Our work in Wales
Following a period of consultation in spring and summer 2003, the Handbook for institutional review: Wales will be published in November. Recruitment of reviewers and review secretaries has started. In autumn 2003 there will be briefing events for the sector and the first institutional review will take place in 2004.
Review teams will reach a judgement on the confidence that can reasonably be placed in:
- the soundness of the institution's management of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards;
and on the reliance that can be reasonably placed on:
- the accuracy, integrity, completeness and frankness of the information that it publishes about its quality and standards.
Thematic trails will be used to test how well institutional procedures work and how effective they are in practice. In undertaking the trails, teams may gather information at the level of individual disciplines, programmes and/or academic departments.
The information base for each review will be a self-evaluation document produced by the institution, and information sets developed by HEFCW's Quality Working Group as part of the wider quality assurance and standards framework for Wales. Students at each institution will also have the opportunity, through their representative body, to make a written submission to the review team.
Sarah Clark
Launch of our Welsh Language Scheme
The Welsh Language Board has approved the Agency's draft Welsh Language Scheme. On 15 July a reception was held at the University of Wales, Bangor to celebrate this important decision. Representatives of higher education institutions in Wales and HEFCW joined other guests and members of the Agency's Board to hear John Walter Jones, Chief Executive of the Welsh Language Board (pictured on the right, with Peter Williams) praise the Scheme for being both comprehensive in its scope and also very practical to implement.
The Language Scheme gives effect to the key principle of the Welsh Language Act (1993) that Welsh and English have equal status under law, and that organisations, such as the Agency, should conduct their business in Wales in a way that enables people to use their preferred choice of language. In practical terms, the Scheme allows the Agency's core activities to be conducted bilingually. Our core activities for this purpose are institutional review, applications for degree awarding powers and university title and the recognition and review of Authorised Validating Agencies within the Access Recognition Scheme. For these three areas, we will ascertain early in the planning stages the preferred language choices of the higher education institution and persons involved. Then we will plan accordingly, providing bilingual materials and simultaneous translation services. All institutional review reports will be published bilingually.
The Scheme also describes how we will promote a bilingual image in Wales. Our correspondence to higher education institutions in Wales that is Wales specific, such as circulars and press releases, will be bilingual. All written responses to correspondence emanating in Welsh will be in Welsh. For these purposes, we will have bilingual headed stationery. There are also arrangements for individuals to communicate in Welsh with the Agency by telephone.
The Scheme came into operation formally on 6 October 2003. Bilingual copies of the Scheme have been distributed to higher education institutions and cognate bodies in Wales. Copies are also available on request. For further details please contact m.laugharne@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 029 2022 8450.
Mike Laugharne
top
Our Work in Scotland
This section has four parts: the key learning points from academic reviews of subjects; a brief progress report on implementing enhancement-led institutional review (ELIR); the work of the enhancement committees; and a report on collaborative activities being undertaken to support FE/HE links.
Key learning points from the academic review of subjects in Scotland 2000-02
Introduction
Between 2000-02, 73 academic reviews of subjects were completed and reports published (24 in 2000-01; 49 in 2001-02). The programme of review covered 18 Scottish higher education institutions and 21 subject areas. Universal external academic review has ended for most institutions. It continues only for institutions new to the sector that have not had the opportunity to demonstrate the robustness of their internal quality assurance systems.
This commentary is derived from an analysis of all published academic review reports for 2000-02. It highlights the strengths in provision and the main areas for potential enhancement of provision.
Summary of judgements
Academic review confirmed the generally high quality of higher education provision in Scotland. In 71 subject reviews (97 per cent), reviewers had confidence in the academic standards of the provision under scrutiny. There were only two reviews where 'no confidence' in academic standards was awarded. In both cases, the institutions have submitted action plans, which address the deficiencies identified, to the Scottish Higher Education Funding Council (SHEFC). They are also engaged in follow-up review activity.
In relation to the three aspects of the quality of learning opportunities - teaching and learning, student progression and learning resources - most provision was 'commendable' (86 per cent of all judgements) and a minority 'approved' (14 per cent). No provision was awarded a 'failing' judgement. Over the two-year period, 13 exemplary features were identified across 12 reviews, spanning all three aspects of the quality of learning opportunities.
Academic standards
Strengths:
- clear and appropriate learning outcomes for the institutional mission and aims, the aims of the programmes and the levels of the awards;
- learning outcomes in line with the expectations of the wider subject communities (subject benchmarks, the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework and, where relevant, the expectations of the professional bodies);
- clearly specified, transparent learning outcomes, which were well-understood by staff and students;
- comprehensive, coherent, progressive and demanding curricula, and a systematic relationship between the curriculum and learning outcomes;
- the relationship between the curriculum and staff research, and other scholarly and professional activity;
- the design of assessment frameworks, which were appropriate and effective in measuring intended learning outcomes and student achievement;
- the development and use of a wide range of assessment instruments (described as 'coherent', 'innovative', 'challenging' and 'excellent');
- in all but one review, student achievement met programme outcomes, the levels of awards and sector expectations. Achievement often extended well beyond these threshold expectations. The high achievement of students who had benefited from widening access to higher education was also noted.
Potential areas for enhancement activity:
- a range of related issues about the differentiation of programme specifications (explicit articulation of what differentiated programmes, better differentiation between levels in the provision);
- in a few reports, the need to improve articulation arrangements ('bridging' systems or programmes) for students progressing from Scottish Qualifications Authority courses to degree programmes;
- more explicit and comprehensive assessment criteria, and greater clarity and consistency of information on assessment provided to students;
- enhanced quality, comprehensiveness and consistency of feedback to students and wider dissemination of good practice;
- enhancement of assessment protocols and procedures (for example, moderation, involvement of external examiners, security of assessment processes);
- in a few reports, better monitoring and more attention given to student achievement and progression rates, including the need for more systematic analysis of student performance.
Teaching and learning
Reviewers identified wide-ranging good practice. High-quality teaching was described as imaginative and effective. It also embraced a wide range of delivery methods and provided a stimulating learning experience.
Strengths:
- teaching and learning strategies underpinned by effective teaching and learning committees/groups, and effective induction, training and staff development programmes;
- the commitment, conscientiousness, enthusiasm and dedication of teaching staff;
- teaching and student learning informed by staff research, scholarship and staff participation in national bodies and organisations;
- the commendable variety of teaching and learning opportunities and experiences provided to students;
- high-quality and well-designed supporting materials;
- the use of information and communications technology (ICT) to support learning (for example, in-house tailor-made CD-ROMs, web-based resources, Blackboard and other virtual learning environments).
In four reviews, seven 'exemplary features' were identified in classics and ancient history, engineering, English, philosophy, sociology and anthropology.
These included:
- a holistic and integrated teaching and learning environment;
- the conception, delivery and student learning experience of a particular unit/project;
- the skillful facilitation of an autonomous learning environment for students;
- the involvement of specialized industrial expertise in curriculum delivery;
- an innovative, intensive language learning strategy.
Potential areas for enhancement activity:
- in a few reports, staff needed to engage with developments in teaching and learning practice (including ICT) and identify and disseminate good practice through, for example, peer observation.
Student progression
Strengths:
- comprehensive, well-communicated and effective admission procedures and induction arrangements;
- high progression and completion rates;
- the ethos generated through supportive learning environments and the approachability and accessibility of staff.
In three reviews, 'exemplary features' were identified in architecture, computing and law. These included:
- an awareness of, and attention to, special needs permeating all aspects of a department's provision;
- very high quality course information provided to students;
- the subject-specific induction facilities available to students.
Potential areas for enhancement:
- while many reviews identified good progression and retention rates, there was a similar number of references to poor retention and progression rates, and the need to monitor and review arrangements to improve on these rates.
Learning resources
Strengths:
- the high quality and appropriateness of staff resources. (Reviewers identified good staffing levels, with balanced teams of well-qualified academic staff. They had appropriate and well-developed expertise, and their research and practice-based activities informed their teaching);
- learning facilities (institutional and departmental), which were well resourced, effectively managed and included good ICT provision.
In three reviews, 'exemplary features' were identified in computing/engineering, history and law.
These included:
- the excellent use of archival resources;
- the private/public partnership in the provision of subject-specific facilities;
- student assessment materials.
Potential areas for enhancement:
- in a small number of reviews, the need to ensure appropriate staffing levels (academic and support staff) and the need to further enhance staff development;
- the need to enhance library and other learning facilities (specifically ICT facilities) for staff and students was an issue in many review reports.
Enhancement-led institutional review
Following a productive consultation between the sector, Universities Scotland, SHEFC and the student representative bodies in Scotland, the Handbook for enhancement-led institutional review: Scotland, setting out the framework for the new method, was published in April 2003. This was followed by consultation on and publication of the ELIR Operational Manual. The Manual accompanies the Handbook and sets out the operational detail for the review method. The main audience for the Manual is ELIR team members, although it may be of interest to colleagues with operational responsibilities within institutions. Copies of both documents are on our web site and have been distributed to our quality assurance contacts within each Scottish institution.
We received a very positive response, from across the UK, to our request for reviewers and review secretaries to undertake ELIR reviews. Recruitment for the first four reviews, scheduled between January and June 2004, has been completed. All reviewers and review secretaries will undertake customised training, with the first two training sessions being held in November 2003. All team members (including student reviewers and review secretaries) will be trained together, with student reviewers attending one additional day's training. Further training sessions have been scheduled for June and November 2004.
The first four institutions to participate in an ELIR review will be the Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama, Glasgow, the University of Glasgow, Queen Margaret University College, Edinburgh, and Bell College of Higher Education. In August 2003, the first of the annual discussion meetings between these institutions and the Agency's assistant directors was held. One output from this scheduled opportunity for discussion was the production of an institutional profile, which will be shared with the ELIR team that visits the institution. The profile should ensure that the teams understand the context and mission of the institutions they are visiting, and clarify the subject-level review method in place at the institution.
Ailsa Crum
Enhancement committees
The steering committees for the 2003-04 enhancement topics ('Meeting Student Needs' and 'Assessment') have almost finalised their programmes of activities. On 26 September 2003, a national conference to launch the work was held at the University of Dundee. There were key speakers from Scotland, America and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). The conference provided a valuable opportunity for participants to discuss the enhancement work within a national and international context and to consider the best way for the work to inform and support institutional practice. The web site to support the work of the enhancement themes was also launched at the conference.
A conference for students is also being arranged for later this calendar year. It will provide an opportunity for the student community to engage more fully with the work of the enhancement themes.
Discussions with Universities Scotland and the higher education sector have taken place to identify the two themes, chairs and steering committees for enhancement work in 2004-05. Planning for the programme of activities in 2004-05 with the new steering groups will probably start in January 2004.
David Bottomley
Links between further education colleges and higher education institutions
Following a series of developmental workshops, a draft set of guidelines on good practice in FE/HE credit links has been issued for consultation. The Scottish Advisory Committee on Credit and Access (SACCA) and the Association of Scottish Colleges (ASC) will publish the final guidelines early in 2004.
In March 2003 work started on the mapping, tracking and bridging projects for FE/HE links. The project is managed by Professor Alex MacLennan (Assistant Principal, University of Paisley) and is under the strategic direction of David Bottomley. The team was completed in June with the appointment of Iona Jarvie and Bernie Regan.
Alongside the SACCA-ASC Working Group, the projects will generate a national framework to help further and higher education institutions develop clear information, monitoring and support for students progressing from FECs to HEIs. Working closely with the Regional Access Coordinators, the projects are benefiting from the guidance of a Steering Group representing both sectors.
An audit of all the progression routes from higher national qualifications into degree level study at Scotland's HEIs has taken place and a fully searchable online mapping system has been developed. The system is currently being tested and reviewed by the sectors to guide future developments.
In June 2003, a forum of practitioners experienced in providing bridging support to students met to identify key characteristics of effective support for students making the transition from an FEC to an HEI. This event launched a comprehensive consultation with all key stakeholders that will continue until the end of 2003.
In relation to tracking, the project team is reviewing existing data and information sources and exploring the potential for a 'unique learner identifier'. This review will inform the next stages of the project work, which will aim to agree a common set of data fields to enable the successful tracking of learners in terms of their entrance, credit transfer, progression and achievement.
Iona Jarvie
Bernie Regan
Degree-awarding powers and university title
Our responsibilities
Since 1999, we have been responsible for offering confidential guidance to the Privy Council on applications from organisations seeking degree-awarding powers and/or university title.
Government criteria
In offering our advice to the Privy Council, we have regard to criteria set by Government. The most recent set of criteria published in 1999, which are accessible via our web site, are clustered around a series of themes. These include organisational governance and management, quality assurance and academic standards, the arrangements for supporting student learning, staffing and the organisation's administrative infrastructure.
Consistent, evidence-based recommendations
We believe that our recommendations should be the result of close and careful consideration of each application. In particular, we are conscious that our scrutiny procedures and recommendations must be fully secure, evidence-based and consistently applied.
The application process
Applications are initially considered by a sub-committee of the Agency's Board (the Advisory Committee on Degree-Awarding Powers). The Chairman of the Agency's Board chairs this Committee. Its members include heads of UK universities, the head of a Standing Conference of Principles (SCOP) sector college with its own degree-awarding powers, senior level representatives from business and commerce, and observers from the Department of Education and Skills (DfES), the Scottish Executive Enterprise and Lifelong Learning Department, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Department of Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland.
If an application merits further examination, experienced and senior academic peers are engaged to scrutinise the organisation. The advice offered by these assessors is based around the reading of documentation; meetings with staff, students and external stakeholders; and the observation of organisational events such as committee meetings, programme approval and review events and examination boards. While every effort is made to ensure that a scrutiny takes no longer than is absolutely necessary, the gathering of evidence may take some time to complete. The evidence is collated in a detailed assessor report that analyses the performance of the applicant organisation in respect of the Government's criteria. The Advisory Committee on Degree-Awarding Powers and the Board then consider the advice of the assessors before a recommendation is made to the Privy Council.
Consultation on revised criteria
In the light of the policy proposals contained in the Government's, The future of higher education (January 2003), earlier this year the DfES asked the Agency to review the appropriateness of the 1999 degree-awarding powers and university title scrutiny criteria. We offered our advice and the DfES is undertaking a sector-wide consultation exercise on possible changes to the criteria. Revised criteria will be published early in 2004. In the interim, the DfES has decided that it would not be appropriate to consider any further new applications from organisations in England and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales are deciding whether to ask us to suspend consideration of new applications from organisations in their countries. The DfES consultation paper is available through the Department's web site.
New responsibilities
After six years I am handing over my responsibilities for degree-awarding powers and university title to Sarah Clark. My new role is Deputy Director within the Reviews Group. If you have any queries regarding degree-awarding powers and university title please contact s.clark@qaa.ac.uk or telephone 01452 557107.
Chris Haslam
Access to Higher Education
Statistics
This year's Key Statistics on QAA-recognised Access provision showed increases on last year in many areas. These include the number of Access programmes available, students on Access programmes, students awarded Access certificates, Access students applying to and being accepted on higher education programmes, and former Access students registering on higher education courses. Increases followed the pattern of recent years. There was continued growth, in particular, in the numbers studying subjects allied to medicine and biological sciences. This was also the case for social studies and courses in education. The Key Statistics leaflet and the more detailed Joint Agency Report (Access to HE) 2003 are available on our web site.
Development
In the Future of Higher Education, the Agency was asked to develop proposals 'to modernise the criteria for Access Courses so that they are sufficiently flexible and attractive to meet the needs of today's adult learners'. We are looking at the organisation and delivery of Access programmes, the preparation for higher education they provide and the nature of the qualification to which they lead. Specific areas of research include:
- common patterns in the structure, type and mode of delivery of Access programmes;
- examples of innovation, and the potential for their extension and development;
- responses to changes in higher education and opportunities for new areas for development;
- the appropriateness of the content and style of Access programmes as a preparation for the higher education experience;
- the balance between responsiveness and diversity of provision and the demonstration of consistency of quality and standards;
- the description of achievement for the award of the Access to Higher Education certificate;
- opportunities and barriers to Access students' progression.
We are seeking views of a wide range of those involved with Access to Higher Education. At the end of October, we will be holding round table discussion meetings with those involved in the higher education admissions process. These will take place on Tuesday 21 October at SCOP, Woburn House, London and on Monday 27 October at Aston Business School, Birmingham. If you are interested in participating in these discussions, or would like to make any other contribution to this project, please contact a.karadia@qaa.ac.uk for further details.
Kath Dentith
Development and Enhancement
This update covers the maintenance of the academic infrastructure that underpins the articulation of standards (through use of the reference points provided by the frameworks for higher education qualifications, benchmark statements and programme specifications) and the management of quality assurance procedures within institutions (through engagement with the relevant sections of the Code of practice).
Benchmarking
A Steering Group for benchmarking met for the first time in June 2003. It has been set up to advise the Agency on procedure and process for the recognition of further subject benchmark statements at honours level. This has become necessary because we have received many requests from various academic subject communities for additional benchmarks - an unexpected indicator of the success of the scheme. A draft set of proposals will be circulated for consultation later in the year. The Steering Group will also consider how the Agency should review and revise existing statements, and oversee an evaluation of their use and value.
The Code of practice
We have started to revise the section of the Code of practice on external examining, in the light of recommendations in the report earlier this year of the Teaching Quality Enhancement Committee. The section on collaborative provision and the guidelines on distance learning are also being reviewed. In a further development of our suite of quality assurance guidance documents we are being advised, by another panel drawn from the sector, on the drafting of guidelines on accreditation of prior experiential learning (APEL). In each case, discussion meetings that were jointly sponsored with Universities UK and SCOP have informed the work. All three areas will probably lead to consultations during autumn 2003. It is also likely that we will (in the light of the outcomes of the HEFCE consultation on a framework of standards for the supervision and training of postgraduate students) review the section on postgraduate research programmes this academic year.
Following discussions in the Better Regulation Review Group, set up by the DfES, about the structure, function and use of the Code of practice, the revised sections will no longer provide illustrative guidance on possible ways to implement the precepts, but instead will carry explanations of the reasons for the inclusion of individual precepts.
Institutional liaison officers
We have had a very positive response to the introduction of our institutional liaison scheme. Many Agency officers have held introductory meetings with some or all of their higher education institutions and have already set the date for follow-up meetings; other introductory meetings will take place in the autumn. Whilst we recognise that it may be a little early to be carrying out such an activity, we are conducting an interim evaluation of the liaison scheme and plan a full evaluation and report before the end of the academic year. These will be designed to assess the usefulness of the scheme in improving the two-way flow of information between institutions and the Agency on quality assurance issues.
Round table evaluation
Between February and April 2003 eight round table discussion meetings were held in collaboration with Universities UK and SCOP. These meetings considered the sections of the Code of practice on collaborative provision, external examining and general aspects concerned with programme specifications and the framework for higher education qualifications.
Questionnaires were completed by 173 attendees following each meeting and they were asked to indicate their relative satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
We have evaluated their responses and provided a summary:
On the whole, the majority (93.1 per cent) of respondents found the meeting very useful. However, 1.7 per cent (3 people) disagreed.
Future meetings
More discussion meetings have been scheduled to support the consultations on draft revisions to sections of the Code of practice and other quality assurance issues. Full details are available at www.qaa.ac.uk and from s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk
| Monday 3 November | External examining | London |
| Tuesday 18 November | APEL | Sheffield |
| Wednesday 19 November | External examining | Sheffield |
| Tuesday 25 November | Progress files | London |
The work of the Development and Enhancement Group will be reported in greater detail in the next edition of higher quality.
Nick Harris
International developments
September 2003 was a busy month for participants in the burgeoning international discussions on quality assurance in higher education. From Cancun to Berlin and Paris to Brussels, members of inter-governmental organisations (the World Trade Organisation [WTO], the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] and UNESCO); the signatories of the inter-governmental Bologna Process; and participants in the European Commission's 'Tuning' projects, have all held meetings. They discussed trade in education services, progress in the development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), and taking forward the definition of subject specific competences. A common thread in the debates was quality assurance and an emerging theme is the need for international cooperation in the quality assurance of higher education. The field is becoming crowded with many players jostling in an attempt to seize the agenda and regulate international higher education.
From Bologna to Prague to Berlin: en route to the EHEA
On 18-19 September, the third meeting of the ministers responsible for higher education in the 34 signatory countries to the Bologna Declaration was held in Berlin. The UK is one of the original signatories to the Declaration and is represented by the DfES in the follow-up process. Given the wide-ranging aims of the Bologna process (which touch the activities of many stakeholders in the UK higher education system) a common UK negotiating position on the process was agreed, prior to the Berlin meeting, by the newly established UK High Level Policy Forum. The Forum includes representation from Universities UK, SCOP, Universities Scotland, the funding councils, the DfES, the Scottish Executive and the Agency. The preparatory papers for the Berlin meeting and the formal Communiqué following the meeting are available at www.bologna-berlin2003.de. Significant outcomes from the Berlin meeting include: agreement on the development of an overarching framework of qualifications in the EHEA, within which individual signatory countries' national frameworks can be located; further cooperation in quality assurance; and the continued promotion of the European Credit and Transfer System.
Trade in Education Services: a case for quality assurance?
Since 1995, education services have been included in the WTO's General Agreement on Trade in Education Services (GATS). Five categories of education are broadly defined in the GATS; primary, secondary, higher education, adult education and training, and other education services. There is, however, a lack of clarity about the exact nature of the three latter categories. Education Services is one of the least committed areas of GATS. Communications from four countries - Australia, Japan, New Zealand, USA - in the current Doha round of negotiations on GATS proposed the further liberalisation of trade, especially in relation to private education in the last three categories.
The debates around trade in education services are very polarised and often ill informed. But both supporters and opponents of trade liberalisation see quality assurance or the lack of international regulation of higher education as key issues. Useful information on the debate is available from the Observatory on Borderless Higher Education through articles written by Jane Knight. These are available at www.obhe.ac.uk
The OECD has also stepped in. It has established a team of 'experts' to prepare for a meeting - in Trondheim in November 2003 - between trade and education sectors. Along with UNESCO, OECD is proposing a Code of Practice in International Quality Assurance.
Tuning: new task forces assemble
The Tuning Project, funded by the European Commission and managed by the Universities of Deusto and Groningen, is now in its second phase. As well as looking at the definition of subject competences in nursing and European studies, it is assembling two task force teams to consider teaching, learning and assessment, and quality assurance. Further information on the former is available from Nick Harris and from myself on the latter. Please email n.harris@qaa.ac.uk or c.campbell@qaa.ac.uk
Recent developments in quality assurance and accreditation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE)
The Commission for Academic Accreditation in the UAE (www.caa.ae) has advised us that, with effect from September 2003, it has introduced new accreditation and licensure provisions. These will affect all institutions operating in the UAE. The Commission is happy to discuss the requirements in detail with representatives of any institution seeking to establish a presence in the UAE. We have raised several points for clarification in relation to foreign providers.
Carolyn Campbell
Results of reader survey
To ensure higher quality is meeting readers' needs we carried out a readership survey, announced in higher quality 12. Here we report on the feedback and what we plan to do in response.
The vast majority of respondents (over 90 per cent) found higher quality useful and informative. Around 80 per cent of respondents said the structure, text and layout were easy to use and clear. Very few felt that coverage of topics was too detailed and half said that they would like some subjects to be covered in greater depth.
The topic identified as most useful was review and audit processes. It was also the topic most frequently suggested for coverage in future issues including the processes, feedback on outcomes, evaluation of and developments to them.
In some areas respondents had mixed views about what was not useful. While one-third said that coverage of international matters was not useful to them, it was also one of the topics most frequently suggested for future coverage. So while this area is not of interest to all, it is important to others. Readers requested more information on how the Agency's work relates to government and government agencies, and guidance on good practice in relation to quality assurance and reviews. We will continue and expand coverage of these areas. There was also particular interest in teaching quality information, which we cover in this issue.
Respondents said that information on Agency developments was useful. In response, this issue focuses on the Reviews Group including an interview with the Group's Director, Stephen Jackson. In the next issue we will focus on the work of the Development and Enhancement Group, whose work covers the academic infrastructure. Respondents identified this as an area of particular interest. We will also introduce more news about Agency developments, events and recent and future publications.
Thirty per cent of readers said they would be interested in receiving higher quality by email, although most of these would still want to receive a paper copy. We will be looking into ways of delivering this and would remind readers that higher quality is published on our web site.
Finally, as a result of the feedback, we intend to publish three issues of higher quality each academic year. This year the other issues will be published in February and June 2004.
Thank you to those readers who completed our reader survey. We welcome feedback and comment at any time and you can email hqfeedback@qaa.ac.uk
Jean Lawton
New complaints and appeals procedures
In July, new and revised complaints and representation procedures were published on our website. We regard a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction with services we provide or actions we have taken. Complaints are handled through Complaints from institutions: procedures. Appeals are challenges to specific decisions, in specific circumstances, and are handled through Procedures on representations.
- Revised - Complaints from institutions: procedures
- New - Institutional audit and review: procedure on representations
- Revised - Academic review of subjects: procedure on representations
Schedule of events
| Date | Subject | Location | Time | Contact |
| Tuesday 21 October | Access to HE | SCOP, Woburn House, | afternoon | a.karadia@qaa.ac.uk |
| London | ||||
| Monday 27 October | Access to HE | Aston Business School, | morning | a.karadia@qaa.ac.uk |
| Birmingham | ||||
| Monday 3 November | External examining | London | 10:30-15:30 | s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk |
| Tuesday 18 November | APEL | Sheffield | 10:30-15:30 | s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk |
| Wednesday 19 November | External examining | London | 10:30-15:30 | s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk |
| Friday 21 November | Higher Education | East Midlands | 10:00-16:00 | y.jones@qaa.ac.uk |
| Further conference | Conference Centre, | |||
| University Park | ||||
| Nottingham | ||||
| Tuesday 25 November | Progress files | London | 10:30-15:30 | s.melvin@qaa.ac.uk |
Recent and forthcoming publications
All of these documents are, or will be, available on our web site and in hard copy from our distributors Linney Direct. New reports for institutional audits in England, academic reviews of subjects in England and Scotland, Access and overseas audit have also been published.
Additional copies
Printed copies of higher quality are available free of charge.
Our publications are available from:
Linney Direct, Adamsway, Mansfield, Nottinghamshire NG18 4FN.
Telephone 01623 450788, Fax 01623 450629, Email qaa@linneydirect.com
Top
QAA updates
QAAtweets
QAAtube