2 Contents 1. Quality Assurance Framework Principles underpinning the Quality Assurance Framework Governance Overview Review of governance arrangements Planning and review Overview Strategic Planning Annual Business Plan Risk management Policy Overview Roles and responsibilities Policy development Policy review Policy record management Policy implementation and dissemination Course development and review Course development and approval Course monitoring, review and improvement Stakeholder feedback Information, information management, data collection and analysis Information and information management Data collection Benchmarking Overview Benchmarking process Moderation of Assessment Pre-assessment moderation Post-assessment moderation External moderation Reporting Instrument management and version history Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 2
3 1. Quality Assurance Framework The International College of Management, Sydney ( the College or ICMS ) has established a Quality Assurance Framework to assure the quality of its operations and its academic outcomes. Quality assurance refers to the planning, policies, attitudes, actions, and procedures necessary to ensure that quality is being maintained and enhanced. It requires actions internal to the College, but also includes the involvement of external bodies. Quality assurance involves the: Governance of the College Strategic planning (including business planning) Risk management Development and dissemination of policies and procedures Course design and evaluation Systems of review involving the collection and use of feedback from stakeholders Collation and analysis of statistical data (metrics) Benchmarking Partnerships The Quality Assurance Framework has been designed to provide a robust and coordinated approach to quality assurance. In doing so it makes reference to the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency s (TEQSA) Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 and examples of best practice in the non selfaccrediting higher education sector. It embraces a continuous quality improvement methodology. This continuous quality improvement approach is integrated into the College s strategic planning and risk management methodology and is aligned to the College s strategic and operational objectives. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 3
4 1.1 Principles underpinning the Quality Assurance Framework ICMS constantly monitors and considers evidence about how effectively it is accomplishing its institutional purpose and strategic objectives. Such considerations inform the institution s strategic planning and its establishment of priorities within its component units, and may lead to the revision of strategic objectives, approaches to teaching and learning, and planning and budgeting priorities. There is an institution-wide commitment to continuous quality improvement. Review and evaluation The college monitors the extent to which its objectives are being achieved through a systematic planning, monitoring, review and improvement cycle. It uses these measures to set performance indicators which are continually reviewed through a cycle of continuous quality improvement. A key element of this quality assurance process is responding to feedback from the institution s main stakeholders. ICMS has embedded responsibility for quality assurance and continuous improvement within its overall approach to planning, review and accreditation. The Quality Improvement Cycle can be applied to any activity at any level within ICMS. Type Individual level Operational level Institution level Description Application of quality improvement can occur in relation to an individual s interaction with a process or activity At the operational level, there is a focus on ensuring that the College s core educational and business activities are conducted with maximum effectiveness and efficiency Quality improvement at the College level involves visioning, governance and planning Quality Improvement Cycle The Quality Improvement Cycle is based on the following principles: Clear alignment to ICMS s priorities An overarching cycle of continuous improvement which can be applied to all departments in the College Systematic use of qualitative information and quantitative data for identifying improvement opportunities, monitoring impact, and judging the effectiveness of changes The use of the Quality Improvement Cycle approach A focus on the development of staff as well as systems and processes as an outcome of the quality assurance check Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 4
5 The Plan, Do, Check, Act (PDCA) quality improvement cycle is used to: Determine and evaluate performance indicators Identify opportunities to improve systems and processes in key areas of organisational performance Evaluate a department s achievements Fig 1: Quality Improvement Cycle Quality enhancement is part of a continuous cycle, is evidence-based, is open and transparent, is student-focused, identifies areas for improvement, is devolved and is efficient. Under the cycle regular assessment is made for governance, strategy and policy, management and evaluation. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 5
6 2. Governance 2.1 Overview The cornerstone of the College s Quality Assurance Framework is the integrated system of corporate and academic governance outlined in its Governance Charter. The Governance Charter provides a robust and transparent foundation for informed and competent decision-making, direction setting and oversight of the College through a series of interlinking boards and committees ( governance bodies ) with specific responsibilities and terms of reference. Membership of each governance body is designed to provide a basis for informed and independent advice at all levels of the College s operations, both corporate and academic. The Board of Directors delegates authority as necessary for effective governance of the academic and corporate aspects of the College as well as the facilitation of the smooth day-to-day operations of the College by senior management. The Board of Directors monitors those delegations through a regular cycle of review. 2.2 Review of governance arrangements At least every seven years, the Board of Directors undertakes an independent review of the effectiveness of its governing bodies and academic governance processes in accordance with the Higher Education Standard 6.1.3d. The Board is responsible for ensuring that the findings of the review are fully considered and that agreed actions are implemented. The focus of such a review is to obtain evidence of the effectiveness of the College s own capacity to review and quality assure its own educational operations. The scope of the governance review should include the extent to which the governing bodies fulfil the range of responsibilities outlined for them in Standards 6.1.3, 6.2 and 6.3. Review of governance arrangements The review will consider whether: the overall governance structure and the type and number of governance bodies are appropriate for the size and mission of the College the terms of reference for each governance body are appropriate and clearly understood the number and categories of membership of each of the governance bodies is appropriate to achieve its functions the balance and type of members is the optimum to achieve the College s strategic objectives that the delegations currently in place are appropriate and meet the ongoing operational needs of the College any other matters determined by the Board of Directors Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 6
7 In addition, every three years, the Board of Directors undertakes a formal review to assess the currency and effectiveness of its Quality Assurance Framework, Governance Charter and Delegations of Authority in order to identify any improvements that might enhance the overall effectiveness of the organisation s corporate and academic governance. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 7
8 3. Planning and review 3.1 Overview The College s approach to planning includes the development and use of a series of interlinked plans which are reviewed and updated regularly. This planning process not only allows the College to focus on its operations, but also provides a framework of ownership and accountability for all College staff. 3.2 Strategic Planning The Board of Directors develops a three-year Strategic Plan to determine ICMS future directions in higher education, to create a culture that is proactive and forward-looking, promotes unity of purpose, and clearly articulates the College s near-term strategic objectives. The Strategic Plan is developed through the following process: Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 8
9 Strategic initiatives are regularly reviewed to ensure that they are being met and that responsible persons are held accountable for achieving the actions allocated to them within the agreed timeframe. During the final year of the life of the Strategic Plan a new plan is developed for approval by the Board of Directors. 3.3 Annual Business Plan The College prepares an Annual Business Plan which incorporates the action plan to achieve strategic objectives, performance targets, planned capital expenditure and a variety of localised plans that align to the strategic objectives and regulatory requirements. These plans are as follows: Marketing plan Financial plan Teaching and Learning Plan Student Services Plan Operations Plan Risk Management Plan The progress against the Annual Business Plan is monitored continuously and updates made quarterly by the Executive Management Group. A report against the Annual Business Plan is provided by the CEO at each meeting of the Board of Directors. Where actions have not been completed in the agreed timeframe, or underperformance has been identified, the report will explain why objectives have not been met or have changed and what remedial action has been or will be undertaken to achieve the strategic objective or to correct underperformance. Localised plans are disseminated to identified stakeholders and regularly monitored by the Executive Management Group to ensure that objectives are being met, continue to align with the College s strategic goals and that remedial action is taken to correct underperformance. 3.4 Risk management In accordance with Higher Education Standard 6.2.1e, the College must identify risks to higher education operations and ensure that material risks are managed and mitigated effectively. As such, the College utilises a Risk Management Plan, which includes a Risk Register, as a mechanism to systematically identify, analyse, evaluate, monitor and minimise risk. Risk management is critical to the overall performance of the College and therefore forms an integral part of the overall planning for the organisation. Risk management is overseen by the Board of Directors and regularly monitored by the Executive Management Group. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 9
10 4. Policy 4.1 Overview An ICMS policy is defined as a high-level statement of principle that outlines nondiscretionary governing intentions and actions to reflect and guide the College s decision-making, practice and conduct. The College has developed a comprehensive suite of policies as part of it Quality Assurance Framework in order to ensure effective governance of its academic and non-academic operations. These policies are supported by a variety of procedures, forms, and systems to ensure that policy decisions are effectively implemented across the College. The Board of Directors and the Academic Board as the peak governing bodies have oversight for quality assurance-related and non-academic policies 1, and academicrelated policies respectively. Both bodies ensure that all policies align to the College s strategic direction and all regulatory requirements. 4.2 Roles and responsibilities Key roles for policy management at the College include: Policy owners are the primary point of contact for any given policy. They are responsible for implementation, proposing amendments, conducting reviews in accordance with the four-year review cycle, establishing strategies for communication and education, and identifying changes to other instruments and processes as a result of changes to the policy. The approving body is either the Board of Directors for the approval of qualityassurance related and non-academic policies 2 or the Academic Board for the approval of academic-related policies. The policy coordinator oversees the publication of policies, provides guidance during the policy development, review and approval phases, undertakes quality assurance checks for consistency and compliance, and publishes policy guidelines and tools. The policy coordinator undertakes this role on behalf of the Executive Management Group. The Executive Management Group ensures that policies are implemented, disseminated and systematically reviewed in accordance with the College s policy review cycle. In practice, these tasks are undertaken by the policy owner and policy coordinator. In addition, EMG has authority to approve lower-level procedures that support the implementation of policies. Policies apply to the College as a whole and guide the College s decision making. As a result, the approving bodies retain authority for developing or amending any College policy. However, not all activities at the College need to be covered by high-level policies; it may be that lower level procedures or guidelines may be more appropriate. Such procedures and guidelines may be developed and approved by EMG and must comply with existing policy and legislative requirements. The policy owner and approving body is documented within each policy and the Policy Register. 1 The Board of Directors retains authority to approve policies relating to student grievances. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 10
11 4.3 Policy development Triggers The need for new policy may be identified by one of the governance bodies, or another stakeholder. The triggers for a new policy may include: changes to regulatory and/or legislative requirements; changes to the external operating environment; changes to the strategic direction of the College or internal operating plans and procedures; outcomes of audit or review; changes to the nature and/or scope of the College s risk management plan; identification of content gaps and overlaps with other policies, and/or an accumulation of logged issues; and/or four-year review date. Research stage As part of the research phase of the policy development process the policy owner will consider: the rationale for developing a new policy and what it is intended to achieve; relevant regulatory and legislative requirements; existing College policies to ensure that there is no policy overlap; the application of the policy in practice and how it will impact other instruments, stakeholders and College systems; how and when the policy will be implemented. Consultation stage The policy owner consults with relevant stakeholders, including the policy coordinator, during the development process. The level, extent and timeframes for the consultation stage will depend on type of policy being developed. Appropriate consultation will ensure that the policy development process is sound and that the policy can be effectively implemented. It will also help to avoid any issues relating to deliberate or inadvertent non-compliance. The policy owner drafts the policy and any related procedures and forms in accordance with the College s policy review guidelines and templates. Approval stage Once the policy owner is satisfied that the draft policy has undergone robust consultation with relevant stakeholders and quality checks with the policy coordinator, the final draft of the policy may be submitted to the relevant approving body for approval. The policy coordinator will work with the policy owner to finalise a formal approval process and timeline, as well as a publication timeline. As part of the paperwork submitted, policy owners are required to identify how the policy will be implemented, the implementation date and any other consequential changes to other instruments and systems that will be required as a result of the new policy. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 11
12 The approving body for all quality-assurance related and non-academic policies is the Board of Directors 2. The approving body for all academic-related policies is the Academic Board. In the event of any doubt, policies will be referred to the Board of Directors. Once the policy has been approved by the approving body, the policy will be published in the Policy Register and implemented and disseminated accordingly by the policy owner and Executive Management Group. 4.4 Policy review The College s policies are reviewed every four years in accordance with the policy review cycle in the Policy Register. The level, extent and timeframes for the review stage will depend on type of policy being reviewed. All related procedural documents, forms and other consequential changes to other instruments and systems are reviewed and identified concurrently with the policy. Triggers The policy review process is either prompted by the policy coordinator or initiated by the policy owner. During the policy review process due consideration is given to the following: does the policy achieve its stated purpose; is the policy consistent with good practice guidelines; does it still comply with all legal, regulatory and legislative requirements; does the policy continue to meet stakeholders needs; is the policy consistent with the College s strategic direction; is the policy being complied with at an operational level with and does it work in practice; are roles and responsibilities in relation to implementation working and clearly defined; is the policy consistent with other College policies, the Governance Charter and the Quality Assurance Framework; in the event of updates being required, have consequential changes to other instruments or Colleges systems been identified as part of the review process. Major and minor amendments Policy amendments can be considered as being either major or minor. Major amendments change the meaning or intent of the policy and will require appropriate consultation, communication and implementation strategies. Major changes to policy must be considered by the relevant approving body. Minor amendments are editorial and/or insubstantial changes that do not affect the title, substance or intent of the policy. Minor amendments might include typographical errors or previously approved changes (eg. name change to a College title or position). The policy coordinator has authority to make minor amendments to policies. 2 The Board of Directors retains authority to approve policies relating to student grievances. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 12
13 Consultation stage Upon consideration of these matters, a decision will be made to either simply update the existing policy or rescind the existing policy and replace it with a new policy. The policy owner will consult with relevant stakeholders, including the policy coordinator, during the review process. The level, extent and timeframes for the consultation stage will depend on type of policy being reviewed. Appropriate consultation will ensure that the policy review process is sound and that the revised policy can be effectively implemented. It will also help to avoid any issues relating to deliberate or inadvertent non-compliance. Approval stage Once the policy owner is satisfied that the draft revised policy has undergone robust consultation and quality checks, the final draft of the revised policy may be submitted to the relevant approving body for approval. The policy coordinator will work with the policy owner to finalise a formal approval process and timeline, as well as a publication timeline. As part of the paperwork submitted, policy owners are required to identify how the policy will be implemented, the implementation date and any other consequential changes to other instruments and systems that will be required as a result of the new policy. The approving body for all quality-assurance related and non-academic policies is the Board of Directors 2. The approving body for all academic-related policies is the Academic Board. In the event of any doubt, policies will be referred to the Board of Directors. 4.5 Policy record management A register of all policies and approval records will be maintained by the policy coordinator on behalf of the Executive Management Group. 4.6 Policy implementation and dissemination As part of the paperwork submitted to the approving body, implementation and communication strategies for any new, revised and/or rescinded policies will be clearly outlined. This will include the identification of relevant stakeholders and appropriate notification methods and timelines. The Executive Management Group and policy owner have overall responsibility for policy implementation and dissemination and will ensure that all stakeholders are fully informed of changes and their implications. Once a policy has been approved, the policy coordinator will oversee the publication process in liaison with the policy owner in accordance with the approved implementation date. Confirmation of approval will be communicated to the policy owner and Executive Management Group for onward communication to all stakeholders and implementation. Approved policies are readily and easily accessible to all relevant stakeholders and are maintained within the College s intranet, website or its management portal. All academic governance and educational policies are publicly available via the College s website. 2 The Board of Directors retains authority to approve policies relating to student grievances. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 13
14 5. Course development and review The College has adopted a Course Development and Approval Policy and Procedure and a Course Review and Improvement Policy to provide appropriate frameworks for course development and review and to articulate processes for the internal approval of the delivery of a course in accordance with Standard 5 of the Higher Education Standards Framework. 5.1 Course development and approval The College has developed a comprehensive course development process as detailed in the Course Development and Approval Policy and Procedure. It provides a framework for the design of new courses of study and articulates the internal approval processes for the delivery of all courses of study leading to a higher education qualification. These course approval processes are overseen by the Academic Board as the peak academic governance body at the College. To ensure quality in course design and content, and academic scrutiny, courses are developed in consultation with a Course Development and Advisory Sub- Committee (CDASC), which comprises a group of members who are competent to assess the design, delivery and assessment of the course independently of the staff directly involved in those aspects of the course. The membership of the CDAC comprises members relevant to the discipline who are drawn from the Teaching and Learning Committee, academic staff, other higher education providers, the professions and industry as well as those with curriculum design and development expertise. It is imperative that all courses to be approved or accredited meet, and continue to meet, the applicable Standards of the Higher Education Standards Framework. It is ensured that course design, expected learning outcomes and assessment methods are consistent with the level and field of education awarded and are broadly comparable to similar courses at the same level at other higher education providers. Accordingly the course development process includes a comprehensive benchmarking exercise against similar higher education courses delivered by other providers. 5.2 Course monitoring, review and improvement The principles for course review and improvement at the College are detailed in the Course Review and Improvement Policy and Procedure. In general, all accredited courses are subject to comprehensive reviews and interim monitoring, both of which are overseen by the Academic Board as the peak academic governance body at the College. Review and improvement activities include regular external referencing of student cohorts against comparable courses of study in accordance with Higher Education Standard Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 14
15 In summary the course review process consists of three elements: 1. Continuous evaluation of delivery and assessment Mechanisms for continuously monitoring, reviewing and improving courses including: Student feedback Teaching staff feedback and peer review Moderation of assessment Robust academic governance processes (Teaching and Learning Committee and Course Advisory and Development Committee) Benchmarking of the success of student cohorts against comparable courses 2. Annual Review An Annual Review of each accredited course and its constituent subjects is undertaken to monitor and evaluate: Student need and demand for the course Overall delivery of the subjects within each course including the range, depth, and currency of subjects available The quality of teaching The quality, scope and adequacy of course-related information provided to students and prospective students The appropriateness and flexibility of the course s methods of delivery in relation to student need and demand Analysis of significant trends drawn from student and teacher evaluation and feedback data Summary data and analysis related to student progress and grade distributions Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 15
16 3. Triennial Review A comprehensive Triennial Review of each course, which is informed and supported both by continuous evaluation of delivery and assessment and annual reviews, is undertaken to monitor and evaluate the following criteria: Student need and demand for the course over the preceding three years and estimates of the future demand The design and content of a course including course aims, structure, subjects, expected learning outcomes, assessment methods, resources, modes of delivery, alignment with the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF), changing needs of students and identified risks to the quality of the course. Currency, and appropriateness of assessment methods and criteria Accountability for the delivery of the course Quality of student and teacher support services Role of the course within the College s educational profile and its ongoing contribution to the mission and goals of the College The impact of similar courses on the College s course offerings by competitor higher education providers The systematic collection and analysis of data relating to admission and enrolment statistics, deferral, withdrawal and retention rates, student results per subject, graduate employability, feedback from professional bodies and peer review processes External referencing or other benchmarking activities. The results of the aforementioned course review and improvement activities are used to mitigate future risks to the quality of the education provided and to guide and evaluate improvements at the College. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 16
17 6. Stakeholder feedback In accordance with the Higher Education Standards and 5.3.4, all students must have opportunities to provide feedback on their educational experiences and student feedback informs institutional monitoring, review and improvement activities. All teachers and supervisors have opportunities to review feedback on their teaching and research supervision and are supported in enhancing these activities. The College gathers stakeholder feedback from students, teachers, graduates and employers. The College does so through the use of approved survey instruments (which consist of both in-house tools as well as externally facilitated surveys). A list of all approved survey instruments is stored in the Quality Assurance Calendar the Calendar also records more specific details of each of the surveys (including who is responsible for conducting the survey, and when the survey is conducted. The stakeholder feedback data is analysed so that the College can: assess its performance in various areas; identify areas in need of improvement; develop action and improvement plans to address target areas: It does so through the following process: Surveys are conducted in accordance with the schedule outlined Quality Assurance Calendar Resulting reports detailing survey outcomes, and addressing any recommended actions are tabled at relevant the governance committee and/or board and are recorded in the relevant section of the ICMS Management Portal, for example the Governance Ops section under the relevant committee and /or board Outstanding actions are monitored by the Executive Management Group and, where relevant, the Academic Board until they are completed. Where deemed relevant, the Executive Management Group ensures that stakeholders are advised of changes made in response to their feedback. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 17
18 7. Information, information management, data collection and analysis 7.1 Information and information management The College is committed to ensuring that transparent, accurate, relevant and timely information for prospective and current students is publicly available and accessible. This includes information in order to: assist with decision making around courses or subjects; plan or participate in educational activities; outline student obligations, expected standards of behaviour and liabilities; outline academic related governance policies and requirements (such admissions, credit for prior learning, progression, etc); facilitate access to services and support; assist with the resolution of grievances; assist international students; give reasonable notice of changes to the College s operations. Information regarding all of the above is published through various means such as the College s marketing and pre-enrolment material, website, the student handbook and student portal. In addition, the College holds a repository of publicly-available information about its operations through the College s website. 7.2 Data collection Analysis The collection, analysis, and reporting of statistical data is recognised as a key component of a robust quality management system. Further it is essential that the College s governance bodies consider and act on relevant data such as teaching evaluations, student feedback, student attrition, progress rates, grade distributions, course completions and graduate satisfaction. The College collects a variety of data for analysis including: Stakeholder feedback from students, teachers, graduates and employers; and a defined set of metrics determined by the Academic Board which may include access and participation, attrition, retention and success rates and grade distributions for subjects and courses. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 18
19 Reporting The College regularly produces a set of standard reports on key performance areas. These reports assist senior management and governance bodies to systematically assess how the College is performing across a variety of key measures of educational performance and to identify areas for improvement: The reports provide both trend data (showing performance over time) as well as providing comparisons between cohorts of students (such as domestic and international), different courses and the various disciplines offered by the College. In order to improve standards, course outcomes and student satisfaction the Teaching & Learning Committee considers the data collected and as a result recommends to the Academic Board any improvement actions required. For all action items a clear allocation of responsibility, resources requirements and timelines is determined. [ Note: Where the amounts required to operationalise the improvement action exceed the budgeted allocation, the CEO will report this to the Board of Directors, and where necessary request additional funding]. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 19
20 8. Benchmarking 8.1 Overview Benchmarking involves the systematic collection of data with a view to making relevant comparisons of aspects of an organisation s processes, performance or outcomes with peer institutions to support evidence-based decision making. a structured, collaborative, learning process for comparing practices, processes or performance outcomes. Its purpose is to identify comparative strengths and weaknesses, as a basis for developing improvements in academic quality. Benchmarking can also be defined as a quality process used to evaluate performance by comparing institutional practices to sector good practice. 2 At ICMS, benchmarking informs the process for ensuring that learning outcomes are specified and consistent with the level and field of education of the qualification awarded. It is also an integral aspect of all course review and improvement activities. In accordance with Higher Education Standard 5.3.4, review and improvement activities must include regular and external referencing of the success of student cohorts against comparable courses including 1) the analyses of progression rates, attrition rates, completion times and rates and 2) the assessment methods of grading of students achievement of learning outcomes for selected subjects within courses. Benchmarking allows the College to: Identify areas for improvement and areas of good practice Measure and compare the College to other higher education providers in the sector to determine variations in quality or academic standards 3 Obtain data to analyse variations and to support decision-making Determine actions and formulate strategies to improve performance and processes Undertake a self-evaluation of performance and process Strengthen the College s identity by enhancing its reputation Benchmarking process The College has developed the following process to compare and benchmark academic and operational processes and outcomes with peer institutions. To support the benchmarking process the College forms partnerships with other higher education providers (both non self-accrediting and self-accrediting) to develop and implement ongoing benchmarking relationships. 2 TEQSA, TEQSA, Guidance Note Benchmarking 4 European Union (2008). Benchmarking in European Higher Education, Brussels. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 20
21 The College undertakes regular benchmarking as follows: The relevant governance body, for example the Teaching and Learning Committee determines the benchmarking partner(s) and specify the subject/topic/item/component/activity/outcome for benchmarking. Benchmarking will include comparative data, and will evaluate the processes by which results are collated and analysed. The benchmarking partner works in collaboration with the College to develop a report highlighting comparative strengths and/or weaknesses. The Final Report is presented to the Academic Board and includes the recommendations for improvements and changes for the Academic Board s consideration and endorsement. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 21
22 9. Moderation of Assessment Moderation is the process of ensuring that assessment validly and reliably measures achievement of expected learning outcomes in a subject of study. Moderation as a continuous improvement process is a model for bringing assessment judgements and standards into alignment 5. It s a process for developing comparability of assessment judgments and applies it in a range of assessment contexts (for example, students taking the same subject within a class/group; students taking different subjects within the same course; students taking different courses within the same institution, etc.). Moderation is the responsibility of the Academic Board. The Academic Board delegates internal subject moderation of assessment to the Teaching and Learning Committee and the Board of Examiners The College quality assures the assessment process by moderating grades as well as moderating individual assessment items. The Teaching and Learning Committee and/or the Board of Examiners reviews the effectiveness of the following moderation at least once every three years and recommends such changes as it thinks fit to the Academic Board. The Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies are responsible for: Pre-assessment moderation of assessment tasks before first use Post-assessment moderation of grades Reporting the outcomes of moderation activity 9.1 Pre-assessment moderation Pre-assessment moderation validates the appropriateness, fairness, clarity, accuracy and standard of assessment tasks and materials before they are used for assessment. The validation of assessments and materials in this way ensures consistency of assessment standards. Moderation at the College is effected through Course Development and Advisory Committees for new courses and the annual review process for current courses. Pre-Assessment Moderation New or revised assessment tasks are subject to pre-assessment moderation conducted by the Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies before they are used. To ensure that the assessment task(s): Is appropriately aligned to the published learning outcomes and assessment requirements listed in the subject outline Aligns to subject learning outcomes and content Provides consistent results Are flexible enough to cater for the needs of different learners; Actually work in practice Content and instructions are clearly, comprehensibly and accurately presented 5 National Quality Council, Implementation Guide: Validation and Moderation, 2009 Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 22
23 Provides an level of academic challenge that is consistent with the level of the subject Where feasible, assessment tasks within and between subjects are integrated Only requires resources which are available to the student Note: Pre-assessment moderation occurs on a continuous basis to ensure that assessments comply with the College s assessment setting criteria. These criteria must be met every time an assessment changes. The Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies prepare a pre-assessment moderation report as part of the annual review process. 9.2 Post-assessment moderation For each subject offered in a teaching period, the marking of (all) assessment tasks are subject to a post-assessment moderation process. This is done to ensure consistent and accurate assessment decisions and standards in accordance with the College s Moderation of Assessments and Subject Results Policy and published assessment criteria. The moderation of grades (within a subject) seeks to ensure that there is a fair or normal distribution of grades. The Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies will consider samples from students studying a particular subject in each teaching period to determine the fairness of the application of the assessment criteria for all students, the appropriateness of the assessment scheme and all summative assessment items for students in a subject. The Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies will ensure that: the standard of achievement is uniform, particularly for subjects being delivered to different groups of students by different staff assessment is consistent by reviewing a sample of submitted tasks Where the same subject is offered across different courses, post-assessment moderation will be common across all courses to ensure consistency of standards. The Heads of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Studies compile a post-assessment moderation report setting out their findings and recommendations and present it to the Board of Examiners within one week of the end of each teaching period. The Board of Examiners ensures that any necessary actions (such as re-marking or the amendment of grades) are taken before confirming the provisional results to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) who authorises the release of the results External moderation At least once every three years the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) will arrange for each subject of study to be externally moderated (i.e. by an independent moderator) to broaden the scope and reliability of the moderation process. External moderators will be sourced from other higher education providers, which may be one of the College s benchmarking partners. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 23
24 9.3 Reporting The external moderator will receive a selection of student assessment tasks representing all teaching staff delivering the subject. The assessment tasks selected must include at least one sample per grade for each assessment item including two HD grades, two Pass grades and two Fail grades. The external moderator will make a judgement regarding the quality of the academic grading of student work within the selected subject and that the marking of assessment is consistent, valid and reliable. The external subject moderator will compile a post-assessment moderation report setting out their findings and recommendations and present it to the Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic). The Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) will report the findings to the Academic Board and ensure that any necessary actions arising from the external moderator s feedback is incorporated into the subject in the subsequent study period. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) must maintain a record of the outcomes of any pre-assessment moderation undertaken. The record will, at a minimum, contain information on the assessment tasks moderated and the number and nature of changes to tasks arising from the moderation process. The Deputy Vice Chancellor (Academic) must maintain a record of the outcomes of all post-assessment moderation. The record will, at a minimum, contain information on the subjects moderated, the number of instances in which marking discrepancies were identified, and any follow-up actions. The Academic Board monitors the conduct and outcomes of moderation across the College via reports from the Board of Examiners to ensure that the assessment moderation process is effective. Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 24
25 10. Instrument management and version history The Quality Assurance Framework, together with the Governance Charter and Delegations of Authority Schedule, are publicly available on the ICMS website. These instruments are subject to a three-yearly review cycle. All proposed amendments and cycles of review relating to these instruments are managed by the Quality Assurance Team. Version History Version Approved by Approval Date Details 1.0 Board of Directors 24 Nov 2014 Document creation 2.0 Board of Directors 22 June Board of Directors 14 June 2017 Document owner: Board of Directors through the CEO Various changes, resulting from an overall review of the document Various amendments to ensure alignment with the Higher Education Standards Framework 2015 that came into effect in January 2017 Acknowledgements Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2015 TEQSA s Guidance Notes Quality Assurance Framework Approved Board of Directors 14 June 2017 International College of Management, Sydney 25
Hartpury Quality Enhancement Framework Curriculum Development Section Page 1 of 10 Curriculum Development This section of the framework covers the development and approval of new programmes and modules,
Procedure Title Parent Policy Date Effective Review Date Procedure Owner Category Graduate Research Course Review Procedures Graduate Research Course Accreditation and Review Policy 01-Jan-2018 01-Jan-2021
PARTNER MANUAL OFFSHORE PROGRAMS 2018 Contents CEO Welcome... 2 Overview... 3 Purpose of the Partner Manual... 3 Interaction with other Melbourne Polytechnic documents... 3 Priority of regulatory requirements...
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of KLC School of Design June 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about KLC School of Design... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
UK Quality Code for Higher Education Advice and Guidance Course Design and Development UK Quality Code - Advice and Guidance Course Design and Development Contents Regulatory contexts for the Quality Code
Policy for Programme Approval, Review & Amendment Contents 1. Scope and Purpose 2. Principles of Programme Approval and Periodic Review 3. Scrutiny and Approval 4. Part A - Approval in Principle 5. Part
Course Accreditation for Orthotic/Prosthetic Training Programs in Australia: Application Guidelines for Interim Accreditation May 2016 0 P a g e About the Australian Orthotic Prosthetic Association The
Quality Review Visit Handbook a For Wales November December 2016 2015 Contents Gateway process overview 1 Chapter 1: Introduction and Quality Review Visit overview 4 Introduction 4 Aims of Quality Review
Open Awards Standardisation Policy and Procedure Standardisation Policy and Procedures Definition Standardisation In the context of assessment, this describes the process through which those involved in
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Union School of Theology April 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 Affirmation
Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Bournemouth University International College April 2018 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Quality Assurance and Review Process Procedure Policy Code: Table of Contents Purpose... 1 Scope... 1 Legislative Context... 1 Definitions... 2 Actions... 3 A -Internal Quality Audits... 3 B - Centre for
ACADEMIC QUALITY STANDARDS Approved by: Academic Board Date: 23 November 2017 Date Effective: 1 January 2018 Date of Next Review: 23 November 2020 Document No: UOWC-STD-AQ-02 Version: 1 Custodian: Supporting
MELBOURNE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Principles of Governance 2. MSE GOVERNANCE CHART 3. MSE COMMITTEES OF GOVERNANCE 3.1. School Executive 3.2. Research
Document Reference: Reference Code: Introduction to the Quality and Standards Handbook QAintr1 Version: 1.2 Date of Implementation: June 2013 Originator: Approval by: Quality & Standards Committee Quality
Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Navitas UK Holdings Ltd April 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about... 2 Good practice... 2 Theme: Digital Literacies...
Framework for the Management of Quality Assurance and Enhancement Aim 1 The overall aim of the University s framework for the management of quality assurance and enhancement (QA&E) is to demonstrate that
Northumbria University Framework for Quality and Standards Item Description Document Reference: Document Name: Framework for Quality and Standards 2016/17 Academic Year Review Date: August 2017 Last Reviewed:
Quality Review Visit of City of Wolverhampton College March 2017 Key findings QAA's rounded judgements about City of Wolverhampton College The QAA review team formed the following rounded judgements about
Guidance Notes on Programme Area Accreditation Version 2.3 August 2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Eligibility 3. Scope of Programme Area 4. Institutional Review and Discipline Review 5. Accreditation
POLICY TITLE: Course Quality Control & Review Purpose This policy describes the policy and procedures to which all staff must adhere to ensure the integrity and quality of the courses and the procedures
Higher Education Review of The Royal Veterinary College February 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about The Royal Veterinary College... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of London School of Commerce (a division of St Piran's School (GB) Ltd) October 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about
POLICY TITLE: Academic Quality Assurance Framework Purpose Academic governance and the oversight of quality assurance in teaching and learning is a requirement of the Higher Education Standards Framework
Quality Review Visit of Sussex Coast College Hastings May 2017 Key findings QAA's rounded judgements about Sussex Coast College Hastings The QAA review team formed the following rounded judgements about
Curtin Equivalence of Qualifications Guidelines Prepared by Curtin Learning and Teaching June 2018 Contents 1. Introduction... 4 2. Staffing Requirement... 4 2.1 What are the requirements and expectations
Higher Education Review (Embedded Colleges) of Kaplan International Colleges UK Ltd Kaplan International College London June 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about
University College Falmouth MARCH 2007 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 200X ISBN 978 1 84482 719 0 All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk Printed copies are
University of Suffolk PROCEDURE FOR THE VALIDATION OF NEW COURSES 1. Introduction to the validation process 1.1 The validation procedure allows for a proposed new undergraduate or taught postgraduate course
Policy Framework Procedure Version Approved by Approval date Effective date Next full review 2.0 President and Vice-Chancellor 21 August 2017 21 August 2017 August 2020 Procedure Statement Purpose Scope
COUNCIL ON HIGHER EDUCATION Higher Education Quality Committee Institutional Audit Framework April 2004 The Higher Education Quality Committee is a permanent committee of the Council on Higher Education
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Empire College London Ltd June 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 About the
Policy Framework Procedure Version Approved by Approval date Effective date Next full review 2.2 Director of Governance 23 March 2018 23 March 2018 August 2020 Procedure Statement Purpose Scope To describe
Navitas UK Holdings Ltd Embedded College Review for Educational Oversight by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education February 2014 Annex: Birmingham City University International College Introduction
EXTERNAL REFERENCING: PEER REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT STANDARDS PROCEDURE Date first approved: Date of effect: 15 December 2017 Date last amended: (refer to Version Control Table) Date of Next Review: 15 December
Report of External Evaluation and Review Strategi Institute Limited Highly Confident in educational performance Highly Confident in capability in self-assessment Date of report: 8 September 2016 Contents
Quality Review Visit of Berkshire College of Agriculture October 2017 Key findings QAA's rounded judgements about Berkshire College of Agriculture The QAA review team formed the following rounded judgements
POLICY TITLE: Course Quality Control & Review (VET) Purpose This policy describes the policy and procedures to which all staff must adhere to ensure the integrity and quality of the courses and the procedures
The University of Western Australia Financial Governance Structures And Processes Document History Document Status: Draft a Ready for Review Final Document Control: Vs Author Date Comments Provided To:
The revised UK Quality Code for Higher Education UKSCQA/02 March 2018 UKSCQA UK Standing Committee for Quality Assessment UKSCQA provides sector-led oversight of those higher education quality assessment
Report of External Evaluation and Review Hungry Creek Art and Craft School Confident in educational performance Confident in capability in self-assessment Date of report: 23 February 2017 Contents Purpose
Higher Education Review of West Thames College November 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about West Thames College... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 Affirmation
Initial Review of King Edward VI College, Nuneaton June 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about King Edward VI College, Nuneaton... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Quality Review Visit of West Kent and Ashford College May 2017 Key findings QAA's rounded judgements about West Kent and Ashford College The QAA review team formed the following rounded judgements about
Comprehensive Course Review Panel - Terms of Reference The Comprehensive Course Review process involves a self and peer analysis of the structure and content and overall quality of the course in question
Report of External Evaluation and Review Pacific International Hotel Management School Limited Confident in educational performance Confident in capability in self-assessment Date of report: 20 October
Institutional audit University of Surrey MARCH 2009 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2009 ISBN 978 1 84482 987 3 All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk Registered
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Ballet West December 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 1 Judgements... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 Affirmation of action
Learning and Teaching Quality Enhancement and Assurance Framework APPLICATION These guidelines apply to all staff members and students of the University. PURPOSE This document describes elements of the
Higher Education Review (Plus) of London Training Academy Ltd July 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about London Training Academy Ltd... 2 Recommendations... 2 Affirmation
ASSESSMENT POLICY Policy Category Academic Document Owner Dean Responsible Officer Dean Review Date June 2020 References and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards (TEQSA) Act 2011 (Cth); Higher Legislation
ASSESSMENT POLICY Policy Category Academic Document Owner Dean Responsible Officer Dean Review Date June 2020 References and Tertiary Education Quality and Standards (TEQSA) Act 2011 (Cth); Higher Legislation
Project Plan Review of Entry Level Accreditation Standards and Competency Standards for the Podiatry Profession February 2014 Executive Summary The Australian and New Zealand Podiatry Accreditation Council
Higher Education Review of Highbury College Portsmouth September 2014 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about Highbury College Portsmouth... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of London School of Science and Technology Ltd December 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Recommendations... 2 About
University of Lincoln MARCH 2008 The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education 2008 ISBN 978 1 84482 850 0 All QAA's publications are available on our website www.qaa.ac.uk Printed copies are available
Consumer Protection Law UKPRN: 10007164 Annex C: Template for producing a self-assessment on guidance on consumer protection law Provider s name: University of the West of England, Bristol Provider s UKPRN:
ENGINEERS AUSTRALIA ACCREDITATION BOARD ACCREDITATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT THE LEVEL OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Document No. Title G08 Glossary DOCUMENT STATUS Revision Prepared by Authorised
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Kensington Education Foundation Ltd t/a Kensington College of Business October 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements...
Committee on Self-financing Post-secondary Education Code of Good Practices on Governance and Quality Assurance Preamble The self-financing sector is an integral part of the post-secondary education in
Higher Education Review of The City of Liverpool College June 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about The City of Liverpool College... 2 Good practice... 2 Affirmation
Health Education and Training Institute Higher Education Academic Quality Assurance Framework Document Reference Number HEP18/5 Superseded Version IOPD16/5086[v2] NSWIOP Document Number IOPD16/5086[v2]
Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) Policy and Procedures 1. Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide guidance, support and clarification to NOCN approved centres on implementing and claiming
OBSERVATION OF LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT (LTA) POLICY Version: Version 1 Aim / Scope: The aim of the policy is to set out the objectives and the key features of learning, teaching and assessment
ACADEMIC AUDIT METHODOLOGY 2013-2014 1. Introduction The University of Salford's arrangements for academic governance and management were radically reformed and changed from the start of the 2008/09 academic
Australian Medical Council Limited Procedures for Assessment and Accreditation of Medical Schools by the Australian Medical Council 2018 Medical School Accreditation Committee Approval Australian Medical
Governance Framework Navitas Professional Institute December 2016 This page has been intentionally left blank NPI Governance Framework (Dec 2016) 2 20 CONTENTS Introduction... 4 Committee Membership Protocols...
Higher Education Quality Assurance Strategy 2016-2020 Introduction This paper presents The London Institute of Banking & Finance s strategy for quality assurance. It outlines the quality assurance measures
CONTINUING AND EXTRA-CURRICULAR EDUCATION POLICY 2017 The Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Education), as delegate of the Senate of the University of Sydney, adopts the following policy. Dated: 28 November 2017,
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Richmond, The American International University in London December 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice...
MidKent College Review of College Higher Education by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education May 2013 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about MidKent College...
Higher Education Review of Kensington and Chelsea College March 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about Kensington and Chelsea College... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Procedure Title Parent Policy Date Effective Review Date Procedure Owner Category Collaborative Coursework Arrangements Transnational Delivery of Courses and Units Procedures Collaborative Coursework Arrangements
UTS POSITION DESCRIPTION UTS:HUMAN RESOURCES Position Title Coordinator, Admissions Unit/Division or Faculty Position Number Current HEW Level HEW 7 Job Family ANZSCO Code SAU; Student and Faculty Services
Academic Standards Learning Opportunities PERIODIC REVIEW Enhancement Public Information PERIODIC REVIEW GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Version 5 Owner Quality and Collaboration Unit Approved date 25 th June 2015 Approved
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of Union Theological College, Belfast October 2016 Contents Contents... 1 About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about Union Theological
AQF COUNCIL STRENGTHENING THE AQF: A Framework for Australia's qualifications CONSULTATION PAPER July 2010 Australian Qualifications Framework Council A Committee of the Ministerial Council for Tertiary
PROCEDURE: HIGHER EDUCATION COURSE MONITORING, REVIEW AND RE ACCREDITATION Purpose: Sets out the University s processes for monitoring, reviewing and re accrediting courses. Location of Procedure The procedure
BRITISH ACCREDITATION COUNCIL INSPECTION REPORT INTERIM VISIT AND SUPPLEMENTARY INSPECTION CHANGE OF MANAGEMENT (Independent Higher Education) INSTITUTION: Redcliffe College ADDRESS: College Green Gloucester
Core Core Statutory Quality Assurance (QA) Guidelines Statutory QA Guidelines developed by QQI for use by all Providers April 2016/QG1-V1 QQI Document Outline Section 1: Introduction and Context Sets out
Higher Education Review of the University of the West of England, Bristol October 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about the University of the West of England, Bristol...
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of The International College of Oriental Medicine (UK) Ltd November 2017 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 Judgements... 2 Good practice...
Higher Education Review of University of Winchester February 2016 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about the University of Winchester... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations...
Higher Education Review (Alternative Providers) of London School of Business and Management Ltd October 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about... 2 Good practice...