INTERNAL QUALITY AUDIT

(IQA)
HANDBOOK

Last Updated: November 2016

CONTENTS

Page

Glossary

Introduction

Section 1: Overview of Internal Quality Audit

Section 2: The 8 Stages of Internal Quality Audit

11

Section 3: School Preparations for Internal Quality Audit 13

Section 4: The Audit Panel

14

Section 5: The External Advisory Team

16

Section 6: Documentation Requirements

19

Section 7: Programme Revalidation

21

Section 8: Timetable and Agenda for the Internal Quality Audit Event
23
Section 9: The Internal Quality Audit Report

25

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Annex 1: UK Quality Code Chapter B8 Programme Monitoring and

Review
Annex 2: Nomination Form for External Advisory Team
Annex 3: Guidance Notes for the Production of the Self Evaluation
Document
Annex 4: IQA Planning Meeting Checklist
Annex 5: Indicative Prompts for Auditors

2 | Page

GLOSSARY
CARD
FHEQ

Curriculum Annual Review and Development

Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland
FLTC
Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee
HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
IQA
Internal Quality Audit
KLE
Keele Virtual Learning Environment (Blackboard)
KPA
Keele Postgraduate Association
PSRB Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies
PAA
Planning and Academic Administration Directorate
QA
Quality Assurance
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
QAC
Quality Assurance Committee
SED
Self Evaluation Document
SLTC
School Learning and Teaching Committee
SSLC
Student Staff Liaison Committee
StARs Student Academic Representatives
ULTC
University Learning and Teaching Committee

3 | Page

INTRODUCTION
1. Keele University has had processes for reviewing aspects of the
quality and standards of its provision since the 1980s. The Senate
first approved Internal Quality Audit (IQA) in 1994/5 and has
continuously made improvements to the process since. The IQA
process is strongly influenced by the various elements of the UK
Quality Code for Higher Education (formerly: Academic
Infrastructure) published by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA).
At the core of Keeles review process is an emphasis on students
and their learning.
2. The IQA process at Keele University is built on a foundation of
supportive peer review, externality and student involvement as
the underpinning principles.
3. The current edition of the Universitys process of periodic Internal
Quality Audit takes account of:
The 6 strategic aims which underpin the Universitys 2015-2020
Strategic Plan.
The UK Quality Code for Higher Education which sets out UKwide agreed expectations for quality and standards. In
particular, the IQA process draws on the Framework for Higher
Education Qualification (FHEQ), Subject benchmark statements,
and the Chapter of the Code relating to programme monitoring
and review (Chapter B8) all available at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/qualitycode/Pages/default.aspx
The need for the University to demonstrate institutional oversight
over the quality and standards of its provision at programme
level.
4. The IQA process was revised in 2012 to place greater emphasis on:
Enhancement - by ensuring that good practice found in Schools is
celebrated, and that the wider University community can share
the good practice found by the Panel during the IQA process.
Supportive peer review - ensuring that the process is conducted in
an atmosphere of collegiality and trust.
The assurances provided to the University regarding the
effectiveness of the operation of its policies and procedures at
local level and the management of Schools.
Increased student engagement in quality assurance mechanisms,
and the contribution which the student auditor and students who
meet the audit panel can make to the IQA process.
4 | Page

 The periodic appraisal and revalidation of the academic

programmes which is underpinned by considered external advice
and a comprehensive evidence base.
The expectation that IQA will utilise existing documentation and
that the Self Evaluation Document should usually be the only
document prepared by the School specifically for the audit.
The recognition that many Schools and their programmes are
subject to external review, for example by PSRBs, and that the
IQA process should aim to align with these processes wherever
possible to reduce the burden on Schools.
Consistent monitoring of the periodic IQA schedule to ensure that
each School is audited normally once within a five-yearly cycle and
its programmes revalidated as part of this process. The Quality
Assurance Committee will monitor the cycle on behalf of the
University Learning and Teaching Committee and any exemptions
from this cycle will need to be authorised by QAC.

5 | Page

Section 1: Overview of Internal Quality Audit

1.1

Internal Quality Audit is an important element of the Universitys

strategy and procedures for assuring the quality of learning
opportunities provided to students and the standards of programmes
and awards.

1.2

It is an explicit aspect of the Universitys approach to quality assurance

that Schools take the lead in assuring the quality and standards of their
programmes. The University has processes through which confidence is
established at the level of the institution in the quality of learning and
teaching provided by Schools, in the standards of achievement that are
set and maintained by Schools, and in the carrying out of University
policies directed to these ends. These processes include the approval of
new programmes and modules and changes to these, scrutiny of the
annual reports of External Examiners, the Curriculum Annual Review
and Development (CARD) process, and periodic Internal Quality Audit.

1.3

Normally, each School has an Internal Quality Audit on a five yearly

cycle, although the Quality Assurance Committee may authorise an
audit to take place at any time, for instance in response to concerns
raised by another aspect of the Universitys quality assurance process.
The five-year cycle for Internal Quality Audit complements the annual
cycle of CARD carried out by Schools and Faculties themselves and the
annual cycle of External Examiner reports.

1.4

Important aspects of Internal Quality Audit are that it is transparent and

that it is essentially a process of supportive peer review, involving
academic participants from within the Faculty of which the School is a
part, from the wider University, and from the discipline(s) nationally.

1.5

The Internal Quality Audit should focus on:

a) the quality and standards of the programmes delivered by the
School;
b) the quality of learning and teaching, and the endeavours of the
School to enhance learning and teaching in a deliberate and
systematic manner;
c) the processes used by the School for the maintenance and
enhancement of the quality of education and the standards of
achievement;
d) the response of Schools to aspects of the QAA Quality Code and
alignment with Keele University policies and regulations;
e) the success of the School in creating a positive student learning
experience and in engaging its students in the shaping of its
provision.

1.6

Recognizing the breadth and complexity of the profile of most Keele

Schools, the scope of the audit of each School will be the subject of

6 | Page

agreement between Quality Assurance and the relevant Head of

School, in consultation with the Dean. Decisions about the scope may
affect the size and/or composition of the audit panel, the size and
composition of the external advisory team, the number of meetings,
and the duration of the event.
1.7

The composition of the audit panel will be determined by Quality

Assurance following consultation with the Dean and Head of School to
reflect the breadth and complexity of the School under review. The
normal composition of an audit panel is:
The Audit Chair who is a senior member of academic staff of the
University with wide experience of learning and teaching, academic
management and, where possible, with experience of the Internal
Quality Audit process or a similar process.
Two or more internal auditors who are academic staff of the
University, one of these from the Faculty of which the School is a
part and at least one auditor from another Faculty.
A member of the Learning and Professional Development Centre,
usually the Head of the LPDC, who will focus specifically on the
identification of good practice in learning and teaching and/or
development needs in this area.
An External Advisory Team, consisting of one or two External
Advisers (EAs) who attend the audit event plus, where the size and
range of the Schools academic provision requires it, additional
External Programme Assessors (EPAs) who do not attend the event
but will contribute to the IQAs revalidation element by providing
specialist written review reports on individual programmes.
A student auditor, normally a sabbatical officer of the Keele
Students Union or Keele Postgraduate Association (KPA) as
appropriate, who will focus on the student experience and student
engagement.
A senior officer from Quality Assurance, who will act as senior quality
assurance adviser to the panel and also act as secretary to the
panel.
The Head of Governance and Quality Assurance is an ex-officio member
of all IQA panels.

1.8

A concise Self Evaluation Document (SED) should be the only document

prepared specifically by the School for the audit. As its name implies,
the SED should evaluate the major features of the School and its
programmes, highlighting good practice and work in progress, thus
assessing strengths and weaknesses as appropriate. Guidance notes
for producing the SED are provided in Annex 3.
It is for the School to decide if they wish to extend the SED to reflect
any additional relevant aspects to be considered by the Panel and

7 | Page

which cannot easily be accommodated within the proposed sections of

the SED template. Where appropriate, hyperlinks to electronic
documents should be provided in the SED wherever possible. More
detail on the SED can be found in Section 6 of this Handbook.
1.9

Where programmes within a School are subject to any form of

recognition by a PSRB, the audit will be arranged so as to align with the
PSRB processes wherever possible, and to utilize documentation and
findings associated with the PSRB processes in order to lessen the audit
load on the School. It is the responsibility of Quality Assurance to seek
opportunities to align these processes wherever possible by liaising
proactively with any relevant PSRB(s) following the first planning
meeting with the School. In some instances, it may be possible to
arrange a joint event with a PSRB which combines IQA with a
monitoring/accreditation visit of that PSRB, thus reducing the burden on
the School.
Where programmes within a School are conducted in collaborative
provision with a partner institution or organization (UK or overseas),
explicit attention should be given within the audit to the Schools
management of its collaborative provision and adherence to the Code
of Practice on Collaborative Provision. In rare instances, where the
range and scope of the collaborative provision is particularly extensive,
it may be appropriate to conduct a separate collaborative provision
audit so as to not unduly monopolise the attentions of the audit panel
during the regular IQA. The decision to conduct a separate collaborative
provision audit rests with the Universitys Quality Assurance
Committee. The Committee secretary would notify the School in
advance where this is the case.

1.10 The student experience will be a vital part of the audit and all audits
must include meetings with students. Where it is difficult for a
representative group of students to make themselves available at the
time of the audit (for instance, in the case of programmes with large
numbers of part-time and/or professional students), other means of
contacting the students and eliciting their views will be agreed with the
School. It is normally the responsibility of the School to select and invite
students to meet with the panel. The meeting with students may be
scheduled in advance of the IQA event but it is recommended that it is
held no earlier than four weeks before the event where reasonably
possible. The meeting will be chaired by the student auditor and the
internal audit panel will also attend. The views of recent graduates may
be sought where appropriate to the programmes involved, e.g. in the
case of vocational programmes involving professional practice.
Postgraduate research students (PGR) are not normally part of the
scope of IQA because they are attached to research institutes rather
than Schools.
8 | Page

1.11 The Panel will receive the SED electronically. Supplementary evidence
will be made available via a secure Google repository where it has been
placed by the Audit Secretary (centrally available data) and the School
(school-based evidence). Members of the External Advisory Team will
be provided with all the relevant documentation required to enable
them to produce programme review reports.
Having received the SED and guided by the Secretary, panel members
will be asked to suggest lines of enquiry for the event and identify good
practice which may lead to a commendation for the School. This will
usually be done by email. At their first private meeting at the event,
panel members will agree the themes and lines of enquiry to be
explored in each meeting. The Audit Secretary will make arrangements
for meeting rooms and refreshments in liaison with the School.
1.12 On the day(s) of the audit, the audit panel will have a series of
meetings with appropriate staff and students from the School and
private meetings in order to pursue their lines of enquiry and to gather
and evaluate evidence. At least one meeting will be dealing explicitly
with the revalidation of the academic programmes by considering the
written programme review reports provided by the external advisory
team. The Chair will lead the majority of the meetings on the day of the
audit. The meeting with the students on the Schools programmes is
usually chaired by the student auditor.
1.13 At their final private meeting of the day, the panel acting on behalf of
the University Learning and Teaching Committee - will agree a set of
outcomes of the audit and the revalidation. The outcomes of the IQA
will often include commendations for good practice and may also
include a set of recommendations for the further enhancement of the
operation of the School and the way quality and standards are
managed by the School. The revalidation may result in a set of specific
conditions and/or recommendations relating to particular programmes.
Conditions usually need to be met prior to the next intake to the
programme/subject. The Schools response to the recommendations of
the audit and the revalidation will be monitored via an action plan. The
Panel will usually share indicative outcomes of the audit and
revalidation with the School at a short feedback meeting at the end of
the IQA event. The audit secretary will follow this up, normally within
two working days, by sending a draft outcome letter to the School
listing the commendations for good practice, and any agreed conditions
and recommendations as appropriate.
1.14 The Audit Secretary will minute the event and prepare a full draft report
for the auditors to approve. The report will normally follow the same
headings as those used for the SED. The Chair has the opportunity to
comment on and amend the draft report and is responsible for
approving the draft report when they are happy with it. Normally no
9 | Page

more than two working weeks after the audit event, but longer in the
case of complex or extended audits, the Audit Secretary will send the
draft report to the Head of School for correction of factual errors or error
of misinterpretation. The School will have two working weeks in which to
notify Quality Assurance of any errors of fact or of interpretation.
1.15 Normally within four working weeks of the audit event, the final version
of the audit report will be published and sent to the Head of School and
the Dean of the Faculty. The outcome section of the report will clearly
distinguish between recommendations for further enhancement and
any conditions which may have been imposed in relation to a particular
programme or programmes.
1.16 The School will then have a maximum period of four working weeks in
which to widely consider the report, if possible share it with its student
representatives (StARs), and develop an action plan in response to the
report and the conditions and recommendations contained therein. By
the end of this period, the School must seek and gain the approval of
the Dean of the Faculty and the School Learning and Teaching
Committee for its action plan. The action plan is then submitted to
Quality Assurance for consideration by the Faculty Learning and
Teaching Committee and then the Universitys Quality Assurance
Committee (QAC).
1.17 The LPDC panellist will also write a report highlighting evidence of
innovation and good practice in any aspect of learning teaching and
assessment or the wider management of the School and staff
development/needs. This report is normally shared with the School
within two weeks of the IQA event. The report will also be received by
the University Learning and Teaching Committee in order to
disseminate these innovations widely. The LPDC will work with the
School to identify appropriate staff development opportunities and
publicise good practice.
1.18 The QAC may accept the findings of the Internal Quality Audit in whole
or in part and may require follow-up action by the Chair of the
appropriate Committee or the Head of Governance and Quality
Assurance. Follow-up actions may include a repeat audit or
recommendations to the Senate.
1.19 When QAC has considered the audit report and action plan, the report
(with the action plan as an annex) will be published on the universitys
intranet in order to foster enhancement through the dissemination of
good practice.
1.20 Auditors will treat all documents provided by the School for the audit,
and all discussions and notes made at meetings, as confidential to the
panel and to the School. The programme reports from the external
10 | P a g e

advisory team will be shared with the School as they should be viewed
as an important contribution to the assurance and enhancement of the
quality and standards of the provision. The final IQA report and School
response will be made available to the wider University community on
the QA website to encourage learning from the process and sharing of
good practice. The audit report will be written in such a way as to
respect the confidentiality of the written or oral contributions of any
individual staff member or student.
1.21 Twelve months after the action plan was received by QAC, or at such
later or earlier time as may be determined by the Head of Governance
and Quality Assurance taking into account the university diary of
meetings, the Head of School will submit a brief report of progress on
implementing the action plan to QAC. Where conditions for the
revalidation of programmes were imposed, these are usually be
assigned a different deadline linked to the next intake to the
programme. The formal response to the conditions will need to be
signed off separately by the Chair of the Panel to confirm that the
School has met the conditions and can continue to admit students to
the programme(s).
1.22 At the end of the process, QA will seek feedback on the process from all
participants to ensure that the IQA process continues to meet its
objectives and remains fit for purpose. Feedback will be sought from
panel members, the School, and students who contributed to the audit.
A summary report of feedback received on a variety of QA processes
will be considered annually by QAC at its last meeting of the academic
year who commission, where appropriate, changes to the process to be
made prior to the following academic year.

11 | P a g e

Section 2: The 8 stages of Internal Quality Audit

STAGE 1: Planning the IQA Process
The Audit Secretary arranges the Planning Meeting with the School to
agree the scope of the audit and a convenient date. The Planning
Meeting is normally held with the Head of School, School Director of
Learning and Teaching and School Manager. After the meeting, the
School receives a written summary from the Audit Secretary of the
agreed scope, documentation requirements and timeframe for the
IQA. A draft agenda is also started at this point.
STAGE 2

: Panel Nominations

The School submits nominations for the External Advisory Team.

Quality Assurance appoints internal and external members to the
Audit panel. All external panel members must be appointed no later
than 3 months prior to the event.
STAGE 3: Documentation Submission
The School and Quality Assurance populate a secure Google repository
with documentation (evidence) and the School submits the Self
Evaluation Document after consideration by SLTC.
STAGE 4: Planning the IQA Event
Internal and external auditors suggest lines of enquiry arising from the
SED and evidence base. Chair and secretary agree the final agenda.
STAGE 5: The IQA Event
The Internal Quality Audit event takes place with broad representation
from staff and students of the School. The event will usually take place
over one, occasionally two, days. The meeting with students may be
scheduled in advance of the event but it is recommended that it is
held no earlier than four weeks before the event where reasonably
possible. At the end of the event, the auditors agree commendations
for good practice and recommendations for the further enhancement
of the operation of the School, as well as any specific
recommendations or conditions relating to the programmes offered by
the School. At the end of the event, the School receives verbal
feedback which includes indicative outcomes.
STAGE 6: Report Production
Normally within two working days, the Audit Secretary sends the
School a list of the Audit commendations, conditions and
12 | P a g e

recommendations by email. The Audit Secretary then drafts a full

report which is agreed with the Chair of the audit panel and sent to
the School to confirm factual accuracy. A confirmed report is normally
sent to the School no later than 4 working weeks after the audit. The
LPDC panellist will also write a report on innovation, good practice and
staff development needs. This report is normally sent to the School
within 4 weeks of the IQA event.
STAGE 7: Report Consideration and Sign Off
The School considers the report and submits a response and an Action
Plan. The timeline for completion of the Action Plan would normally be
no longer than one calendar year. However, conditions placed on the
revalidation of academic programmes will usually need to be
addressed more urgently and the panel will assign a deadline to the
conditions which will be specified in the report of the event. The Chair
of the Panel will sign off the process once all revalidation conditions
have been met and a formal response to the report has been received
from the School.
STAGE 8: Follow Up
The IQA Report and the School response are considered by the
relevant FLTC and then by QAC, which also monitors the effectiveness
of the overall process. The report on innovation and good practice
provided by LPDC will be received by the University Learning and
Teaching Committee. The Head of the LPDC will provide the University
Learning and Teaching Committee with updates on good practice and
staff development needs arising from the process. Quality Assurance
will seek feedback from all IQA participants to continuously enhance
the process and maximise its benefits for all stakeholders.

13 | P a g e

Section 3: School Preparations for Internal Quality Audit

3.1

Preparations start with the Planning Meeting between the Audit

Secretary and the School Representatives. The Audit Secretary will
convene a meeting with School representatives to talk to colleagues
about the purpose and format of the IQA process.

3.2

Early consideration should be given to the nomination of candidates for

appointment as External Advisers and External Programme Assessors (if
required) to ensure that all aspects of the academic provision of the
School will be covered and that the nominated externals meet the
criteria set out on the nomination form. Nominations should be
submitted on the appropriate form (see annex 2) to the Audit Secretary.
Final decisions on the composition of the external audit panel are made
by the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance.

3.3

It is important to ensure that the Self Evaluation Document reflects, and

takes account of, the views of staff and students in the School. The
School should identify and gather relevant evidence which can then be
uploaded to the secure Google repository by the School. The secure
Google repository will be pre-populated by the audit secretary with
folders to structure the submitted evidence. There is no need for the
School to upload centrally held evidence, such as external examiner
reports, CARD reports etc. as this will be provided by the Audit
Secretary. If in doubt, advice should be sought from the Audit Secretary
on the range and appropriateness of evidence to be provided.

3.4

Liaison should be on-going with the Audit Secretary on the agenda and
timetable for the audit event, and the selection of staff to meet auditors
at the various meetings. Wherever possible, the day will be scheduled
in such a way as to minimise disruption to teaching activities in the
School. Any issues surrounding staff availability on the day should be
raised at the earliest opportunity with the Audit Secretary. It is the
responsibility of the School to ensure that all staff who attend meetings
with the auditors are fully briefed about the process and in possession
of a copy of the School SED. The Audit Secretary can assist with this on
request.

3.5

The School is responsible for identifying students to meet auditors

during the audit event. The School should discuss the arrangements
for the event with the students.

3.6

The School Manager should liaise with the Audit Secretary on logistical
arrangements such as the booking of rooms for meetings and viewing
of the evidence base, tour of School facilities, and the location for the
working lunch and other refreshments. The Audit Secretary will make
arrangements for the supply of lunch and other refreshments for the
Panel.

14 | P a g e

15 | P a g e

Section 4: The Audit Panel

4.1

Quality Assurance maintains a register of trained internal panel

members available for IQAs. They would normally be teaching staff of
the University with extensive experience of learning and teaching,
academic management, or collaborative provision. Panel members can
self-nominate or be nominated by their Head of School or Dean. The
student auditors will usually be officers of Keele SU or KPA. Novice
auditors will be trained through preparatory documentation, a briefing
session and, where possible, observation at an audit event.
Experienced auditors will receive refresher training from time to time to
ensure they are fully appraised of any changes to the process. It is
expected that no individual auditor will participate in more than two
audits per year.

4.2

The minimum number of internal panel members will be two, one being
from the home Faculty but not from the School under audit.

4.3

Chairs of an audit panel will be senior members of academic staff of the

University, with prior IQA (or similar process) experience, wide
experience of learning and teaching and of academic management.
Chairs of IQA panels are typically Directors of Learning and Teaching,
Heads of School or members of the Quality Assurance Committee.

4.4

Recognising the breadth and complexity of the profile of most Keele

Schools, the scope of the audit of each School will be the subject of
agreement between the Quality Assurance and the Head of School in
consultation with the Dean. Decisions about the scope may affect the
size and/or composition of the audit panel, the shape and size of the
External Advisory Team, the number of meetings, and the duration of
the event. The composition and membership of each audit panel will be
determined by the Audit Secretary following consultation with the Head
of Governance and Quality Assurance, the Dean and the Head of
School.

4.5

The Head of the Learning and Professional Development Centre (LPDC)

or nominee attends as an ex-officio panel member on all IQAs with a
particular enhancement focus. The LPDC panellist will lead discussions
on good practice in learning and teaching, and seek to identify
opportunities for the further enhancement of School-based practices in
this area.

4.6

The role of internal and external auditors is to:

scrutinise the Self Evaluation Document and the supplementary
evidence and to submit lines of enquiry based on the agreed scope
of the audit in advance;
identify any additional documentary evidence needed and to liaise
with the audit secretary to ensure this documentation is provided to

16 | P a g e

the panel;
contribute to the formulation of the agenda for the audit event in
order to pursue lines of enquiry;
take responsibility for pursuing specific lines of enquiry during the
event as agreed at the first private meeting of the panel;
participate in meetings with staff and students during the audit;
participate in meetings with representatives of Professional,
Statutory or Regulatory Bodies, commissioning agencies or
employers as appropriate to the programmes under audit;
review the draft report based on the audit, ensuring that it fully
reflects the panels analyses and conclusions and recommendations.
4.7

4.8

The IQA is supported by a senior quality assurance adviser, who also

acts as Audit Secretary, from Quality Assurance. The role of the Audit
Secretary is to:
liaise with the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance, the
Dean of the Faculty and the Head of School under Audit in
clarifying the scope of the audit;
appoint the audit panel and External Advisory team on behalf of
the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance;
advise the Head of School (or representative) on preparing for
Internal Quality Audit;
assist the School in making arrangements for the meeting with
students and/or for written submission(s) by students of the
School under audit;
consult on and prepare the agenda and timetable for the audit
event(s);
coordinate physical arrangements and facilities and catering for
the audit;
brief and advise the auditors and External Advisers as required;
be responsible for arrangements on audit day, including
accommodation for the External Adviser(s) as required;
make a written record of all meetings during the event;
provide the panel at its last private meeting with a set of draft
outcomes based on the discussions in the course of the event,
including commendations for good practice, recommendations for
further enhancement and, in relation to academic programmes,
any conditions for revalidation;
make arrangements with the Head of School and the Audit Panel
for checking the draft audit report for factual accuracy, and to
make appropriate alterations to the report;
send the audit report to the Head of Governance and Quality
Assurance, the Dean of the Faculty and the Head of School;
submit the report to Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee and
Quality Assurance Committee.
The Head of Governance and Quality Assurance is an ex-officio member

17 | P a g e

of all IQA panels and will observe a selection of IQAs every year.

18 | P a g e

Section 5: The External Advisory Team

5.1

The External Advisory Team is normally made up of two External

Advisers (EAs) who attend the event. Where the number of the
academic programmes necessitates it, additional External Programme
Assessors (EPAs) can be appointed. They do not attend the audit event
but provide the panel with written reports on academic programmes for
the purposes of revalidation. All members of the External Advisory
Team would normally be expected to be of national standing in one or
more of the disciplines covered by the audit. Where relevant to the
focus of the audit and only after agreement with the Head of School, an
External Adviser with specific academic management experience may
be appointed, or an external adviser who is from a PSRB, a practitioner
or an employer.

5.2

The External Advisers and External Programme Assessors are appointed

by the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance in consultation with
the Head of School and the Faculty Dean. The School would normally be
expected to nominate possible candidates, ideally from UK universities
with comparable scope to the School under audit and who can provide
an independent evaluation of the standards of achievement and of the
quality of learning and teaching in the School under audit.

5.3

The members of the External Advisory Team are ordinarily senior

academics, usually holding appointments as Senior Lecturer or above in
a School covering subjects similar to those being audited, in a UK
university offering courses comparable to those offered at Keele.

5.4

The criteria which guide the appointment of External Advisers are:

wide experience and competence at a senior level in a teaching
School at another UK university, and/or
a practitioner in at least one of the subject areas under audit with
national credibility within the general subject area.
familiarity with academic standards within UK universities and the
expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education.
sufficient standing within at least one of the disciplines to speak
authoritatively on standards, and on course design and content.
familiarity with the standards of achievement to be expected of
students in the programmes under audit.
where appropriate to the scope of the audit, experience in
academic management.

In order to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that External Adviser and
External Programme Assessors are able to act fully independently, there
should be no reciprocal arrangements involving cognate programmes at
another institution. For example, a member of the programme team should
not be an External Examiner, a Validation Panel member, or a Review Panel
member at the Externals institution.
19 | P a g e

The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not

have recent or current substantive collaborative research with a
member of staff closely involved in the delivery of the programmes
undergoing audit or with senior staff in the School.

The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not

have served as an External Examiner at Keele University in the
previous five years.

The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not

have been a student or member of academic staff at Keele
University in the previous five years.

The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor may have

been appointed to review a programme proposal at Keele during
the previous five years, but this should not have been so often as
to compromise objectivity.

Please note: in exceptional circumstances these criteria may be

relaxed, with the agreement of the Head of Governance and Quality
Assurance, but only in cases of extreme urgency or difficulty in finding
an External Adviser with a suitable breadth of expertise or in a subject
area where there is a very limited number of potential External
Advisers.
5.5

For the revalidation of programmes, programme review reports are

produced on a standard template by the members of the External
Advisory Team.

5.6

A fee is paid to the External Adviser who attends the event and to the
External Programme Assessors who produce the programme
revalidation reports. The fee is covered by Quality Assurance. External
Advisers will normally also produce a programme report and will receive
a higher fee to compensate for their time. The fees are reviewed
annually and benchmarked against similar fees across the HE sector.
The standard procedure for claiming expenses also applies.

5.7

The precise arrangements for the involvement of the External Adviser

may vary from one audit to another. Normally, the Adviser attends all
the meetings on the day of the audit visit. However, because of the
travelling distance involved, or to allow time for him/her to see the
Schools and central learning resources, he/she might attend only some
of the meetings: this is a matter for agreement between the Head of
Governance and Quality Assurance, the Audit Chair, the School and the
External Adviser. The attention of the Adviser is drawn to the need to
keep to time during the scheduled meetings of the audit visit.

20 | P a g e

5.8

As well as providing valuable externality, External Advisers are able to

offer a comparative perspective on the Schools activities. In the past
this has been of particular use in such areas as the curriculum,
facilities, programme specifications, module descriptions, course
handbooks, etc. The Audit Secretary will ensure that the External
Adviser has access to the full range of documentation before the audit
event in a format acceptable to the External, usually via a secure
Google repository.

5.9

Where appropriate, an opportunity may be provided during the audit

visit for the External Advisers to become familiar with the Schools and
central learning resources.

5.10 The External Advisers may bring any serious concern about academic
standards or the quality of the student learning experience directly to
the notice of the Vice-Chancellor.

21 | P a g e

Section 6: Documentation Requirements

The Self Evaluation Document
(SED)
6.1

Each School will agree its own process for the production of the SED but
prior to submission, the SED should normally be considered by a
meeting of the SLTC. The SED should then be submitted to QA by the
date agreed between the School and the audit secretary. It is expected
that the Self Evaluation Document should be the only document that
will need to be prepared by the School specifically for the purpose of
the audit. The SED should be a concise document, and it is expected
that it should be no longer than 15 sides of A4. It is considered to be
good practice for the School to engage its student body in the drafting
of the SED and/or consideration of the draft SED prior to submission.

6.2

The SED should be reflective and appropriate reference to sources of

information and data should be included to support the analysis. It
would be conducive if the SED was organised in a summary of
strengths and weaknesses and it would be helpful if the School linked
their SED to the format of the IQA Report template. The SED should be
structured into the following sections:
1. Brief overview of the School, its programmes (UG and PGT) and
organisational structure to include staff and student numbers
relevant to the scope of the audit,
2. Strategic Planning (summary),
3. Taught programmes (curricula, programme design and
development)
4. Learning Teaching and Assessment
5. Student recruitment, retention, progression and achievement,
6. Student support and the student experience
7. Learning resources
8. Maintenance of standards and enhancement of quality
Further guidance on the production of the SED can be found in Annex 3.
Additional Documentation Required

6.3

In addition, the audit panel will also be provided with access to a

specified range of documentation via a secure Google repository and, in
some cases such as student assessed work, in hard copy on the day of
the event. At the earliest opportunity after the planning meeting,
Quality Assurance will upload all relevant documentation held centrally,
such as external examiner reports, CARD reports, CARD data reports, as
well as programme specifications and modules. The School will then
add the School material to this evidence base.

6.4

Students on programmes included within an audit may be invited to

22 | P a g e

provide a written submission to the audit which will be shared with the
School. As appropriate, feedback from recent graduates may also be
sought.
6.5

Auditors will treat all documents provided by the School for the audit,
and all discussions and notes made at meetings, as confidential to the
panel and the School. Information derived from them will be used only
for the purpose of Internal Quality Audit.

6.6

Quality Assurance will upload the following information onto a secure

Google repository:
Programme Specifications (current)
SCIMS Module forms (current)
External Examiner Reports and responses (last 3 years)
Undergraduate and postgraduate Programme and School CARD
reports (last 2 years)
Undergraduate and postgraduate CARD data reports (current)
NSS data for the School

6.7

The School will upload an appropriate selection of additional material to

support the narrative in the SED. There may be School-specific items
the School wish to bring to the attention of the audit panel, for example
in support of claims for good practice, but as a minimum, the School
should upload the following documents to the KLE in advance of the
audit:
School Strategic Plan (most recent)
Minutes of relevant School Committees (last two years), e.g.
Learning and Teaching Committee, Programme Committee
Outcomes of student module evaluations and School annual
reviews of modules (most recent completed year),
Minutes of SSLC (most recent year),
Response to the outcomes of the NSS (most recent),
student handbooks (current),
PSRB report(s) and any relevant documents (most recent)
Staff CVs (only where staff web profiles do not provide sufficient
detail of staff expertise and strengths).

In addition, to allow the audit panel to appreciate the assessment, marking

and moderation practices within the School, a limited sample of student
assessed work should be provided. The selection of the sample is at the
discretion of the School but should include samples of a range of different
assessment types at different levels on different programmes. The assessed
material should be accompanied by the relevant assessment criteria /
marking schemes. This documentation should be supplied to the Audit
Secretary on the day prior to the audit in hard copy.
6.8

Students on taught programmes within the School may, if they so wish,

23 | P a g e

present a written submission to the audit panel which will be shared

with both the audit panel and the School. It is expected that the Head
of School will draw this opportunity to the attention of students and
facilitate the creation of a representative submission. Exceptionally, the
Schools student academic representatives or an officer of the Students
Union may request that the written student submission be withheld
from the School; in such a case, the Head of Governance and Quality
Assurance will adjudicate. There is no formal requirement for a student
written submission as the face-to-face meeting between the audit panel
and a representative group of students will provide the opportunity for
students to share with the panel their perceptions of the student
experience and the programmes provided by the School.
Section 7: Programme Revalidation
7.1

The IQA process includes an element of programme revalidation for all

taught programmes offered by the School. The revalidation element is
carried out via external peer review, undertaken by the External
Advisory Team and evidenced by their programme review reports.
These reports will be prepared by the members of the External Advisory
Team in advance of the IQA event and based on the submission of
programme documentation, such as Programme Specifications and
module forms. The School may, if it so wishes, submit additional
programme documentation to contextualise this set of documents and
to assist the external advisers in their task of reviewing the programme.
Such additional information may be linked to PSRB accreditation, workbased learning, additional student learning opportunities, or other
material as the Schools discretion. However, the amount of additional
programme-related material should not be excessive. The School will
have further opportunity to refer to additional material in the
programmes meeting at the IQA event.

7.2

The Revalidation reports will be shared with the School in advance of

the IQA wherever possible to facilitate a targeted discussion of the
reports during the event. The School may use the opportunity at the
event to comment on any recommendations or conditions suggested by
the External Advisory Team. The Programmes meeting of the IQA is also
an important opportunity to discuss good practice developed at
programme level and the programme representatives should ensure
that they bring to the attention of the panel such good practice.

7.3

The criteria underpinning the revalidation of programmes will be the

following:
a. Do the programmes aims and learning outcomes continue to be
appropriate and pitched at the right level in accordance with the
Framework for Higher Education Qualifications?

24 | P a g e

b. Is the programme design compatible with the expectations expressed in

the relevant Subject Benchmark Statement [where appropriate] and
with the requirements of any accrediting / professional body?
c. Does the content, design and organisation of the curriculum reflect the
aims and learning outcomes of the programme?
d. Is the learning and teaching strategy consistent with the stated aims
and learning outcomes?
e. Are the arrangements for management and administration of the
programme appropriate and robust?
f. Are the assessment methods and the assessment strategy sufficiently
varied and consistent with the stated aims and learning outcomes?
g. Is there evidence of appropriate engagement with employers and/or
other stakeholders, such as relevant industry/community
groups/professions?
h. Has the team produced accurate and complete public information
(programme specification, KIS, prospectus entry, handbooks, etc.) about
the programme, for the benefit of students, and other internal and
external stakeholders?
i. Does the programme reflect University strategies on learning, teaching
and assessment, the academic regulations and admissions requirement,
including APL?
j. [at the event]: Is the standard of students assessed work appropriate to
the level[s] of the award and comparable to that found in other
institutions?
7.4

The revalidation element of the IQA will lead to a separate section in

the IQA report and any conditions or recommendations expressed by
the Panel may be allocated a different timescale to be addressed.
Should the IQA panel impose any conditions on the revalidation of one
or more programmes, it is likely that the deadline for the fulfilment of
these conditions will be linked to the enrolment of the next cohort of
students.

25 | P a g e

Section 8: Timetable and Agenda for the Internal

Quality Audit Event
8.1 A meeting with students currently studying in the School on taught
programmes will be conducted. The meeting with students may be
scheduled in advance of the event but it is recommended that it is held
no earlier than four weeks before the event where reasonably possible.
The student meeting will be and chaired by the student auditor. Other
internal panel members and the audit secretary will also attend.
8.2 Early on in the IQA event programme, a short meeting with the Dean
and the Head of School will be held to provide an opportunity to share
with the IQA panel observations on the current strategic and academic
context within which the School operates. For the subsequent
meetings, the School should field a broad range of full time and part
time staff, as well as key support staff such as the School Manager and
technicians/ demonstrators where appropriate. Where the number of
staff available exceeds the number of the staff which can be
accommodated, the Head of School will select those colleagues best
informed in relation to the audit panels lines of enquiry. As a minimum,
the audit panel will expect to meet members of staff holding key roles
in relation to learning and teaching and the student experience, for
example the Director of Learning, the convener(s) of the staff student
liaison committee(s) and Teaching and Programme Leaders.
8.3 Depending on the breadth of the provision and the agreed scope of the
audit, the Audit Secretary may schedule additional or parallel meetings
with, for example, separate programme teams, support staff, learning
support staff, sessional teachers, practice-placement mentors / tutors,
postgraduate students involved in teaching, as appropriate.
8.4 The details of the IQA event programme will be discussed with the
School beforehand and be tailored to the lines of enquiry identified by
the auditors. Changes to the sample programme might, for example,
be to include a tour of facilities, a demonstration of particular learning
resources, or a meeting with support staff from outside the School
where this is deemed appropriate. Also, where relevant to the School
and where feasible, auditors may also wish to meet representatives of
Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Bodies (PSRB), commissioning
agencies or employers, or placement providers. This would always be
done in consultation with the School.
8.5 Sample Programme
9.00

Initial Private Meeting of Audit Panel

To review the terms of reference, documentary submission and to determine an

agenda.
9.30

Meeting to consider school context and sharing good practice

26 | P a g e

There will be an opportunity to look at additional documentation provided by the

School
9:45

Meeting with the Dean and Head of School

10.30

Meetings with academic staff

To focus on maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality and learning

and teaching.
12:00

Working Lunch for the Audit Panel

Alternatively, this time may be used for a meeting with current and former students
of the School where this has not occurred prior to the IQA event.
12:30

Meetings with academic staff Programme re-validation

16:30

Private Meeting of the Audit Panel

To agree commendations, conditions and recommendations for the School.

17:00

Feedback to the School

27 | P a g e

Section 9: The Internal Quality Audit Report

9.1

The audit secretary will prepare a draft report of the audit, summarising
the panels analyses, conclusions and recommendations. The report will
draw upon the programme reports from the External Advisory Team,
notes taken during the event and at the student meeting, as well as
comments received from the audit panel.

9.2

The structure of the report will reflect the agreed scope and complexity
of the audit, but generally will be organised into sections which reflect
the SED template.

9.3

The report will be factual and will be drafted by the Audit Secretary,
including listing the evidence, a summary of the analysis and the
detailed phrasing of the recommendations and the commendations for
good practices that are to be highlighted in the Report. The Chair has
responsibility to check the draft and to provide comment and
amendments in line with their recollection and notes from the event.

9.4

The Audit Secretary will be responsible for the final formatting of the
report before it is sent to the Audit Chair to be signed off as an accurate
reflection of the findings of the audit panel.

9.5

The audit report will be written in such a way as to respect the

confidentiality of the written or oral contributions of individual staff
members and students.

9.6

Normally within two working weeks of the audit event, the Audit
Secretary will send the draft report to the Head of School for correction
of errors of fact or of interpretation. The School will have two weeks in
which to notify the Quality Assurance of any errors of fact or of
interpretation.

9.7

Within four weeks of the audit event, the final version of the audit
report will be sent to the Head of School and the Dean of Faculty.

9.8

The School will have a period of four weeks to develop an action plan in
response to the audit report, to sustain strengths and remedy
weaknesses. By the end of this period, the School must seek and gain
the approval of the Dean of the Faculty for this action plan and submit
the action plan to Quality Assurance.

9.9

The Audit Secretary will check the action plan for completeness, raising
any necessary questions with the School and Dean concerned. As soon
as possible thereafter, the audit report and action plan will be
considered by the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee and then
by the Quality Assurance Committee.

28 | P a g e

9.10 When the Quality Assurance Committee has considered the audit report
and action plan, they will be published on the Universitys intranet in
order to foster enhancement through the dissemination of good
practice.

9.11 Twelve months after the action plan was received by QAC, or at such
later or earlier time as may be determined by the Head of Governance
and Quality Assurance taking into account the university diary of
meetings, the Head of School will submit a brief report of progress on
implementing the action plan to QAC.

29 | P a g e

ANNEX 1
UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B 8: programme
monitoring and review (2013)
The indicators
Expectations about programme monitoring and review
The Quality Code sets out the following Expectation about programme monitoring
and review, which higher education institutions are required to meet:
Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for
setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing
the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective, regular and
systematic processes for monitoring and review.
The Indicators of sound practice
Indicator 1
Higher education providers maintain strategic oversight of the processes for, and
outcomes of, programme monitoring and programme review, to ensure processes
are applied systematically and operated consistently.
Indicator 2
Higher education providers take deliberate steps to use the outcomes of
programme monitoring and review processes for enhancement purposes.
Indicator 3
Higher education providers operate a process to protect the academic interests of
students when a programme is closed.
Indicator 4
Higher education providers define processes, roles and responsibilities for
programme monitoring and programme review and communicate them to those
involved.
Indicator 5
Higher education providers evaluate their processes for programme monitoring and
review and take action to improve them where necessary.
Indicator 6
Higher education providers make use of reference points and draw expertise from
those outside the programme in their processes for programme monitoring and
review.
Indicator 7
Higher education providers involve students on programme monitoring and review
processes.
Indicator 8
Higher education providers enable staff and other participants to contribute
effectively to programme monitoring and programme review by putting in place
appropriate arrangements for their support and development.

30 | P a g e

The full chapter can be found via the following link:

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?
PubID=177#.VMkM8tKsWSo

31 | P a g e

ANNEX 2
NOMINATION FORM
EXTERNAL ADVISORY TEAM MEMBER FOR INTERNAL QUALITY AUDIT
All External Advisory Team member nominations are approved by the
Head of Governance and Quality Assurance.
Before completing this form, please refer to the External Advisory Team
appointment criteria below. If you are unsure whether you need External Advisers
or External Programme Assessors, please contact the Validation and Review Officer
in QA.
INTERNAL QUALITY AUDIT EVENT:
..
This nomination is for an:

External Adviser who produces a programme review report and attends

the IQA Event

External Programme Assessor who produces programme reports

DETAILS OF NOMINEE
1. Full name, including title

2. Present post and place of work (if retired, state details of previous post):

3. Rationale for the Nomination:

4. Relevant specialist and subject expertise:

5. Please specify any previous contact with Keele University or members of the
School and explain why this does not constitute a conflict of interest in light
of the appointment criteria (see overleaf):

6. Reviewers Address to which documentation should be sent:

32 | P a g e

Telephone:

Email:

HEAD OF SCHOOL APPROVAL

Signed:

Date:

School to complete all sections of the form and return, together with the nominees
current CV, to the Validation and Review Officer in Quality Assurance.

33 | P a g e

CRITERIA FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF IQA EXTERNAL PANEL MEMBERS

1.

OVERVIEW

The External Advisory team of an IQA consists of External Advisers who attend the
event and produce written programme review reports, and External Programme
Assessors who do not attend the event but do produce programme review report
for revalidation. Both are appointed to review the documentation produced for the
programmes offered by the School. It is their role to ensure that the proposed
programme is in-line with other programmes of its type in the sector, that the
curriculum is current and relevant, and that the programme is of an appropriate
level to similar awards.
The size of the external advisory team depends on the complexity of the academic
portfolio of the School. Candidates should be identified by the School and this
information should be passed to the Validation and Review Officer, who will liaise
with the Head of Governance and Quality Assurance to obtain approval of the
nominated externals. Before the names of the potential externals are put forward,
the School should contact the nominees unofficially to ensure that they are able
and willing to act as externals for the IQA process. If nominations are approved, the
Quality Assurance Office, acting on behalf of QAC, will contact the external and
issue a contract.
The Validation and Review Officer will provide the externals with the relevant
documentation to enable them to produce the programme review reports. The
reports will need to be produced using the relevant template and mailed to the
Validation and Review Officer not less than one week before the IQA event.
Copies of the reports will be sent to the School and the other panel members prior
to the event. Recommendations included in the reports will inform the discussions
at the event and are likely to be included in the formal outcome for the IQA itself.
The School is invited to prepare a response to any issues raised by the externals for
consideration by the Panel.
2. EXTERNAL ADVISORS AND EXTERNAL PROGRAMME ASSESSORS
APPOINTMENT CRITERIA
The criteria for the appointment of External Advisers and External Programme
Assessors have been developed with reference to the QAAs UK Quality Code for
Higher Education Chapter B7: External Examining and Chapter B8 Programme
Monitoring and Review.
1. External Advisers and External Programme Assessors should have the
necessary subject expertise and good standing in the field of the proposed
programme. For example:
wide experience and competence at a senior level in a teaching School
at another UK university, and/or
34 | P a g e

a practitioner in at least one of the subject areas under audit with

national credibility within the general subject area.
familiarity with academic standards within UK universities and the
expectations of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education.
sufficient standing within at least one of the disciplines to speak
authoritatively on standards, and on course design and content.
familiarity with the standards of achievement to be expected of
students in the programmes under audit where appropriate to the
scope of the audit, experience in academic management.

2. In order to avoid conflicts of interest and to ensure that External Adviser and
External Programme Assessors are able to act fully independently, there
should be no reciprocal arrangements involving cognate programmes at
another institution. For example, a member of the programme team should
not be an External Examiner, a Validation Panel member, or a Review Panel
member at the Externals institution.
3. The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not have recent
or current substantive collaborative research with a member of staff closely
involved in the delivery of the programmes undergoing audit or with senior
staff in the School.
4. The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not have
served as an External Examiner at Keele University in the previous five years.
5. The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor should not have been
a student or member of academic staff at Keele University in the previous
five years.
6. The External Adviser or External Programme Assessor may have been
appointed to review a programme proposal at Keele during the previous five
years, but this should not have been so often as to compromise objectivity.
Please note: post-IQA, the University balances the benefits of engaging someone
who is familiar with the programme and its rationale against any suggestion that
prior involvement with the programme might impair their ability to provide a fully
independent perspective. Therefore, an External Adviser or External Programme
Assessor would not usually appointed as External Examiner for the same
programme. For further advice please contact Quality Assurance.
3.

FEES

External Advisers: for attending the event: 120; For a programme report: 80 120.
External Programme Assessors (do not attend the event): 80 per programme
report.
Fees are covered by PAA.

35 | P a g e

ANNEX 3
Guidance Notes for the Production of the
Self-Evaluation Document (SED)
for Internal Quality Audit

The SED should be an evaluative and reflective document which explores the
Schools strengths and weaknesses. The Self Evaluation Document should include
appropriate reference to sources of information and data to support the analysis.
The Self-Evaluation Document should be structured around the following eight
sections:
1) Brief overview of the School, its programmes (UG and PGT) and organisational
structure to include staff and student numbers relevant to the scope of the
audit,
2) Strategic Planning (summary),
3) Taught programmes (curricula, programme design and development)
4) Learning Teaching and Assessment
5) Student recruitment, retention, progression and achievement,
6) Student support and the student experience
7) Learning resources
8) Maintenance of standards and enhancement of quality
The Self-Evaluation Document (SED) should be a statement which demonstrates
that the School has evaluated the following, in a constructively self-critical manner:
the appropriateness, effectiveness and quality of the curricula of its
programmes;
the quality and appropriateness of the learning environment provided for
students;
the quality of the support provided for students;
the quality of the support and development opportunities provided for staff;
the appropriateness and effectiveness of its management of the academic
standards and quality enhancement.
It should discuss both strengths and weaknesses, as perceived by the School under
review. The document is an opportunity for the School to demonstrate how the
strengths of the provision identified in previous reviews have been built upon, and
how any weaknesses identified have been addressed. Where weaknesses remain,
plans for addressing these should be summarised. Auditors will give credit for
appropriate remedial plans that address effectively any acknowledged weaknesses.
Wherever possible, the student community should be provided with the opportunity
to contribute to the development of the SED and the School should outline in the
introductory paragraph of the SED if and how students have been engaged. The
Panel will welcome a succinct and well-evidenced narrative and will have no
particular expectation with respect to the length of the SED. Normally, the School
would not be expected to exceed 15 pages in its SED. However, where the Schools
36 | P a g e

range of programmes and activities is particularly wide-ranging, a somewhat longer

SED may be required. The SED should include the following sections:
1. Brief overview of the School
The initial overview should refer to the Schools taught undergraduate and
postgraduate programmes and organisational structure to include staff and student
numbers relevant to the scope of the audit. Where applicable, it should include
reference to collaborative and on-line provision for which the School is responsible.
2. Strategic Planning Summary
The strategic summary should highlight to the audit panel the key challenges facing
the School and any particular strengths of the School which enable it to meet its
strategic challenges. This section should also contain reference to current, planned
and/or future developments in the School to support the University in meeting its
six strategic aims.
3. Taught Programmes
The SED should evaluate the effectiveness of the content and design of the
curricula in enabling the intended outcomes of programmes to be achieved.
Specific issues for consideration may include:
academic and intellectual progression within the curriculum;
appropriateness of content in relation to the level of the award;
inclusion of recent developments in the subjects;
research-informed teaching;
reflection of best practice in learning teaching and assessment.
The engagement with the Keele Approach to Education;
4. Learning Teaching and Assessment
This section should include reflection on the Schools provision in respect of the
following:
Its assessment diet

the range and variety of assessment methods used and evaluate their
effectiveness in enabling students to demonstrate achievement;

the effectiveness of assessments in discriminating between different

categories of performance;

the effectiveness of the assessments used in promoting student learning

(especially through formative assessment).

Innovative modes of delivery. The SED should reflect on the extent to which the
modes of delivery of teaching and learning are innovative and evaluate their
effectiveness. This could include, for example, discussion on

the range and appropriateness of teaching methods

the variety of ways in which student participation is encouraged and

achieved

the effectiveness of team teaching.

The learning and study skills that are in the curricula. The SED should 37 | P a g e

articulate how the School identifies the learning and study skills needed by
students

explain how the School gains an understanding of where these skills are
taught, practiced and assessed and where they need to be developed;

evaluate the effectiveness of strategies employed by the School to deliver an

appropriate range of learning and study skills for all students.

E-learning. The SED should explain and evaluate the Schools current use of elearning and articulate the strategies for developing it further, as appropriate.
Employability. The SED should explain:

how the School identifies the employability skills that are relevant to and
needed by its students;

how the School gains an understanding of where employability skills are

taught, practiced and assessed and where they need to be developed;

how the School assesses the effectiveness of its employability strategies and
its engagement or interactions with employers.

Work placements. If the School provides work placements the SED should explain
how these are managed and evaluate their value to the student experience.
Where work placements are not currently provided the SED should explain if
there are plans to develop them in the future or what alternative strategies
the School has to provide students with opportunities to engage with
employers.
Options for international study. As with work placements, opportunities for students
to study abroad are another important objective for the University. The
School should explain what opportunities already exist, if any, and articulate
its plans for developing international study opportunities, possibly through
the development of partnerships with similar international departments.
Use of market intelligence. The SED should explain how or if the School uses market
intelligence to inform the development of its curricula and/or portfolio of
programmes and evaluate the effectiveness of using such data.
5. Student Recruitment, Retention, Progression and Achievement
The SED should review the adequacy of the learning environment and its
effectiveness. In particular, the panel may look for the enhancement of the student
experience and a strategic approach, within a wider Faculty context, to linking
resources to intended programme outcomes.
6. Student Support and the Student Experience
The SED should articulate and evaluate the student support systems in place for
the whole student journey, covering aspects that include the following:

recruitment and induction of students;

identification of and action on any special learning needs;

38 | P a g e

feedback to students on their progress;

overall academic guidance and supervision;

tutorial support.

The SED should discuss the effectiveness of strategies of academic support, and
the extent to which they take account of the ability profile of the student intake in
relation to the aims of the programmes. Where appropriate the School should
evaluate the effectiveness of its student support systems in the context of relevant
student data.
7. Learning Resources
The SED should explain the systems and strategies in place for ensuring the
effectiveness of the deployment of learning resources in the School. This should be
linked to a discussion of the quality of the student learning environment provided
by the School.
8. Maintenance of standards and Enhancement of Quality
The SED should evaluate the effectiveness of the measures taken to enhance the
quality and standards of provision. In particular, the SED should show how the
School enhances the quality of learning opportunities by systematically building
upon information or feedback that may come from:
o

external examiners;

external bodies, such as professional, statutory or regulatory bodies;

students and graduates;

employers;

the annual CARD process;

the Universitys Strategic Planning process;

University policies;

How the School identifies and disseminates good practice

39 | P a g e

ANNEX 4

IQA PLANNING MEETING CHECKLIST

Please note that it is the responsibility of the Head of School/Centre to
inform School/Centre staff of the decisions taken regarding preparations
for the IQA event.
SCHOOL/CENTRE:

Date of Planning Meeting:

Attended By:

Date of last IQA or equivalent

List of subjects/programmes offered by
the School/Centre
Size and composition of External
Advisory Team
Subject areas:
School to confirm which externals will
attend the IQA event
QA to provide link to guidance and
external reviewer nomination form
template
Does the School have:
Collaborative Provision (taught
programmes)
Delivery other than onsite at
Keele/should the IQA include visits to
facilities/locations other than Keele
campus?
Innovative learning, teaching or
assessment methods which will need to
be considered at the event? (e.g. is
there a particularly facility the School
would like the audit panel to look
at/see a demonstration of as part of
the event?)
40 | P a g e

School Staff to Attend:

Head of School
Directors of Learning and Teaching
Programme Leaders
School Manager
Dean and Faculty Business Manager to be invited to the Strategic Aims and
Future Direction meeting
Also consider support staff requirements

Dates and Deadlines:

Proposed Date for IQA Event
Deadline for submission of external
advisory team proposal forms (no later
than 3 months before the event)
Deadline for submission of Self
Evaluation Document (SED) to QA (no
later than 4 weeks before the event)
Deadline for uploading of School
documentation to the Google
repository (no later than 4 weeks
before the event)
(Note: QA will create a Google
repository for the event).
Student Engagement
Proposed Date for Student Meeting
(Note: This is normally chaired by the
Student Auditor. All internal panel
members are also expected to attend).
School to provide names of students to
attend and send an invitation to these
students. Schools normally begin with
their elected STARs but participation in
IQA events is not restricted to these
students.
Documentation to be uploaded onto the Google repository by the
School/Centre:
41 | P a g e

School Strategic Plan (most recent);

Minutes of relevant Committees (last
two years) e.g. School Learning and
Teaching Committee;
Outcomes of student module
evaluations and module summaries
(most recent completed year);
Minutes of SSLC meetings (most recent
year);
Student Handbooks (current);
PSRB reports (if applicable) and any
relevant documents (most recent);
Staff CVs (only where staff web
profiles do not provide sufficient detail
of staff expertise and strengths;
In addition, to allow the audit panel to appreciate the assessment, marking and
moderation practices within the School, a limited sample of student assessed work
should be provided. The selection of the sample is at the discretion of the School
but should include samples of a range of different assessment types at different
levels on different programmes. The assessed material should be accompanied by
the relevant assessment criteria / marking schemes. This documentation should be
supplied to the Audit Secretary on the day prior to the audit in hard copy.
Documentation to be uploaded onto the Google repository by Quality
Assurance:
Programme Specifications (current)
SCIMS module forms (current)
Please note: all programme specifications and module summaries should be
reviewed by the School and updated to the latest templates where
appropriate/required.
External Examiner Reports and
Responses (last 2 years)
Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Programme and School CARD Reports
(last 2 years)
Undergraduate and Postgraduate CARD
data reports (current)
42 | P a g e

Student Submission (not

compulsory)
Students on taught programmes within
the School may, if they so wish,
present a written submission to the
audit panel which will be shared with
both the audit panel and the School. It
is expected that the Head of School will
draw this opportunity to the attention
of students and facilitate the creation
of a representative submission.

Summary of main issues discussed:

Follow up meeting required? (if so, please indicate a date:)
Further Actions Required
School:
Quality Assurance:

43 | P a g e

Deadline for completion

ANNEX 5
INDICATIVE PROMPTS FOR AUDITORS
The following series of prompts is intended to assist IQA Panels in the
exploration of the effectiveness of programmes and arrangements
within the School. They can assist auditors in the analysis of the selfevaluation prior to the audit, collection of evidence during the audit,
and amending the draft audit report. However, there is no expectation
that auditors should use all prompts or expect to see all prompts
explicitly addressed in the SED or the additional documentation.
Prompts - Programmes
a) Evaluation of the intended learning outcomes in relation to external
reference points and to the broad aims of the Schools programmes
What are the intended learning outcomes for the programmes and
are they stated clearly?
How do they relate to external reference points including relevant
subject benchmark statements, the qualifications framework and the
requirements of relevant professional bodies?
How do they relate to and are they appropriate to the overall aims of
the programmes?
b) The effectiveness with which the curricula are planned,
designed and approved to facilitate achievement of the
intended outcomes
How does the School ensure that curriculum content enables
students to achieve the intended learning outcomes?
How does the School ensure that the design and organisation of the
curriculum is effective in promoting student learning and the
achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
c) The means by which the intended outcomes are communicated to
students, staff and External Examiners
How are the intended outcomes of a programme and its constituent
parts communicated to staff, students and External Examiners?
Do the students know what is expected of them?
d) Evaluation of the means by which the School creates the conditions
for achievement of the intended learning outcomes
Do the design and content of the curricula encourage achievement
of the intended learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and
understanding, cognitive skills, subject specific skills (including
practical/professional skills), employability skills, progression to
employment and/or further study, and personal development?
Are the design and content of the curriculum for each programme
appropriate to its potential for enabling students to achieve the
intended learning outcomes.
44 | P a g e

 Is there evidence that curricular content and design is adequately

informed by recent developments in techniques of teaching and
learning, by current research and scholarship, and by any changes in
relevant occupational or professional requirements?
Prompts - Learning and Teaching
a) Evaluation of the quality of the learning opportunities offered by the
School, the quality of the teaching delivered by staff, and the extent to
which teaching and learning contributes to the achievement of the
intended outcomes of the Schools programmes.
How effective is the teaching of subject knowledge in relation to
curriculum content and programme aims?
How effective is the teaching of subject-specific, employability and
practical skills in relation to curriculum content and programme
aims?
Does the teaching have sufficient variety, breadth, depth, pace and
challenge?
How effectively do staff draw upon their research, scholarship or
professional activity to inform their teaching?
How good are the materials provided to support learning?
Is there effective engagement with and participation by students?
Is the quality of teaching maintained and enhanced through
effective staff development, peer review of teaching, integration of
part-time and visiting staff, effective team teaching, and induction
and mentoring of new, inexperienced or part-time staff?
How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of student workloads?
b) Evaluation of the assessment process and the standards of
achievement of intended programme outcomes that it demonstrates,
and of the extent to which student achievement meets appropriate
expectations.
Do the assessment process overall and the particular assessment
instruments chosen enable learners to demonstrate achievement of
the intended outcomes?
Are there criteria that enable internal and External Examiners to
distinguish between different categories of achievement?
Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of
assessment procedures?
Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function
in developing student abilities?
Do the assessment processes comply with university policy and
regulations on assessment and on external examining (university
regulations 8, 8a and 9)?
What evidence is there that the standards achieved by learners
meet the minimum expectations for the award, as measured against
the relevant subject benchmarks and the qualifications framework
(FHEQ)?
45 | P a g e

 How effectively is learning facilitated by academic guidance,

formative and summative feedback and supervisory arrangements?
Are the Schools arrangements for academic and personal tutorial
support consistent with university policy for both undergraduate and
taught postgraduate students, and clear and generally understood
by staff and students?
c) Evaluation of the Schools response to the University and Faculty
Learning and
Teaching Strategies
Does the School have an Action Plan in response to the University
Learning and Teaching Strategy and the relevant Faculty Learning
and Teaching Strategy
Is the Action Plan current and actively managed
Prompts - Organisation
(a) Evaluation of the Schools arrangements for recruitment and
induction of students and the strategy for supporting students, and
their effectiveness in facilitating student progression towards successful
completion of the Schools programmes.
Is there an appropriate and up-to-date learning and teaching
strategy across the Schools programmes?
Is there an appropriate overall strategy for academic support within
and across programmes, including handbooks and other written
guidance, which is consistent with the student profile and overall
aims of the programmes?
Are there effective arrangements for admission and induction which
are generally understood by staff and by applicants?
(b) Evaluation of the effectiveness with which qualified staff are
contributing to the achievement of the intended outcomes of all the
Schools programmes, and of the availability of appropriate School and
central learning resources and the effectiveness of their deployment in
support of the intended outcomes.
Is the collective expertise of the academic staff suitable and available
for effective delivery of the curricula, for the overall teaching,
learning and assessment strategy, and for the achievement of the
intended learning outcomes?
Are appropriate staff development opportunities available?
Is appropriate administrative (and technical) support available?
Is there an overall strategy for the deployment of learning
resources?
How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of the provision of
resources?
Is suitable teaching and learning accommodation available?
Are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and
accessible?
46 | P a g e

 Are suitable equipment and appropriate IT facilities available to

learners?
(c) Evaluation of the Schools approaches to reviewing and improving
the quality and effectiveness of its teaching, and of the standards set
for and achieved by its students.

How does the School review and calibrate its standards and are
these processes effective?

Does the School seek to enhance standards?

Is enhancement promoted effectively?

(d) Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Schools organisational
structure and reporting lines.

Is the organisational structure well understood by students and

staff?

Are the terms of reference of the various bodies published and

kept up to date

Do members attend when required?

Do the reporting lines contribute to enhancement of the

quality of learning and teaching?

Are Student Academic Representatives (StARs) elected in a

timely fashion and are they given the resources necessary
(e.g. access to year-group e-mail and/or KLE) for them to
solicit and represent student opinion and to provide feedback?
Prompts - Student Evaluation
(a) Evaluation by students of their learning experiences through formal
surveys, including the NSS, representation on committees and
informally, on for example:

Recruitment processes

Induction processes

Learning teaching and assessment in modules

Learning teaching and assessment in the programme as a

whole

Feedback on assessed work

Feedback, encouragement and/or advice on

decisions concerning progression or non-progression

Learning support and pastoral support

(b) Evaluation of the opportunities given to student representatives and
of their effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience provided by
the School

Are Student Academic Representatives (StARs) elected in a

timely fashion and are they given the resources necessary (e.g.
access to year-group e-mail and/or KLE) for them to solicit and
represent student opinion and to provide feedback? Stars
attend the meetings of the Staff Student Liaison Committee(s)?

Are students elected to School committees as required by

47 | P a g e

48 | P a g e

University policies and regulations?

Do these students attend and participate in meetings?
Are facilities provided for student representatives unable to
attend a meeting to contribute to discussion, e.g. through
receipt of papers and submission of written comments or
questions?