QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE FACULTY

 EMBOLDENED QUESTIONS

The priority questions and points are emboldened.  These are intended to act as a guide and help in deciding to what to address/include in preparing the report on the each area.  They are intended to help report compilers to identify points for inclusion.

The emboldened questions and points are followed by unemboldened words and numbers.  The unemboldened words indicate useful sources of documentation, whilst the numbers refer to the number of the pro-formas distributed as part of the documentation for the Faculty Review.

KEY AREAS OF FOCUS

1. Faculty policies and strategies for quality assurance.
2. Overall quality of quality assurance in the Faculty.
3. Main kinds of quality assurance strategies being used in the Faculty.
4. Identification of strengths and weaknesses in quality assurance in the Faculty.
5. The uses made of quality assurance practices and data in the Faculty.
6. Practices for monitoring and reviewing the actual quality of quality asurance in the Faculty.
7. Plans for interventions and staff development to improve the quality of quality assurance in the Faculty. 

KEY QUESTIONS

1. How high is the quality of quality assurance in the Faculty?
2. How do we know and how will we continue to know?
3. What is being done to improve quality assurance in the Faculty? 

CORE QUESTIONS

1. What are the Faculty's policies and strategies for monitoring the quality of its educational provision and the effectiveness of its operations? Policy documents, handbooks for each program and course, student handbooks, staff handbook, Faculty handbook, Faculty policy documents and codes of practice on curricula, equal opportunities, learning, teaching, assessment, student support, marking and examinations, plagiarism and cheating, policies regarding admission and retention of students, remedial and support work, awarding of credit, program & course regulations and instructions to examiners, policies regarding admission and retention of students, remedial and support work, awarding of credit, and policies governing public service.
2. What procedures and processes does the Faculty have for planning, monitoring, reviewing, and developing the quality assurance in the Faculty? Annual program reviews for the last three years for the program under review, annual program review data, full course-by-course and whole-program documentation, minutes of meetings for QA in the Faculty, responsibilities for QA on the program, and who is responsible for what.
3. How does the Faculty know and inform itself and stakeholders if these procedures and processes are working/being used? Annual program reviews for the last three years for the program under review, annual program review data, full course-by-course and whole-program documentation, minutes of meetings for QA in the Faculty.
4. Are the procedures and processes for planning, monitoring, reviewing, and developing the quality assurance in the Faculty in place, operating and effective in meeting the Faculty's stated mission, values, purposes, policies, self-evaluation contents and criteria for the effectiveness of the Faculty?
5. How does the Faculty inform itself/stakeholders about how these procedures and processes for the Faculty are effective in terms of outcomes and quality (i.e. impact analysis)? Annual program reviews for the last three years for the program under review, annual program review data, full course-by-course and whole-program documentation.
6. How high is the quality of the quality assurance the Faculty, and how does the Faculty know?  Annual program reviews for the last three years for the program under review, annual program review data, full course-by-course and whole-program documentation, minutes of meetings for QA in the Faculty
7. How has the Faculty improved the quality of its quality assurance over time, and how does it know?
8. What recommendations can be made for needed interventions and developments to develop further the quality assurance in the Faculty?
9. What does the Faculty do to monitor and improve the quality assurance in the Faculty?
10. How effective are arrangements for periodic review of courses, modules and new programs of study? Annual program reviews for the last three years for the program under review, annual program review data, full course-by-course and whole-program documentation, minutes of meetings for QA in the Faculty, policies in relation to admission, retention, assessment and evaluation of the program, staff and students.
11. Who has formal responsibility for quality assurance and development in the Faculty (who is responsible for which aspects)?  Who are the senior personnel in the Faculty who take responsibility for the monitoring, control, review and continuous enhancement of the quality of programs and the work of the Faculty?
12. How are students in the Faculty involved in quality assurance in the Faculty?
13. What are the quality assurance mechanisms, processes, timeliness, frequency, contents, standards, outcomes and impact with respect to monitoring, developing and improving the work of the Faculty (i.e. how does the university inform itself about, and guarantee, the quality here)?

IMPLEMENTATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE

1. What strategies does the Faculty have for improving quality assurance, and what is the impact of these on learning and outcomes?
2. What use is made of student feedback in quality assurance?
3. What strategies are there for staff development to improve quality assurance, and what is the impact of these?
4. What information systems and indicator systems does the Faculty use to assure itself of the quality of its work?
5. What use is made of quantitative and qualitative data for quality assurance?  What data exist and are used?
6. How and where are quality and its assurance and development discussed, promoted and continuously ensured in the Faculty?
7. What are the internal processes and systems for new proposals, for regular review and for changes to programs?
8. What are the processes for collating feedback from staff/students/external parties, including employers, on the work of the Faculty, and what are the processes for action to be taken and results to be monitored?
9. What stakeholder input is there into the quality assurance in the Faculty?

SUMMARY FOR QUALITY ASSURANCE IN THE FACULTY

1. Current strengths and weaknesses in quality assurance in the Faculty.
2. Future directions in quality assurance in the Faculty.
3. Key challenges and prospects in quality assurance in the Faculty.
4. Key opportunities for quality assurance in the Faculty.

Download a pdf of Quality assurance in the Faculty (pdf)

Back