Institutional review in Wales: a guide for student representatives

Introduction

This guide is for student representatives, including course reps and students' union (SU) officers, or their equivalent, in Welsh higher education institutions. It will help you understand your role in institutional review, which is the method of review being used by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (the Agency) in Wales.

Timeline

Nine months before the review visit

Preliminary visit

The Agency's assistant director, who coordinates the review, visits the institution to meet institutional representatives and SU officers, or equivalent.

This is an opportunity for you to learn more about what the process involves. The assistant director can answer questions about the review and give guidance on the written submission, if you have decided to write one.

In order to get the most out of this meeting, you are advised to familiarise yourself with the Handbook for institutional review: Wales.

12 weeks before the review visit

Deadline for receipt of your written submission

The actual date of this deadline will be agreed at the preliminary visit.

Five weeks before the review visit

Briefing visit

The review team and assistant director visit the institution to get more information and to prepare the programme for the review visit.

If the SU, or equivalent, have made a written submission they will be able to discuss this with the team and draw the team's attention to matters of interest.

Review visit

The review team visit the institution for five working days, the assistant director joins the team for the final part.

The review team may meet with course/programme representatives to discuss issues pertinent to the review.

Two months after the visit

The Agency sends a draft report to the institution so it can check the accuracy of the factual content.

Six months after the review visit

The final report is published.

What is the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education's role?

While higher education institutions themselves are responsible for ensuring they set appropriate academic standards and offer a good quality education, the Agency's responsibility is to safeguard the public interest in sound academic standards. The Agency achieves this by carrying out reviews of standards and quality in institutions.

What is meant by standards and quality?

The words 'academic standards' are used to describe the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an academic award (eg a degree). For similar awards, the threshold level of achievement should be the same across the UK.

Academic quality is a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students are managed to help them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate and effective teaching, support, assessment, and learning opportunities are provided for them.

In institutional review, both academic standards and quality are reviewed.

What is an institutional review?

Institutional reviews take place on a six year cycle and are carried out by a team of academics who review the institution's quality and standards. The team use their expertise and knowledge of higher education to do this. They also review what the institution does against a set of nationally-agreed reference points, known as the Academic Infrastructure. This consists of:

Before the review visit, the review team look at the institution's self-evaluation document (SED). This is a document that the institution produces about itself, setting out a mixture of facts and figures and self-analysis.

The review visit lasts for up to five days, although each review will be different. At the end of the review the Agency publishes a report on the review team's findings including the judgements they make.

How are the judgements reached?

To reach a judgement the review team have to study the methods that the institution uses to manage the quality of the courses on offer and standard of the awards. They do this in different ways, including:

reviewing the information the institution publishes about its own standards;
reviewing institutional documents, such as policies and minutes of relevant meetings;
asking questions of relevant staff;
talking to students about their experiences;
exploring how the institution uses the Academic Infrastructure (see What is an institutional review? for details).

The review team also gather evidence by focusing on examples of the institution's internal quality assurance processes at work using thematic trails, which focus on a particular theme that runs throughout the institution's management of its standards and quality.

What is our part in the review?

Student representatives are invited to produce a written submission and to be involved in meetings throughout the process.

The SU officers, or equivalent, are involved in the preliminary meeting, the briefing visit, and possibly the review visit, and are responsible for coordinating any student submission;
Student representatives at the subject or course level are invited to attend specified meetings during the review;
Other relevant student groups, such as postgraduates, are invited to attend specified review visit meetings, particularly at institutional level.

What are the benefits of taking part in institutional review?

The information you give to the review team will help give them a full picture of your institution and make sure that accurate and useful judgements and recommendations are made.

The purpose of institutional review is to assure the quality and standards of higher education, vital for future and present students. By representing students in institutional review, you are playing a part in making sure the academic life of your student members is a continually improving experience.

What should we include in the written submission?

There is no formula for what the written submission should look like.

To help you think about what it might be useful to include, you could consider the following:

How accurate is the information that the institution publishes about itself, such as prospectuses, programme descriptors and advertisements?
Do students know what is expected of them in order to be successful?
What is the student experience as a learner like, including teaching and learning opportunities, support received and access to learning facilities?
Do students have a voice in the institution and is it listened to?

Don't worry if you don't have the information to cover all these points, anything you tell the review team about these areas is useful.

Whatever you include, you must explain how you compiled the submission, who wrote it, and how far it has been shared and agreed with the student body as a whole. For example, if you have only included the views of full-time undergraduate students, you need to make this clear.
You should also make sure that the submission doesn't include personal grievances or discussion on the competencies of individual members of staff.

For more detailed information you can look at the report structure and headings in Annex H of the Handbook for institutional review: Wales.

How much detail should we put into our submission?

You should always make reference to the evidence upon which the views expressed in the submission are based (for example, student surveys or feedback from student representatives). Giving evidence of your claims, such as reference to minutes of meetings, will help the review team when they are making their judgements and writing their final report.

Which students' views should be represented in the submission?

The review generally looks at matters across the institution as a whole, so the opinions of all student groups will be relevant, including, but not exclusively, those on franchised courses, NHS programmes and PGCEs. Your institution will provide you with information on the scope of the review.

However, the scope of your submission is something you must decide, as long as you make it clear in your submission whose views are being represented.

Can our written submission be confidential?

If you want to, you have the opportunity to keep your submission confidential, subject to prevailing legislation.

Confidentiality will, however, restrict how your submission can be used. The review team need to discuss issues, including those that you raise, with staff at your institution. It might be difficult to get useful information on something which you have included in your written submission if the review team are not allowed to talk to staff about its contents. For this reason, the Agency strongly recommends that you do share the contents of your written submission with your institution.

If you do want the submission to be confidential, you must make this clear on the front of the document.

What happens to the submission once it has been written?

The written submission should be sent to the Agency at least three months before the review visit. The final deadline will be agreed at the preliminary visit. The written submission will be read and considered by the review team.

Is what we say going to make a difference?

Yes. The review team consider all information given in the written submission and in meetings. The submission may not directly inform the final judgements that the review team make, but it could inform the types of questions the team ask throughout the review.

The review team have to interpret all of the information they are given, including the information given in the written submission and by students in meetings.

This may lead the team to find out something really good about how the institution works, or might lead them to something that students are concerned about. For example, if students don't feel that their opinions are valued by the institution, or conversely if they think the institution really listens to them, this is likely to become apparent through talking to the students and through reading the written submission.

What happens if the student written submission conflicts with the institution's self-evaluation document?

The review team use both documents to inform the lines of enquiry that they will make during the visit. Conflicting information might inform an area for further scrutiny.

What are the outcomes of institutional review?

After each review, the Agency publishes a report. This consists of a summary, the findings of the review and the main report. The review does not result in any numerical 'scores'.

The review team make judgements on:

the confidence that can be placed in the institution's management of the quality of its programmes and the standards of its awards;
the reliability of the information it publishes on quality and standards.

The first judgement is an expression of confidence: either confidence, limited confidence or no confidence. The report also gives recommendations for action for the institution to take that might be 'essential', 'advisable' or 'desirable'.

Do we see the report before it is published?

No, the SU, or equivalent do not see the report before it is published. The reason the report is sent to the institution before it is published is to check for accuracy of information. It would not be in anyone's interests for the report to be published with inaccurate information in it.

What happens if the review team have limited or no confidence in our institution?

If the report expresses limited confidence, it is published along with a programme of follow-up action. The institution then has to let the Agency know what it is going to do about this plan, and give a progress report after three months. If there are still concerns after 18 months, the Agency will revisit.

Where a judgement of no confidence is given, the institution must also give quarterly progress reports on their action plan. If there are still concerns after 18 months, the Agency might bring forward the next review.