European-American University™

Guide to Good Practice

Introduction
This Guide is based on received experience and knowledge held by academic staff, formulated by staff appointed by European-American University, and on the practice of other institutions. Where appropriate, academic staff will have drawn upon policy and regulations in place at institutions where they enjoy full-time employment, it being only reasonable to seek to capitalise on the 'best practice' objectives of other tertiary level institutions.

A separate, but related part of the documentation for the University is the Quality Assurance Audit Policy, which outlines how the University will seek to maintain and develop the stated Good Practice.

Part of the input for this Guide is related to the British 1991 White Paper on Higher Education (Cmd. 1541), in which more than a quarter of the main document focuses on the quality assurance of teaching. Although the White Paper is chiefly of relevance to institutions seeking to satisfy the funding decisions of the new Funding Councils, it is fair to say that many of the proposals and 'best practice' conclusions contained in the White Paper may be beneficially employed by all tertiary level institutions including those in the private sector.

The quality assurance of tutoring is the responsibility of every member of the academic staff, all of whom are recipients of and expected to contribute to this Guide to Good Practice. The development of the Guide will thus continually build on internal working practice, external research and practice and policy as experienced and put in place by academic staff at other tertiary level institutions.

How to Use the Guide
This Guide is intended as a working reference document. It will be amended and changed as developments warrant over time.

The intended reader of the Guide is anyone involved with teaching on behalf of European-American University, be they highly experienced or the opposite, or anywhere along the continuum, any student of the University and the general public seeking information about the quality assurance processes of European-American University. Parts of the Guide may thus seem unnecessarily stuck on details which to some will be very obvious, but the reason for this would be that the Guide needs to be able to cater also to the less experienced, who are also likely to have very little, or even no experience with Quality Assurance policy development. The value of all academic staff having received - and read - the same document is expected to be greater than the relative nuisance of some staff reading through material they consider blatantly obvious.

Please note that the Guide makes distinction between Academic Board policy, the following of which is mandatory, and good practice, which is advisory. Policy will be identified as such by being printed in italics.

Staff should notice that faculties and departments will usually enjoy flexibility in the design of procedures suiting their particular objectives. The primary aim of the Guide is to inform and facilitate such a process.

The Guide is not a complete and finished document, but subject to on-going change as received wisdom and experience warrant. Staff are recommended to bring any inaccuracies, omissions or other perceived errors to the attention of the University, preferably with suggestions for improvements and changes, in order that we may all work together to make the Guide as much a part of the Quality Assurance activities as any other element.

Glossary of Terms
Academic Board
The current Academic Board was created with the following purposes relevant to Quality Assessment:


The current Head of the Academic Board is the University President. The board consists of members drawn from the academic and administrative staff in a 4:1 ratio with a majority who are practising academics. Purely administrative staff are part of the Academic Board as contributors only, and have no voting powers.

Active Learning
Active learning is the opposite of passive learning, such as the lecture in which the only activity is the transfer of the lecturer's notes from OHP screen or similar, to the note-block of the student. Active learning involves students, and it is the responsibility of academic staff to introduce such teaching strategies which will facilitate active learning, although it is noted that the University's principal mode of delivery, i.e. distance learning, will inevitably make some of these methods unworkable. This is expected to be countered by the self-motivation of students enrolling on a distance learning course of study, and it will be a specific objective of the University and academic staff to harness means of maintaining and supporting student motivation.

Aim
An aim is the statement of the general intention of a course of study or of a course component.

Program
For the purposes of this Guide the word program is taken to mean the teaching, learning, and assessment relating to a particular qualification.

Program component
A program component is any of the separate parts which together make up a program.

Program Outline
This is a major document relating to each course, detailing, among other things, headline contents, expected duration, entry requirements, learning objectives and marking scheme. The program outline will give prospective students of a program a fair idea of the program prior to application, without referring in detail to the actual syllabus of the program.

Distance learning
For the purposes of this Guide distance learning means any such learning where there is no physical, face-to-face interaction between learner and teacher/provost.

Learning Objective
Also known as Program Objective. This is a statement of what a student should know, understand and be able to do as an outcome of a course or course component. Programs or program components should be designed so that the achievement of a learning objectives may be assessed. The learning objective(s) of a course or course component will be usually contained in the Program Outline for each program.

Learning objectives may include:


Learning objectives will necessarily be stated in different terms from one department/faculty to the next, and the above is by no means a prescriptive list.

Learning objective statements should indicate to students the expected level of performance and under what conditions their knowledge, understanding and skills will be assessed.

Mentor
The backbone of the educational system at European-American University is the Mentor(s) (who may also be referred to as Tutor, Supervisor or Director of Studies), assigned to each student (hereafter referred to as the Mentor). As far as possible, any student will be assigned the same mentor for each qualification pursued within the University. There are several inherent potential benefits to this approach, however, most of these are dependent on students making a conscious effort at utilising their mentor. If it is generally true that you get out of an educational opportunity what you put in, this is no more true than in a distance learning setting.

Quality assurance
Rather than allude to the plethora of definitions of quality assurance as used by a variety of writers on the subject, it is probably better to simply state our own: Quality = fitness for purpose. Quality assurance, thus, is the process of ensuring that what we do all contributes to supporting our stated purpose(s).

Staff
Staff is the common description for all those working directly for European-American University, in a manner under which they provide a service for which European-American University pays. The term staff thus also encompasses adjunct faculty and mentors, all of whom are described as academic staff. The term staff does not imply a relationship of fixed employment.

1 - Program Information Documentation

Policy
Each department/faculty responsible for the production of program information documentation should provide as full information about the programs as possible, both for the use of prospective students and those already registered for the program.

This should include (where appropriate): the place of the program in a degree context, including entry requirements; the aims and objectives of the program; a detailed outline of the program content; details of assessment methods; exemption policy; details of required and recommended reading; details of additional program material; any other information the department/faculty deem appropriate to the individual program.

Copies of the information should be made available to all relevant parties, including students, external examiners, involved academic staff and the Academic Board.

General issues
The information should be as approachable as possible, presented in clear and concise language.

The information should ideally be made available to potential students, although it is understood that specific information is likely to be produced particularly for such individuals. It is also understood that departments may be free to withhold specific details (with specific reference to detailed syllabus information), and limit the information provided to potential students compared with that provided to registered students.

Aims and learning objectives of the course
It is a fact that many tertiary institutions have not habitually produced written aims and learning objectives. It is considered by the Academic Board of the University, however, that such documents are crucial to the documentation requirement for individual programs and program components, not only for internal benefit, but also in order to enable the University to collaborate more freely with other tertiary level institutions, professional membership organisations, and a range of other providers of qualifications of various types. Being an institution recently established, European-American University is in a unique position to get its documentation as close to the best of current received wisdom as possible, and it is understood that aims and learning objectives should be a pivotal element of all course documentation.

Definitions:


Aims and learning objectives should generally be stated for the program as a whole and separately for each distinct program component.

The statement of learning objectives should as far as possible indicate to students the expected level of performance and under what conditions their skills, understanding and knowledge will be assessed.

It is understood at this time that some courses developed since inception but before the production of this document may not presently carry as much detail as desirable. Also, it can be difficult in some subject areas to produce such hard and fast statements. Suggestions and comments are welcomed in areas where obvious short-comings relative to the above stated ideal would appear likely.

External examiners will be requested to report whether in their view the assessment methods employed satisfactorily assess the achievement of the learning objectives stated for each course. Learning objectives should be formulated in such a way as to allow this judgement to be made and adequately reported.

Detailed outline of the program content
It is to be expected that the form and amount of detail will show considerable variation between fields of study. The outline should detail, however, all significant elements the student may expect to encounter, such as projects, set experiments, guided research periods etc.

The statement should give a clear indication to an external examiner and the Academic Board, as well as to students and, to a lesser extent, potential students of the material covered and the depth of the coverage. It is understood that changes to program contents may occur at any time before or during the provision of the program, with due advance notice, and authorisation by the Academic Board.

Exemptions
An exemptions policy should be available for each course, or in the form of a policy valid for European-American University as a whole. In general European-American University policies on prior learning assessment as detailed in its official website provide for most circumstances.

Methods of assessment
The description of methods of assessment should include in-program and end-of-program assessment. Departments should not only indicate the methods of assessment, but also give a clear statement of the relative weighting of the various forms of assessment used, as well as the relative weighting of in-program and end-of-program assessment in terms of the whole assessment.

Any other information
European-American University will offer distance learning opportunities principally, and where campus-based opportunities are contemplated, these will generally be in the context of validated programs delivered by established third parties. There is thus no requirement for masses of information being disseminated about the best bars, theatres, etc. in the vicinity of the University's mailing addresses. Departments may, however, consider providing the following additional information:


2 - Student Feedback

Policy
Every department should have effective processes for obtaining student feedback on programs and on teaching. These will normally include the regular use of student feedback questionnaires and formally constituted staff/student committees, although other means will be more appropriate in the case of very small programs. Information from student feedback on courses should be available to all members of the department. Information from student feedback on the quality of teaching of individual members of staff should be available to the member of staff and the head of department and/or the Academic Board. Students should be kept aware of the ways in which the information they provide is used to make improvements.

General Issues
A fundamental point to remember is that students have a right as well as a responsibility to comment on a program. Methods to provide such comment should be made freely available, both in a formal and informal fashion. As with any other enterprise, we shall expect to be able to use the feedback to provide a 'better' overall learning experience for students. The earlier students are invited to comment, the earlier any relevant changes may be made, and the earlier the same students shall be able to benefit.

Departments are encouraged to use a variety of methods to obtain student feedback. Usually, the most common method will be the use of questionnaires, but individual students may be also contacted for detailed discussions. Group discussions via e-mail and European-American University on-line forums is another option currently considered. These are more formal methods, and students should be also encouraged to make any comments and suggestions independently of the formal system. Feedback received in this form is not to be considered any less important than that arising from the formal system.

Student Questionnaires
These may take several different forms, depending on what issue feedback is being invited on. Different forms of possible answers may be used, such as multiple-choice or open answers. Departments will decide in each case which format is suitable for the purpose at hand.

It should be clear to staff what information they are seeking and students should be given the reason(s) for issuing the questionnaire. Questions should be of interest and relevance to the students, as otherwise there may be reason to doubt the validity of the results.

Feedback can be sought at the beginning, early in, or at the end of the program. The beginning is best for discovering motives, intentions, expectations, entry skills and abilities, modifying the program to meet student needs and communicating subject expectations. Early in the program is best for improving approaches to learning, detecting organisational problems, and enhancing morale and - where relevant - cohort cohesion. The end is best for future curriculum design, public relations and evaluation of delivery and reaction to content.

Consideration should be given to the time at which questionnaires are distributed and collected, with the aim of obtaining as high a return as possible, as those who respond are likely to hold views different to those who do not respond.

Departments should be careful to avoid over-use of questionnaires. It is recommended that for each program, as a minimum, departments issue a comprehensive questionnaire annually and seek additional student feedback once per quarter, either through further questionnaires or via other methods, covering both the delivery and content of the various components of teaching.

Departments may wish to use questionnaires for individual program components. To avoid the too frequent application of questionnaires these might be given to a random sample of students.

In addition to questionnaires organised by departments, individual members of staff may wish to issue questionnaires for the development of their own teaching. This is to be encouraged, although with proper regard to the risk of asking students to complete too many questionnaires.

Information obtained relating to the program content, structure etc. must be made available to all members of the department. This should then be discussed in departmental or program team meetings as appropriate. Consideration should be given to discussing such information in staff/student forums, where possible. Information on the teaching of individual members of staff may, under the policy, be restricted to the member of staff, the head of department and the President.

Students should be advised at the outset how their questionnaire response is going to be used, and how comments are followed up.

Staff/student committees
In contrast with some institutions, European-American University will not require for there to be formally constituted staff/student committees. The distance learning mode of delivery, combined with - expected - rather small cohorts of students for any given course, will not be conducive to a sufficiently useful employment of such committees. This element will be revisited at such a stage where staff/student committees would appear to be a useful addition. Within campus provision, when there are sufficient students enrolled on a European-American University-validated course, staff/student committees are encouraged and the University will endeavour to provide a senior officer to act as liaison for the committee.

Other means of obtaining student feedback
For some cohorts/courses, questionnaires may not be the ideal vehicle for information gathering. Tutors may wish to set aside regular time to discuss the course with individual members of the cohort. This may be enhanced by the University-only on-line discussion forums. This needs to be managed in such a way that students do not feel inhibited.

Each department should operate a 'Suggestion Box' scheme for each course, in which students may lodge comments and suggestions throughout their course, in a pro-active fashion.

Use of feedback
Student feedback will be used to continually monitor and review teaching both by individual members of staff and by the department as a whole. It will also be used in formal course reviews and in the evaluation of teaching.

It is very important that students are kept aware of the use of feedback they have provided on teaching, both by individual members of staff and by the department. For example, students should be advised of intended changes resulting from the feedback process.

3 - Evaluation of Teaching

Policy
Every department should have effective procedures for evaluating the teaching of its academic staff. These will vary from department to department but will normally include peer review, student feedback, analysis of students' performance and self assessment.

General Issues
The Academic Board is keen to convey the view that departments should assess and adequately assure the quality of teaching and learning provision, and should be able to draw conclusions as to its own strengths and weaknesses in this connection. Departments should strive to make self-evaluation a regular, common procedure, for the purpose of continuing improvement.

The evaluation of teaching should include also contribution to program design; one-to-one assistance given to students, and any other element which might be generally referred to as the facilitation of student learning.

Methods
Student feedback, whatever its nature, should be only one component of any evaluation. Peer and head of department assessment may be expected to concentrate more on the content of teaching, as evidenced by aims and objectives, course descriptions and assessment questions. Students' performance in assessment elements can usually be analysed for each member of staff and should add to the overall impression. All forms of evaluation must be moderated by a knowledge of the subject, in particular any difficult and/or unpopular areas.

Departments should discuss the variety of sources and methods which will be used to evaluate teaching. Evaluation of teaching should be viewed as a joint professional activity and a major contributor to the maintenance and improvement of teaching quality.

Self-assessment
Self-assessment of teaching should be encouraged. The appraisal scheme is under design, and will reflect the focus on self-assessment. One method to aid self-evaluation is for the member of staff to keep a log or diary to note any immediate impressions of various elements of the program provision. Such immediate impressions are often very valuable in the formalisation of evaluation, particularly in the context of proposals of change.

Further information
There are many titles available on evaluation of teaching, including self-assessment. Members of staff are recommended to undertake suitable related reading on an on-going basis.

4 - Student Support Mechanisms

Policy
Every department should have procedures for monitoring student progress throughout their program, and for feeding the information back to students. Each student should have an assigned member of staff in the department on whom to call if in difficulty (usually their mentor). Help should be made available throughout the department, as well as via the University.

Information to students
All students should be kept aware of their progress and how it measures up to expected standards. Most departments will have some form of regular monitoring of student progress for each program through in-program assessment - if this is not the case, it should be introduced. Assessment for which credit is given is generally a more reliable indicator of progress. It is important that comments on work returned to students specify clearly where there is need for improvement and how that improvement may be achieved.

Warning to students at risk
Some members of staff may be tempted to assume that students should, on the basis of their in-program assessment results, be able to judge whether they are progressing adequately. This cannot be reliably taken for granted, and it is noted that students will habitually choose to ignore danger signs. Any student whose performance indicates a danger of failing should be formally informed of this in time to allow an improvement to be made; in-program assessment should be sufficiently frequent to allow this. Some departments may consider the issue of formal warning letters, inviting the student to contact their mentor to discuss their progress.

Departments may also consider writing to all students on, for example, a quarterly basis, to advise them of their progress to date.

Assigned member of staff
All students should be assigned a member of staff who will take a particular interest in their progress and on whom they can call if in difficulty. This will usually be the mentor, although he/she may opt to pass the student on to another member of staff whose expertise seems to more closely match the needs of the individual student whilst retaining overall responsibility for their supervision.

Availability of staff
Mentors should inform students of a time when they are available for consultation by telephone or email, or alternatively should provide students with clear details of how a consultation may be arranged. This information should be given to the student on registration, and form part of their course documentation. Students should be encouraged to contact members of staff at any time with any questions or problems.

5 - External Examiners for Taught Courses

Policy
External examiners for taught courses should be given full information on all courses for which they are examiners, including the course information documentation. All work contributing to assessment should be available to external examiners. External examiners' reports and any other comments from external examiners should be discussed within the department. External examiners should be involved in formal course review and consulted on any proposals to change courses.

Provision of information to external examiners
Departments should provide as extensive information as possible to external examiners. This should include full course information documentation, details of any exemption schemes, the marking scheme used, and a statement of departmental assessment procedures. External examiners should normally be given the opportunity to submit questions. The provision of solutions and marking schemes for each question will not be appropriate in all subjects, but at least some indication should be given of the nature and depth of the answer expected.

Departments may find consultation or meeting between outgoing and incoming external examiners a useful tool. New external examiners will benefit from receiving copies of outgoing examiners' recent reports and any related correspondence (in the extent this may be shared).

Examiners' reports
The report is sent by the external examiner to the President, who will pass it in its entirety or in relevant parts to the Academic Board, from which they will be passed on to the individual department, requesting that any points raised should be discussed at a departmental meeting. The head of department will then, within a period of 3 months, report back to the Academic Board on outcome of the discussion and on any action taken and/or planned. This reply shall be copied to the external examiner. It shall be the responsibility of the President to consult with validating bodies and act accordingly on their recommendations.

Reviews and changes to programs
External examiners should be asked for their opinion on any changes to programs proposed between reviews. Not all change requires consultation, and a common sense approach should be employed in this regard. Generally, any modification requiring change to the program documentation should be consulted upon.

6 - Formal Program Review

Policy
In addition to continuous informal review of programs, every department should conduct a regular formal review of each of its programs. Normally formal reviews should be held every four years but in the case of any programs which are subject to external accreditation this might be modified to fit with the accreditation cycle. A report of each review should be given to the Academic Board. External examiners should be as fully involved as possible in the review and account should be taken of the views of the students and, where possible, of recent graduates and employers.

What is a formal review?
Departments will usually keep their programs under continuing informal review. The formal review is meant to be a less frequent, in depth investigation. Formal reviews should consider all aspects of a program, including: recruitment and selection; aims and learning objectives; content; teaching and learning methods; resource allocation; methods of student assessment; feedback and evaluation; student progress monitoring and support systems; policy on exemptions; program material. This is not a full list. Basically, the review should strive to address any element making up the individual program.

Programs subject to external accreditation will be probably already conducting a formal review as part of the accreditation process; it is not intended that this should be duplicated, and where at all possible departments should consider co-ordinating the two reviews.

Statistics
Statistical input to the review should include such details as: change of numbers of students on the program over the last four years (departments may find it useful to make this comparison every year); changes in the educational background of students on the program; drop-out rates; drop-out reasons given; pass rates; exemption rates; analyses of student feedback questionnaire returns over the previous four years.

Whom to consult
1. External examiners should be asked for their views on the program and suggestions for changes. This can be done by post, email or telephone although face-to-face discussion or videoconference may be arranged where convenient.

2. Students who have completed the program should be asked for their views and suggestions for change.

3. Recent graduates should also be consulted. This will include both students who have progressed to further study with the University, as well as graduates who are no longer affiliated with it.

4. Where possible, employers of graduates should be consulted.

5. It is expected that some heads of department will wish to consult colleagues in other tertiary level institutions, as well as their colleagues in other departments within the University.

Any decisions on change is up to departments and relevant faculty, as well as the Academic Board. However, any such change should be informed by the views and suggestions of the groups listed.

Changes in high school teaching and learning methods
Developments in high school teaching are mirrored also in higher education. In European secondary curriculums, there is focus now on teaching and learning methods which develop transferable or enterprise skills such as communication skills, leadership, problem solving, the ability to work in groups, the use of information technology and so on. Departments should, while making their own judgements on the value of these new approaches to their own subject, keep an open mind as to the potential for improving the way teaching and learning methods may be employed. It is the collective duty of all staff to continually strive towards 'best practice', and this includes attitudinal change where obviously beneficial. Regard to the global nature of the University's intake, the differing educational systems of the countries concerned and the nature of the University's access policies focussing on mature mid-career adults must also be taken.

Reporting formal reviews
Each formal review should result in a written report, which should be provided to the President as applicable in two copies, one of which will be forwarded to the Academic Board. This report will then form part of the internal quality audit system for monitoring quality assurance for the institution in question. The report should include the following information: a list of the individuals and groups consulted; a summary of their views; a summary of the statistical information considered. changes considered but not formally proposed and/or implemented; changes agreed to be implemented as an outcome of the review.

Advising of changes
The Academic Board, via the administrative office, is responsible for advising faculty on changes to programs, and on proposals to establish new programs. Proposals for change may arise from formal program review or come between reviews. In either case, proposals for change should be considered in the light of the most recent formal review report (where appropriate). Where extensive changes are suggested, the Academic Board may consider the setting up of a working group. Proposals for any substantial changes in programs must be approved by heads of departments and the Academic Board.

7 - Establishing New Programs

Policy
Departments and faculties should have procedures which enable them to critically evaluate proposals for the introduction of new programs. The information provided for each proposal should include: the purpose of the program including evidence of student demand; intended student numbers; the aims and learning objectives of the program in terms of the attainment of knowledge, understanding and skills; how the program would relate to existing programs, including necessary pre-requisites; a detailed outline of the program content; policy on exemptions; details of program texts and required reading; methods of assessment; the availability of academic staff and other necessary resources. The views of external examiners on any related program(s) should be taken into account. Where no external examiner has the relevant subject expertise the advice of an appropriate external assessor should be sought. The views of students on related programs and, where possible, of potential employers should also be solicited.

Proposals for new programs
Proposals for new courses are expected to come from a number of sources both within and outwith a department. Usually, the proposal will be pre-empted by a discussion between faculty members, possibly at a formal meeting, or otherwise via email. If a good case appears to be made for the creation of a new program, the department will set up a program team. The size of this team is not pre-determined. The team will carry out the necessary consultation for the new program, following which they will develop the proposal, unless the consultation has lead to reason for halting the process. The program team should try to make an reasonable estimation of the likely demand for the program.

When preparing the proposal the program team should take into account international educational developments in higher education and, where appropriate, in high schools.

Consultation
Parties to the consultation will normally be: relevant departments; external examiners to the department; potential employers; students and recent graduates on related programs.

If no existing external examiner has the necessary subject expertise, the program team should identify and appoint an alternative external assessor.

Drawing up the program proposal
The course team will draw up a program proposal including the information listed in the Policy Statement. A large proportion of the required information is that which will be also required for the program information documentation, should the program be established. The information should be appended a list of groups and individuals who have been consulted, together with a summary of the views expressed.

Examination of the proposal
The Academic Board has the primary responsibility for the examination of program proposals. The recommendation of the Academic Board is usually likely to be adopted by the Executive Council of the University.

The Academic Board will take into consideration the views of external examiners or other assessors, students on related programs, colleagues in related departments, and potential employers, although the decision as to whether or not to recommend approval to the Executive Council or to request changes to the proposal resides with the Academic Board.