Initial Review of King Edward VI College, Stourbridge

Transcription

1 Initial Review of King Edward VI College, Stourbridge June 2015 Contents About this review... 1 Key findings... 2 QAA's judgements about King Edward VI College, Stourbridge... 2 Good practice... 2 Recommendations... 2 About King Edward VI College, Stourbridge... 3 Explanation of the findings about King Edward VI College, Stourbridge Judgement: The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities Judgement: The quality of the information about learning opportunities Glossary... 32

2 About this review This is a report of an Initial Review conducted by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) at King Edward VI College, Stourbridge. The review took place from 23 to 24 June 2015 and was conducted by a team two reviewers, as follows: Dr Carol Vielba Ms Lucy Bannister (student reviewer) The main purpose of the review was to investigate the higher education provided by King Edward VI College, Stourbridge and to make judgements on the likelihood that the College's policies and procedures (some of which may still be under development) will meet UK expectations for academic standards and quality. These expectations are the statements in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Quality Code) 1 setting out what all UK higher education providers expect of themselves and of each other, and what the general public can therefore expect of them. In Initial Review, the QAA review team: makes judgements on - the setting and maintenance of academic standards - the quality of student learning opportunities - the information provided about higher education provision makes recommendations identifies features of good practice affirms action that the provider is taking or plans to take. A summary of the findings can be found in the section starting on page 2. Explanations of the findings are given in numbered paragraphs in the section starting on page 4. The QAA website gives more information about QAA and its mission. 2 A dedicated section explains the method for Initial Review 3 and has links to the review handbook and other informative documents. For an explanation of terms see the glossary at the end of this report. 1 The UK Quality Code for Higher Education is published at: 2 QAA website: 3 Initial Review web pages: 1

3 Key findings QAA's judgements about King Edward VI College, Stourbridge The QAA review team formed the following judgements about the higher education provision at King Edward VI College, Stourbridge. The policies and procedures at King Edward VI College are likely to meet UK expectations in maintaining the academic standards set by its awarding body. The policies and procedures at King Edward VI College are likely to meet UK expectations in the quality of the student learning opportunities. The policies and procedures at King Edward VI College are likely to meet UK expectations in the quality of information produced about learning opportunities. Good practice The QAA review team identified the following features of good practice at King Edward VI College, Stourbridge. The involvement of external academic input, including the Caxton Group, at key stages that facilitates cross-institutional sharing of good practice (Expectation B1). The support and guidance provided that enables individual students to realise their potential (Expectation B4). Recommendations The QAA review team makes the following recommendations to King Edward VI College. By 31 December 2015: develop an admissions policy that takes account of higher education requirements and includes appeals on admissions decisions (Expectation B2) develop and publish clear entry criteria (Expectation B2). By 31 May 2016: ensure that the volume of study reflects the notional learning hours appropriate to the credits awarded (Expectation A1) expedite the approval of the College's draft academic regulations (Expectation A2.1) develop a higher education strategy for the development of programmes appropriate to the College's mission and strategic goals (Expectation B1) expedite the development and approval of a higher education teaching, learning and assessment strategy (Expectation B3) develop formal structures to ensure that higher education students have the opportunity to engage with the discursive committee structure within the College (Expectation B5) develop a formal process for evaluating the quality of work-based learning opportunities in proposed placements (Expectation B10). Further explanation of the key findings can be found in the Guidance available on the QAA webpage explaining Initial Review. 2

4 About King Edward VI College, Stourbridge King Edward VI College (the College) is a non-denominational sixth-form College, which was granted its charter as a grammar school in It became a sixth-form college in Situated in the centre of Stourbridge in the West Midlands, the College offers a wide range of A Level courses to year olds. Currently the College has nearly 1,900 full-time students. The College has a clearly articulated mission statement which was revised in March 2012 following a period of consultation and subsequently approved by the Board of Governors. The mission statement of the College is: To challenge each student to achieve personal and academic excellence leading to enhanced life and career opportunities. The mission statement is supported by a set of values that were identified by the College and its Governors. The values, which include excellence, enrichment, independence, opportunity, equality, community, partnerships, continuity and integrity are seen as being fundamental to the philosophy of the College and essential to achieving its mission. Provision of higher education programmes at the College began in its current form in 2013 with the creation of the Caxton Group of colleges which is a group of four high achieving (Ofsted outstanding) sixth-form colleges. The College has identified a number of key challenges pertaining to its higher education provision, including embedding into the College the ethos and culture of higher education, managing the diverse needs of part-time students, recruiting to an appropriate level of viability, and fully integrating the requirements of higher education quality processes within the rest of the College. The College offers two Diploma of Higher Education (DipHE) programmes validated by Middlesex University: Media and Cultural Studies; and Social Sciences. The two programmes have been designed to provide a second chance for students, as well as providing the chance for students to progress to higher education locally. The College has eight students enrolled on the Social Sciences programme in the academic year. 3

5 Explanation of the findings about King Edward VI College, Stourbridge This section explains the review findings in more detail. Terms that may be unfamiliar to some readers have been included in a brief glossary at the end of this report. A fuller glossary of terms is available on the QAA website, and formal definitions of certain terms may be found in the operational description and handbook for the review method, also on the QAA website. 4

6 1 Judgement: The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations Expectation (A1): In order to secure threshold academic standards, degreeawarding bodies: a) ensure that the requirements of The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are met by: positioning their qualifications at the appropriate level of the relevant framework for higher education qualifications ensuring that programme learning outcomes align with the relevant qualification descriptor in the relevant framework for higher education qualifications naming qualifications in accordance with the titling conventions specified in the frameworks for higher education qualifications awarding qualifications to mark the achievement of positively defined programme learning outcomes b) consider and take account of QAA's guidance on qualification characteristics c) where they award UK credit, assign credit values and design programmes that align with the specifications of the relevant national credit framework d) consider and take account of relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. Quality Code, Chapter A1: UK and European Reference Points for Academic Standards 1.1 The College ensures that its provision aligns with the requirements of The Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern Ireland FHEQ, and takes account of Subject Benchmark Statements, through the validation of its programmes by Middlesex University. As the degree-awarding body, the University is responsible for ensuring that programmes it validates have appropriate learning outcomes and volumes of study. The University provides guidance on the design of higher education provision and checks alignment with national frameworks through the processes of programme approval, monitoring and review, and reporting by external examiners. There is a formal process in place for the approval of minor amendments to programmes to ensure that alignment is maintained. The College's Quality and Standards Committee oversees, among other things, student performance across the institution. 1.2 The review team finds that the College has appropriate systems, processes, policies and procedures in place for the design, approval and amendment of programmes in order to ensure their alignment with the FHEQ, and that account is taken of Subject Benchmark Statements. 5

7 1.3 The review team read policy and process documents from the awarding body, documents related to the validation of programmes at the College, and minutes of the relevant College committee meetings. The use of national frameworks in design, approval and delivery was discussed in meetings with College staff, a representative of the University, and students. 1.4 As part of the Caxton Group, the College worked closely with another sixth-form college whose higher education provision is validated by the same University in the design of the programmes. Staff involved in design and development made careful use of qualification descriptors and Subject Benchmark Statements. The programmes' alignment with national frameworks and use of Subject Benchmarks Statements was tested during the approval process, which included comment on the appropriateness of proposed standards by the external examiner on the approval panel. 1.5 The diplomas are delivered in a six-hour block on one day a week over three 12-week terms for each of the two years of the programme. Each year of the programme comprises 120 credits. Staff teaching on the programme expect students to undertake reading, preparation and other learning activities outside the classroom. However, teaching staff do not use an agreed framework of notional learning hours to determine the volume of work that is appropriate to set. Staff emphasise the significant role of independent learning on the programme, but do not make clear the minimum (or maximum) volume of study which students should expect to complete in order to demonstrate intended learning outcomes. Both staff and students report actual volumes of study undertaken that are lower, in some cases significantly lower, than the 10 notional learning hours per credit set out in the Higher Education Credit Framework for England. The review team recommends that the College ensures that the volume of study reflects the notional learning hours appropriate to the credits awarded. 1.6 On the basis of the evidence provided, the review team finds that the College, working with its awarding body, has appropriate systems, processes, policies and procedures in place for the design and approval of its programmes, which ensure that they align with the FHEQ and take account of relevant Subject Benchmark Statements. However, in delivering its higher education provision, the College does not ensure that the actual volume of study undertaken by students reflects national guidelines. This presents the risk that the amount of learning may not be sufficient to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation A1 of the Quality Code, but that the associated risk is moderate. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Moderate 6

8 Expectation (A2.1): In order to secure their academic standards, degree-awarding bodies establish transparent and comprehensive academic frameworks and regulations to govern how they award academic credit and qualifications. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards 1.7 The College currently relies entirely on the academic regulations provided by the University, which validates its higher education provision. These regulations are operated by the College in accordance with the framework provided by the Memorandum of Co-operation. 1.8 The review team finds that the College has appropriate regulatory systems, processes, policies and procedures in place that are both comprehensive and transparent. 1.9 The team looked at the academic regulations and guidance to their use provided by the University and at College policies relevant to higher education. The team also discussed the use of these regulations and possible future development by the College of its own regulations with senior staff at the College The College makes effective use of the University's academic regulations in relation to the design and delivery of its higher education provision. The College also makes use of policies, processes and protocols in its College-wide policies which are applied to both further and higher education. In other cases policies relating specifically to higher education have been written The College developed a set of Academic Regulations for higher education prior to the commencement of the current provision, but the document has not yet been approved by the Senior Management Team (SMT). Senior staff indicate that the College wishes to develop its own regulations both to complement those provided by the University and to anticipate the possible development of partnerships with other awarding bodies On the basis of the evidence provided, the College has an appropriate set of academic regulations in place that informs practice. The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation A2.1 and that the associated risks are low. However, in order to strengthen further its regulatory framework for the management of standards for larger or more complex provision effectively, the review team recommends that the College expedite the approval of the draft academic regulations. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 7

9 Expectation (A2.2): Degree-awarding bodies maintain a definitive record of each programme and qualification that they approve (and of subsequent changes to it) which constitutes the reference point for delivery and assessment of the programme, its monitoring and review, and for the provision of records of study to students and alumni. Quality Code, Chapter A2: Degree-Awarding Bodies' Reference Points for Academic Standards 1.13 Programme specifications and student handbooks are approved by the University as part of the approval process. These documents are developed within the framework provided by the College's Memorandum of Co-operation with the University and the University's academic regulations. Major, and some minor, amendments to programmes are approved formally by the University. The College operates a process of regular review of all its policies and procedures which includes programme documentation The review team finds that the College's systems, policies, processes and procedures are appropriate for maintaining an accurate, definitive record of each higher education programme The review team read programme specifications and the student handbook. The team discussed the process of maintaining and updating programme documentation with the academic staff. The team also looked at documentation which demonstrated how conditions and recommendations made at approval were addressed and reflected in definitive documentation Programme specifications indicate the structure, content, level of programmes and the learning outcomes and assessment associated with the programme as a whole, and with constituent modules. Student handbooks, which contain the programme specifications, are issued at the beginning of the two-year DipHE programme and updated material is supplied to students through the virtual learning environment (VLE) On the basis of the evidence provided, the College has processes and procedures in place to maintain an accurate, definitive record of its higher education programmes, which sets out intended learning outcomes and programme attributes. The team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation A2.2 and the associated risks are low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 8

10 Expectation (A3.1): Degree-awarding bodies establish and consistently implement processes for the approval of taught programmes and research degrees that ensure that academic standards are set at a level which meets the UK threshold standard for the qualification and are in accordance with their own academic frameworks and regulations. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes- Based Approach to Academic Awards 1.18 It is the responsibility of the University to approve programmes and align the awards to the correct level of the FHEQ and ensure academic standards are in accordance with its own academic frameworks and regulation. The University uses external expertise during the process of validation The review team finds that the College's awarding body ensures that the DipHE qualifications delivered by the College align with the correct FHEQ level and meet UK threshold standards The review team analysed documents from both the College and the University. The team also met senior staff and staff who are involved in the programme design of the DipHE programmes The College was subject to an institutional approval process by the University prior to programme approval. Responsibility for programme approval lies with the University. During the approval process the University ensures that programmes delivered at the College meet national benchmarks and align with the correct FHEQ level The review team considers that the College higher education provision is designed and approved in accordance with the frameworks and regulations of the College's awarding body. The team therefore concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation A3.1 and that the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 9

11 Expectation (A3.2): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that credit and qualifications are awarded only where: the achievement of relevant learning outcomes (module learning outcomes in the case of credit and programme outcomes in the case of qualifications) has been demonstrated through assessment both UK threshold standards and their own academic standards have been satisfied. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes- Based Approach to Academic Awards 1.23 The assessment of students is the responsibility of the College although it conforms to the regulations of the University. The College assures academic standards through the Higher Education Assessment Board (although this is yet to take place) and the presence of external examiners at this event. Programme specifications, approved at the time of validation, are in place for both programmes. The specifications indicate learning outcomes and maps them against modules in which they are assessed. Students are made aware of learning outcomes and assessment criteria through module narratives, which are also available via the programme handbooks The University has final approval on the appointment of external examiners following their nomination by the College. The external examiner reports will be scrutinised by the University and the outcomes of the reports fed into the Annual Monitoring Report The College delivers the programme according to the University's regulations. The College has appropriate assessment, marking, verifying and feedback policies in place The review team examined documentary evidence provided by the College and met students, and delivery staff who are also responsible for assessment, dual marking and feedback Through the evidence provided and from meetings at the visit, the review team found that in practice an outcomes-based approach is in place at the College. Students are clear about processes for assessing their learning outcomes and are clear about what they should do to achieve The review team finds that there is an effective system for the assessment of students that requires them to demonstrate that they have met learning outcomes, which is communicated to students via modules narratives that are also included in the programme handbook The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation A3.2 and that the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 10

12 Expectation (A3.3): Degree-awarding bodies ensure that processes for the monitoring and review of programmes are implemented which explicitly address whether the UK threshold academic standards are achieved and whether the academic standards required by the individual degree-awarding body are being maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes- Based Approach to Academic Awards 1.30 The University stipulates in the Memorandum of Co-operation that the two validated programmes are subject to the University's approval and quality assurance monitoring and review procedures. Higher education delivered at the College is still in its infancy, therefore evidence of an Annual Monitoring Review is unavailable. However, the University supports the College by providing a template, a briefing paper for guidance and a link tutor, who acts as a point of contact based at the University The College has processes in place for programme monitoring and review which are designed to ensure that academic standards are being maintained. The team also met staff who are involved in programme assessment, monitoring and review The review team analysed documentation provided by the College and met senior staff and teaching staff during the review visit The review team finds that the College self-assessment processes of verification and annual monitoring operate effectively. The use of external examiners and annual monitoring in the form of the Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) will result in the identification of opportunities to improve provision. The outcomes of the external examiners' reports, student feedback and module evaluations inform the content of these reports Based on the evidence provided, the review team concludes that the College, in association with the University, has appropriate policies in place for ongoing monitoring and review of its higher education provision. The College is therefore likely to meet Expectation A3.3 and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 11

13 Expectation (A3.4): In order to be transparent and publicly accountable, degree-awarding bodies use external and independent expertise at key stages of setting and maintaining academic standards to advise on whether: UK threshold academic standards are set, delivered and achieved the academic standards of the degree-awarding body are appropriately set and maintained. Quality Code, Chapter A3: Securing Academic Standards and an Outcomes-Based Approach to Academic Awards 1.35 The College is responsible for maintaining the academic standards of the provision it delivers, to the standards set by the University through the application of the academic frameworks and regulations. It relies mostly on the expertise of the external examiners appointed by the University to provide externality. External members contribute to validation processes and the external examiner oversees the maintenance of academic standards. The College engages the expertise of an external moderator for the College SAR and strong links with the Caxton Group provides additional externality External expertise is obtained through the use of external examiners, external expertise during validations, and links with other sixth-form colleges through the Caxton Group The review team analysed relevant documentation provided by the College, including validation documents and documents from Caxton Group meetings. The team also met senior staff, delivery staff and students The College uses external expertise effectively across a number of areas. The College has strong relationships with other sixth-form colleges through the Caxton Group which facilitates the sharing of good practice across colleges delivering higher education programmes validated by Middlesex University, which itself has been identified as a feature of good practice under Expectation B1. The external examiner appointed for the programme was involved in the validation process for the DipHE programme. The College also seeks external expertise to moderate the College's SAR on an annual basis The review team was satisfied that the College, in partnership with its awarding body and through its partnership with the Caxton Group, is likely to meet Expectation A3.4 and that the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 12

14 The maintenance of the academic standards of awards offered on behalf of degree-awarding bodies and/or other awarding organisations: Summary of findings 1.40 In reaching its positive judgement, the review team matched the findings against the criteria set out in the Guidance for Providers Undergoing Initial Review, published by QAA, December The review team took into consideration that the College's awarding body has ultimate responsibility for the setting of the academic standards. All seven Expectations for this judgement area are likely to be met and for all but one the associated level of risk has been assessed as low. The team has noted that the primary responsibility for the setting of standards lies with Middlesex University. A positive judgement in this area demonstrates that the College is aware of its responsibilities for maintaining those standards While the Expectation under A1 is likely to be met, the associated level of risk is deemed moderate. This is because in delivering its higher education provision, the College does not ensure that the actual volume of study undertaken by students reflects national guidelines. This presents the risk that the amount of learning may not be sufficient to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes. The review team recommends that the College ensure that the volume of study reflects the notional learning hours appropriate to the credits awarded In order to strengthen further its regulatory framework for the effective management of standards for larger or more complex provision, the review team also recommends that the College expedite the approval of the draft academic regulations Notwithstanding making two recommendations under this judgement area and Expectation A1 being associated with a moderate level of risk, the review team concludes that the policies and procedures at King Edward VI College are likely to meet UK expectations in maintaining the academic standards set by its awarding body. 13

15 2 Judgement: The quality of student learning opportunities Expectation (B1): Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective processes for the design, development and approval of programmes Quality Code, Chapter B1: Programme Design and Approval 2.1 Responsibility for the design, development and approval of higher education provision is shared between the College and the University. The respective roles are set out in the Memorandum of Co-operation and in the University's Quality Handbook. The College has a system built around executive responsibilities with oversight by the governing body for decisions related to the design and development of higher education programmes. Validation of proposed provision is undertaken by the University using its standard processes and procedures. Processes are in place to formally approve minor amendments during the life of a programme. 2.2 The review team finds that working with the University, the College has appropriate systems, processes, policies, and procedures in place for the design, development and approval of higher education programmes. 2.3 The review team read College and University documents describing the processes for design, approval and validation of programmes, and reviewed documentary evidence related to the approval of two programmes. The review team also read the College's Strategic Development Plan. The College's approach to design, development and approval of higher education provision was discussed at meetings with senior and academic staff. 2.4 The current Diplomas in Higher Education are the first two higher education programmes to be offered by the College; possible new provision is currently under development. Development was undertaken by a group of qualified staff working with members of the Senior Management Team which, informed by the group, took key decisions on the proposed development. The governing body was informed of proposed developments. Market research was undertaken with prospective students. Staff involved in the development task were given a time allowance. 2.5 In developing its higher education provision, the College has made extensive use of external advice. The Caxton Group, established by the College with a small group of other sixth-form colleges with higher education provision validated by Middlesex University, provided guidance and support during the stages of programme design and development. The Group facilitates sharing of materials and good practice. Academic staff from other institutions also contributed to the design of the Diplomas. The review team considers that the involvement of external academic input, including the Caxton Group, at key stages that facilitates cross-institutional sharing of good practice is itself good practice. 2.6 Validation by the University involved obtaining approval in principal for the proposed programmes. Approval involved a panel event with two external academic members and the submission of a full programme proposal, including programme specifications, handbooks, local policies, staff CVs and promotional materials. The University set conditions and recommendations as part of the approval, which were met appropriately by the College and signed off by the University. 14

16 2.7 University validation is for a period of six years. Significant changes during this time require formal approval by the University. Staff who met the review team were aware of what could be changed on the programmes and which changes required formal approval. 2.8 The College strategy highlights the development of higher education provision as a means of lessening its reliance on central government funding. It also sees higher education as part of its widening participation strategy. This latter priority is reflected in the alignment of programmes with the mission statement and stated in initial programme proposals. The College does not have a separate higher education strategy. 2.9 Current thinking at the College is around expansion of student numbers, developments in new subject areas and level 6 courses, and working with one or more additional awarding body. Senior staff are aware of some of the challenges posed in managing such complexity while maintaining strategic oversight of the processes for, and outcomes of, programme design, development and approval; as well as ensuring that processes are applied systematically and operated consistently. Senior staff are also aware of the challenges posed by the environment in which the College operates. These factors contribute to the review team's consideration that the College would benefit from developing an explicit higher education strategy as a basis for planning and development. In the light of the College's stated intentions to increase student numbers and diversify its higher education provision, the review team recommends that the College develop a higher education strategy for the development of programmes appropriate to the College's mission and strategic goals On the basis of the evidence provided, the College has appropriate systems, policies and processes for the design, development and approval of its programmes. These are operated effectively both within the College and in partnership with Middlesex University. The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation B1 and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 15

17 Expectation (B2): Recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures adhere to the principles of fair admission. They are transparent, reliable, valid, inclusive and underpinned by appropriate organisational structures and processes. They support higher education providers in the selection of students who are able to complete their programme. Quality Code, Chapter B2: Recruitment, Selection and Admission 2.11 The College does not have a higher education admissions policy. The Admissions Policy on its website is for further education applicants, although the College has noted plans to include specific reference to a higher education process within this policy for the next academic year. Application is through the College website followed by an interview. However, it is not made clear within the policy on the College website how an applicant would appeal an admissions decision Entry criteria to study on the DipHE programmes are not specified on the College website, although the Social Sciences DipHE web page notes that applicants do not have to have achieved any prior level qualification in any of the core subjects The College has an accessible admissions policy for students studying further education at the College. However, it requires amendments in order to meet the specific requirements of higher education applicants The review team tested this Expectation by analysing key documents in relation to recruitment, selection and admissions, and met students, senior staff, teaching and support staff during the review visit The College predominantly recruits internally or by word of mouth to the DipHE programmes or through potential student attendance at Taster Days. To date, all applicants to the DipHE programmes have been interviewed. At interview programme staff inform applicants of programme requirements and opportunities designed to enable their development and achievement To appeal against admission decisions, further education students are referred to the further education appeals procedure and can appeal directly to the Board of Governors. No explicit reference is made in this policy to higher education students To make explicit the application process, the review team recommends that the College develop an admissions policy that takes account of higher education requirements and includes appeals on admissions decisions The review team heard that entry is dependent on potential to succeed. The review team recommends that the College develop and publish clear entry criteria The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation B2 but that the associated level of risk is moderate. This is because, in their current form, it is not clear that the College's recruitment, selection and admission policies and procedures are sufficiently transparent to help prospective students make informed decisions when applying or considering applying for any higher education programme. Furthermore, there are questions of equity and the ability of the College to defend itself in an appeal against a decision taken on the basis of subjective judgement. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Moderate 16

18 Expectation (B3): Higher education providers, working with their staff, students and other stakeholders, articulate and systematically review and enhance the provision of learning opportunities and teaching practices, so that every student is enabled to develop as an independent learner, study their chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking. Quality Code, Chapter B3: Learning and Teaching 2.20 The College's Quality and Standards Committee (QASC) is responsible for the oversight of teaching and learning and the effectiveness of steps taken to improve it across the College. A Board of Studies for the College's higher education provision operates as part of the University's requirements. The Board includes the University link tutor and student representatives. It has a standard agenda which focuses on programme delivery and academic quality. The Higher Education Manager's role includes responsibilities for quality, including teaching and learning, resources and enhancement. The College's annual Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and associated Quality Improvement Plan (QIP) include sections on learning and teaching The College has formal systems for teaching observation and appraisal that extend to its higher education provision. Opportunities are provided for staff development. Systems, including student focus groups, are in place to capture student feedback on learning and teaching and the programmes The College has a range of policies in place relevant to learning and teaching which apply to all provision; an example is the Equality and Diversity policy The review team finds that the College has appropriate systems, policies, processes and procedures in place, which are designed to assure and enhance the quality of learning and teaching on its higher education provision The review team read policies and minutes, documents generated by teaching observation and module evaluation, student feedback, and reports and handbooks. The team discussed learning and teaching with senior, teaching and support staff and with students on the programmes. The team also read a student submission produced for this review and looked at examples of feedback provided to students on their work and progress Learning and teaching is discussed by QASC, in particular in the context of the SAR. QASC also receives reports on aspects of learning and teaching such as the annual Equality and Diversity report. The higher education Board of Studies has recently been established. At its first meeting it reviewed each module in delivery, received student feedback and discussed resource issues. The higher education teaching staff meet on a regular basis to discuss programme delivery and exchange ideas about practice. The College has a teaching, learning and assessment strategy for its A Level provision, which it intends to modify for its higher education provision Staff who deliver the higher education provision are selected from among College staff with relevant qualifications and experience. The University monitors the staffing of the provision through the receipt of CVs as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. Formal teaching observation takes place in the College on an annual basis using trained observers. The University has provided guidance on observations appropriate to higher education, and the College plans to formally adapt its current processes for use in higher education. Teaching observation feeds into staff appraisal, which in turn identifies training and 17

19 development needs. Staff have access to appropriate development opportunities at the University in addition to staff development provided directly or indirectly by the College. Staff who met the review team gave examples of development, including leave to undertake research and conference attendance Staff have clear ideas about the difference between further and higher education, which is put into practice through course design, style of delivery and dialogue with students. Staff engage with scholarly activity through professional activity and use of library resources. The College supports a number of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) covering a range of learning and teaching topics that facilitate the sharing of good practice and the development of innovation. All staff from across the College participate in PLCs. Crossinstitutional sharing of good practice and access to guidance is available through the University link tutor and the Caxton Group Students are positive about the teaching that they receive and comment on the quality of the staff who teach them and the approach that is taken to learning. Students are made aware of the College's approach to learning and teaching, particularly its emphasis on independent learning, through their handbook and in their class and tutorial sessions. Students receive both written and oral feedback on their work. Students also discuss their overall progress at a mid-term review with tutors on the programme. The College has policies and processes for the declaration and identification of disability and special learning needs, and specialists who provide additional support to students and guidance to staff in the classroom On the basis of the evidence provided, the College has appropriate systems, policies, processes and procedures for the assurance of the quality of learning and teaching on its higher education provision. The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation B3 and the associated risks are low. However, in order to strengthen further its higher education learning and teaching, the team recommends that the College should expedite the development and approval of a higher education teaching, learning and assessment strategy. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 18

20 Expectation (B4): Higher education providers have in place, monitor and evaluate arrangements and resources which enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential. Quality Code, Chapter B4: Enabling Student Development and Achievement 2.30 The College mission is to challenge each student to achieve personal and academic excellence leading to enhanced life and career opportunities. Student performance and outcome targets are set and reviewed in the annual SAR and feature prominently in the College QIP. The College also sets and monitors targets for equality and diversity on an annual basis Student achievement is facilitated through tutorial support, specialist learning support, programme design and content, and the provision of learning resources adapted, as appropriate, to the needs of higher education students. Systems are in place to gather student feedback which can be used to plan enhancement of provision The review team finds that the College has appropriate systems, policies, processes and procedures in place designed to enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential The review team read documents concerning the ways in which the College measures and enhances student achievement; the structure, delivery and oversight of the Diploma programme; and the support available for students studying on the programme. The review team had access to the VLE used by higher education students. The provision of support for learning was discussed in meetings with senior, teaching and support staff and with students. The team also read the student submission The College's systems for monitoring student performance and achievement and promoting and monitoring quality and diversity operate effectively. For higher education provision there is a further layer of target setting, monitoring and review through the annual monitoring process required by the University. Student performance and achievement is discussed regularly at College committees and at groups responsible for the higher education provision. The SAR is formally reported to the Board of Governors The College endeavours to develop a higher education ethos among its students despite their very small numbers. To facilitate this, courses are taught in an adjacent building away from the A Level teaching. The initial location has proved to be unsatisfactory and a new location with enhanced space is being developed for the next academic year The Diploma programmes have been designed to encourage and provide the skills necessary for independent learning. A core part of the programme involves reflective learning which is designed to facilitate the transition to higher education and from the Diploma to level 6 learning. The Diploma programmes incorporate formative feedback including the provision for students to hand in a draft of their assignment before final submission Academic staff provide extensive feedback and guidance to students on their studies. Students meet regularly with the higher education lead tutor who provides pastoral support and also conducts one-to-one mid-term reviews of progress. Students can access the College's learning support and personal support services through self-referral or by referral from admissions, teaching or tutorial staff. The Curriculum Support team provides study skills and support for students with a disability or special learning needs, including assistance in applying for Disabled Students' Allowance. Students receive guidance in their 19

21 handbook about their studies and information on how to access the support service. Students speak very positively about the support provided to them on the programme The higher education student body is a diverse group who have varied educational backgrounds, prior experience and career intentions. Each student receives intensive academic support and feedback from teaching staff as well as pastoral and other support to help them achieve on the programme. The review team considers that the support and guidance provided that enables individual students to realise their potential is good practice The library has extended its opening hours on the day that higher education students attend and acquired items from reading lists and access to an electronic journal database. The College is making a significant investment in its IT infrastructure, including improving wireless access. Teaching on the higher education provision makes extensive use of the VLE, which is appreciated by students. There is no minimum standard for how teachers use the VLE but the quality of what is provided is overseen by subject leaders. Students do not have a formal induction period at the beginning of their programme but early sessions of the course cover such matters as course structure, good academic conduct, independent learning, and how to use the library Personal development planning is incorporated in the reflective work which is mandatory. Guest speakers provide students with insights into practice and possible careers. Students have access to the College Careers Service. Students are advised during the admissions process about the suitability of the programme for their career ambitions. Students are advised that they can top up their diploma at Middlesex University on a general Arts or Professional Practice degree. The College is in discussion with institutions in the region about progression opportunities. However, many of the students are not well informed about the realistic options open to them for further study or careers On the basis of the evidence provided, the College has appropriate systems, policies, processes and procedures to enable student development and achievement through its higher education provision. The review team concludes that the College is likely to meet Expectation B4 and that the associated risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 20

22 Expectation (B5): Higher education providers take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience. Quality Code, Chapter B5: Student Engagement 2.42 The College has in place several mechanisms to engage students effectively. However, because of small numbers at higher education level, student engagement often occurs on a more informal basis between students and College staff. The College uses focus groups, module evaluations, Boards of study meetings, informal feedback during pastoral and academic reviews which occur on a termly basis, and 'you said, we did' mechanisms to improve the student experience The Expectation is met in theory, as the College takes deliberate steps to engage students, both on a formal and informal basis The review team analysed documentary evidence, including the student submission and outcomes of focus groups. The review team also triangulated this evidence in meetings with staff and students at the review visit Focus groups encompass discussions that include course expectations, student workload, teaching methods, modes of delivery, pastoral support and the provision of facilities for higher education students. As a more formal feedback mechanism, the College has a parallel module evaluation and feedback form that both tutors and students complete. Students are able to comment on the strengths of the module, areas for improvement, and general satisfaction with the module. Tutors comment on areas for improvement, proposed changes to the scheme of work and changes to assessment Feedback from students links in to the Annual Review and Monitoring report and the College Self-Assessment Report While the College has formal structures in place for gathering student feedback, student engagement predominantly takes place on an informal basis. Higher education students do not currently form part of the membership of committees where higher education is discussed. This is due to the small cohort. However, the College has outlined strategic plans to grow its higher education provision, which includes recruiting to the DipHE in Media and Cultural Studies and potentially a BA in Business. Taking this into consideration the review team recommends that the College develop formal structures to ensure that higher education students have the opportunity to engage with the discursive committee structure in the College The review team concludes that the College takes deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, and is therefore likely to meet Expectation B5, and the associated level of risk is low. Expectation: Likely to meet Level of risk: Low 21