of the Head of School for developing operating
  the programme
• 5. Chairperson of Programme Team/Committee
• Is normally Head of Department or other member of
  staff nominated by the Head of School
• She/he has the following broad duties
  responsibilities------------

15
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 6. Schools Departments
• The School is the key academic administrative
  unit of the Faculty------
• 6.1 Head of School
• The Head of School holds a central management
  role in the Faculty, duties responsibilities
  include the following-----
• 6.2 Head of Department
• These posts are key line management posts
  holders have broad duties responsibilities
  including the following--------

16
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 7.Faculty and Faculty Board
• The Faculty is an academic administrative
  grouping of ---- Schools and is headed up by a
  Dean.
• 7.1 Dean
• The Dean has broad duties responsibilities
  within the Faculty across the University which
  include the following----------
• 7.2 Faculty Board
• Is responsible for implementing administering
  the academic functions, including the QA
  improvement procedures. The terms of reference of
  the Board are set out in Appendix---
• 7.3 Faculty Executive
• Serves as the management team of the Faculty,
  with responsibility for the Faculty budget
  management of staff resources assigned to the
  Faculty

17
Part A Roles responsibilities

• 8. Role of Academic Council
• It is the statutory responsibility of Academic
  Council under the University Act (year?) to
  recommend implement appropriate procedures for
  programme validation, monitoring review, in
  order to maintain promote academic standards.
• 9. Committees of Academic Council
• Academic Council delegates some of its functions
  to specialist committees which carry them out in
  accordance with clearly defined terms of
  reference. The committee structure of the Council
  is shown in Fig.--- Terms of reference for each
  such committee are given in Appendix---

18
DIT Committee Structure for Quality Assurance

19
Part A Glossary of terms.

• Academic Council is a statutory body---
• Academic QA Committee is a sub-committee of---
• Accreditation is the process of validating
  approving a programme---
• Annual monitoring is part of the ongoing process
  of quality improvement---
• Annual monitoring report is the outcome of the
  process in which an approved programme is
  critically evaluated.
• Approval is the outcome of the validation
  process---
• European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) developed
  by the Commission of the European Communities----

20
Part B Programme ValidationChapter 1
Validation of new full-time or parttime programme

• Introduction
• Timetable for validation process
• New programme proposal
• Consideration of proposal by Faculty Board
• Consideration of proposal by the Deans
• Programme documentation
• Programme validation

21
Part B Programme Validation Chapter 1
Validation of a New Full-Time or Part-Time
Programme

• 1.1 Introduction
• Validation is the process whereby a new programme
  of study, initiated designed within a School,
  undergoes scrutiny by internal external peers
  before being considered for approval by Academic
  Council.
• The aim of the Facultys programme planning
  validation process is to ensure that
• Programme is consistent with the Facultys
  development plan
• Programme satisfies market niche / hospital /
  professions/societal need
• Academic standards of the programme appropriate
• Sufficient resources facilities available
• Requirements relevant regulatory bodies met

22
Chapter 1 Validation of new full-time or
part-time programme

• 1.2 Timetable for the validation process
• Process should be started well in advance (at
  least --- months in advance) of proposed starting
  date of programme
• 1.3 New programme proposal
• May be initiated by one or more staff members
  (Form --). All such proposals approved by the
  Dean are included in the Universities operational
  plan. The form requires the following
  information---
• 1.4 Consideration of Proposal by Faculty Board
• Evaluates the proposal in the context of the
  Facultys Development Plan

23
Chapter 1 Validation of a new full-time or
part-time programme

• 1.5 Consideration of proposal by Deans
• Ensure proposal consistent with policy
  strategic plan of the University that staff
  resources available/can be provided.
• 1.6 Development of proposal by Faculty Board
• Approve the set up Programme Committee
  Chairperson
• 1.7 Programme documentation
• Programme document A background information
• Programme document B programme information
• Approved by Faculty Board
• Sent to Academic QA Committee with minimum two
  nominations for validation event
• 1.8 Programme Validation
• Academic QA Committee set up validation panel who
  conduct validation

24
Chapter 1 Validation of new full-time or
part-time programme

• 1.8.1 Validation Panel
• Chairperson senior academic from another
  faculty
• Two members/nominees Academic QA committee
• Min. two external persons one senior academic,
  one senior professional
• QA Officer from office of academic registrar acts
  as secretary

25
Chapter 1Validation of new full-time or
part-time programme

• 1.8.2 Timetable Validation Event - Panel
• Preliminary private meeting
• Introduction to Dean, senior staff from schools
  responsible for programme
• Visit facilities available to programme
• Review discuss Documents A B
• Meet discuss specific issues with Programme
  committee
• Meet with all staff teaching on programme discuss
  syllabuses, teaching methods, assessment issues
• Draft initial report
• Present findings to Dean, senior staff,
  chairperson programme committee other staff as
  appropriate
• Final report issued

26
Chapter 1 Validation of new full-time or
part-time programme

• 1.8.3 Validation Report
• May approve or approve with specific
  recommendations
• Sent to Dean for attention of Faculty Board
• Sent to Programme Committee for implementation
• Faculty Board confirms satisfactory
• Academic QA Committee recommend programme
  approval to Academic Council
• Academic Council approve programme
• Department of Education Science approve
  programme
• Certificate of Approval issued by Academic QA

27
Part C Monitoring Review of Academic
ActivitiesChapter 2 Examinations

• General assessment regulations
• Confidentiality of examination process
• Internal examiners
• Examination results
• Consideration of exam results
• External examiners

28
Chapter 2 Examinations

• 2.1 General assessment regulations
• All exams administered under General Assessment
  Regulations. Applications for derogation must be
  submitted by Programme Committee via Faculty
  Board to Academic QA Committee approved by
  Academic Council
• 2.2 Confidentiality of examination process
• Only Heads of School nominated representatives
  may discuss summative exam results with students
• Examination Boards strictly confidential

29
Chapter 2 Examinations

• 2.3 Internal examiners
• Normally full-time or part-time members of
  academic lecturing staff
• Nominated by Head of School formally appointed
  by Faculty Board
• 2.4 Examination results
• The function of the Exam Board is to determine
  the results level of performance of each
  canditate

30
Chapter 2 Examinations

• 2.5 External examiners
• Must always be employed in respect of final year
  exams
• Appointment 3 years
• Two examiners per programme
• Nominated by Head of School
• Approved by Faculty Board
• Ratified by Academic Council
• Sent Approved Programme document, previous exam
  papers, exam schedules
• Examine scripts, projects, orals, examination
  boards
• Formal written report to Head of School,
  Chairperson Programme Committee, Office Director
  Academic Affairs

31
Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring

• Introduction
• Timetable for annual monitoring
• Annual monitoring report form
• Approval of proposed modifications
• Consideration of the report form

32
Chapter 3 Annual monitoring

• 3.1 Introduction
• To provide regular academic QA and improvement
  for each programme
• Prepared by Programme Committee
• Main purpose
• Follow-up from previous year
• Critically evaluate programme delivery
• Ensure academic standards maintained
• Consult consider feedback from External
  Examiners students
• Allow Programme Committee to identify implement
  corrective actions other changes annually
• Put in place an active plan for development
  improvement of programme

33
Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring

• 3.2 Timetable
• Report drafted by Programme Committee in June of
  academic year under review
• Finalised Autumn (November) following year
• 3.3 Report Form
• Includes following headings
• Key recommendations from previous years report
• Modifications to the programme
• Performance indicators
• Issues for new academic year
• Quality action plan

34
Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring

• 3.4 Approval of Proposed Modifications
• Minor modifications must be approved by Faculty
  Board include
• Change to admission inclusion of interview
• Addition/deletion/renaming of non-compulsory
  module
• Major modifications must be approved by Faculty
  Board, Academic QA Committee, Academic Council
  and include
• Change to programme title
• Change to admission requirements eg stipulation
  particular level in Mathematics
• Addition/deletion compulsory module
• 3.5 Consideration of Annual Monitoring Report
• Final report (November) endorsed by Head of
  School undertakes to implement actions
• Faculty Board considers report includes in
  Quality Action Plan. Monitors implementation
  actions

35
Chapter 4 Programme Review

• Introduction
• Timetable for the Programme Review
• Critical self-study by the Programme Committee
• Documentation required
• Consideration by the Faculty Board
• Review Event
• Programme Approval by Academic QA Committee
• Approved Programme Document

36
Chapter 4 Programme Review

• 4.1 Introduction
• Five yearly critical evaluation
• Main purpose
• Ensure academic standards maintained
• Ensure market demand exists
• Feedback from students, external examiners,
  industry, hospitals, professions, research
  institutes
• 4.2 Timetable
• Process started well in advance of proposed
  starting date of revised programme.

37
Chapter 4 Programme Review

• 4.3 Critical self-study
• Programme Committee critically evaluate all
  aspects determine strengths weaknesses
• 4.4 Documentation required
• Document Part A critical self-study
• Document Part B programme
• Approved by Head of School Faculty Board

38
Chapter 4 Programme Review

• 4.4 Review Event
• 4.5 Programme approval by Academic QA Committee
• 4.6 Approved Programme Document
• Procedures as for validation of new
  full-time or part-time programme (Chapter1)

39
Chapter 5 School Review

• Introduction
• Timetable for the review process
• Documentation provided by the School
• Self-study of the school
• Other documentation
• Consideration by the Faculty Board
• Appointment of the Review Panel
• School Review
• School Review Panel Report

40
Chapter 5 School review

• 5.1 Introduction
• Considers general position performance within
  Faculty University
• Range of activities
• Range quality taught programmes
• Research activities
• Staff development
• Management procedures
• Quality improvement procedures
• External environment
• Future plans

41
Chapter 5 School review

• 5.2 Timetable for the review process
• Five yearly review
• Commenced well in advance
• 5.3 Documentation provided by the School should
  include
• Student numbers projections
• Student success rates retention statistics
• Graduate profiles
• Academic resources activities
• Learning assessment strategies
• Programme management QA
• Analysis of internal external environment
• Self-study of each programme
• Report on annual monitoring
• Research profile
• Strategic plan

42
Chapter 5 School Review

• 5.4 Consideration by Faculty Board
• Documentation submitted to Faculty Board
• Approved documents submitted to Academic QA
  Committee along with two external panel
  nominations
• 5.5 Appointment of Review Panel
• Appointed by Academic QA Committee
• 5.6 School Review
• Panel established
• Review visit 2-3 days
• Consider documentation, meet management, staff,
  students, facilities
• Focus on implementation of recommendations
  previous visit quality improvement

43
Chapter 5 School Review

• 5.7 School review panel report
• Details of review event
• Summary panel discussions
• Conclusions with commendations recommendations

44
Chapter 6 Faculty Review

• Introduction
• Timetable for the review process
• Documentation required
• Consideration by Faculty Board
• Appointment of Review Panel
• Faculty Review
• Faculty Review report

45
Chapter 6 Faculty review

• 6.1 Introduction
• Purpose
• Enable the University to satisfy itself that
  policies particularly QA continuous improvement
  are being effectively implemented
• Consider faculties research scholarly activity
• Assess extent to which objectives with regards to
  access, transfer progression of students being
  achieved
• Provide mechanism for identification
  dissemination of best practice in QA programme
  delivery

46
Chapter 6 Faculty review

• 6.2 Timetable for review process
• Review every eight years
• 6.3 Documentation required
• Self-study documents to include
• Annual monitoring reports
• Programme validation review reports
• School review reports
• Faculty Board Programme Committee minutes
• 6.4 Consideration by Faculty Board
• Approved documentation submitted to Academic QA
  Committee

47
Chapter 6 Faculty Review

• 6.4 Appointment of Review Panel
• Panel comprises
• Dean from another Faculty
• Two nominees of Academic QA Committee from other
  Faculties
• Senior academic from another university
• Student or recent graduate of the Faculty
• Representative from the Office of the Academic
  Registrar
• 6.5 Faculty Review
• Review visit 2-3 days
• Presentation by Dean main activities, QA
  improvements
• Meetings with senior staff, academic staff,
  representatives of relevant external
  professional bodies, current former students

48
Chapter 6 Faculty review

• 6.6 Faculty review report
• Introduction explaining review process
• Background information on the Faculty, portfolio
  of programmes, validation status
• Details research activity
• Summary panel discussions
• List of commendations recommendations

49
Chapter 7 Quality Assurance in research degrees

• Annual evaluation of student performance
• School review
• Review of Faculty Research Scholarly Activity
• Timetable for Review Process
• Documentation provided by the Faculty
• Consideration by the Faculty Board
• Terms of reference for reviewers
• Report of the Review Panel

50
Chapter 7 Quality assurance in research degrees

• 7.1 Annual evaluation of student performance
• When student registered on research degree
  programme supervisor appointed progress
  monitored by Graduate Studies reported to
  Postgraduate Studies Research Committee
• Annual evaluation panels consider progress via
  report on research work, presentation, outputs
• Postgraduate Studies monitor completion rates,
  produce annual report
• 7.2 School Review
• Self-study includes information statistics
  regarding research students

51
Chapter 7 Quality Assurance in research degrees

• 7.3 Review of Faculty Research Scholarly
  Activity
• Main purpose to evaluate
• Approach to development research scholarly
  activity
• Strategy
• Outputs publications, funding, numbers
  students, international co-operation, etc
• Staff development activity
• QA systems continuous improvement
• Plans for future development

52
Chapter 7 Quality Assurance in research degrees

• 7.4 Timetable for the review process
• Review every five years
• Documentation provided by the Faculty
• University strategic plan
• University research strategy implementation
  plans
• Overview of research scholarly activity in
  Faculty
• Faculty mission statement strategy
  implementation of the strategy
• Student numbers
• Postgraduate supervisors
• Research training
• Research themes
• Collaborations with other Institutes
• Funding
• Publications Conferences
• Memberships National International Committees
  Boards

53
Chapter 7 Quality Assurance in research degrees

• 7.6 Consideration by Faculty Board
• Documentation approved by Faculty Board
• Submitted to Postgraduate Studies Research
  Committee along with names two panel nominees
• Review panel schedule
• Review documentation
• Meet School staff
• Meet School researchers
• Prepare report
• Meet with Dean Heads of School

54
Chapter 7 Quality assurance in research degrees

• 7.7 Report of review panel
• Submitted to
• Postgraduate Research Committee
• Academic QA Committee
• Faculty Board
• Faculty Board review with Schools

55
Acknowledgements

• Dr Maeve Moynihan
• Dr Thomas Duff, Academic Registrar, Dublin
  Institute of Technology.
• Thank you!