1 / 16

THE UJ QUALITY PLAN: 2005 - 2008 Anci du Toit on behalf of Gerrie Jacobs

THE UJ QUALITY PLAN: 2005 - 2008 Anci du Toit on behalf of Gerrie Jacobs. Towards new quality management systems in merged institutions…. QUALITY CHALLENGES : FIRST MERGER YEAR. Interim Council, MEC, Deans, HoDs Interim Vision, Mission and values – no strategic direction

denna
Télécharger la présentation

THE UJ QUALITY PLAN: 2005 - 2008 Anci du Toit on behalf of Gerrie Jacobs

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. THE UJ QUALITY PLAN:2005 - 2008Anci du Toit on behalf of Gerrie Jacobs Towards new quality management systems in merged institutions…

  2. QUALITY CHALLENGES: FIRST MERGER YEAR • Interim Council, MEC, Deans, HoDs • Interim Vision, Mission and values – no strategic direction • Inherited QA policies, structures and practices • Merger dynamics/loyalties to former QA systems • Compromise not reached in the 1st merger year • ‘Comprehensive’ university? • Lack of security

  3. ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE UJ QUALITY PLAN • Feb 2005: UJ joined SA-Finland project (via HEQC) • UJ QUALITY PLAN: Senate-approved May 2005 (tedious lobbying and change management process) • Four Quality Project Teams (QPTs): • QPT1: Qualitymanagementstructures (all levels) • QPT2: Analyse inherited and developnew UJpolicies • QPT3: Single strategic plan (incl. vision & mission) • QPT4: New academic programme structure (APS) • Steercom & representative soundboard (USB)

  4. STRATEGIC GOALS • A reputable brand • Excellence in teaching and learning • Internationally competitive research • An engaged university • Maximize intellectual capital • Institutional efficiency and effectiveness • Culture of transformation • Competitive resourcing • The preferred student experience • Focus on the Gauteng city region

  5. To promote and sustain excellence in teaching and learning by quality assurance practices and actively developing and implementing cutting edge teaching, learning and assessment strategies. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Learning excellence; Teaching excellence; Relevance/impact/diversity of programmes; Cutting edge teaching and learning strategies; Lifelong learning METRICS? GOAL 2: EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING & LEARNING

  6. METRICS • Degree credit success rates HEMIS data • Student satisfaction with teachingSurveys • EmployabilityGraduate & employer surveys • Impact: innovative teaching & learning Impact studies • Participation in lifelong learning programmes Existing database to be customised Attainment of critical learning outcomes by students ? Assessment of outcomes per programme/major?

  7. QUALITY PROJECT TEAM: QUALITY STRUCTURES • DVC: Strategic & Instit Planning & Implementation (incl. QA) • OIE: Mission is not just an empty promise (QA + Planning) • Quality Task Team: Steered QA and Planning in 2005 • Two standing Senate committees in 2006 (SQC & SAPC) • End of 2006: ONE Academic Planning & Quality Committee • 2008: Senate Quality Committee –all strategic goals • HE policy analysis, Link QP and all functions of University (Plan & Policy) • Appropriate resources utilisation • National & Prof Body reviews • Faculty Quality Committees (FQCs) established (diverse)

  8. QUALITY PROJECT TEAM:PROGRAMME REVIEWS • Phase in the merger where Tyre Hits The Road – academics talked to each other about the institution’s core business • Purpose: In-depth investigation of all programmes to: • promote the quality of programmes (HEQC programme criteria) • align programmes with the new UJ vision, mission and strategic goals • establish a new Academic Programme Structure (APS) for UJ • Decisions taken regarding each programme: • C = continue unchanged ; or • C =consolidate with another programme(s) ; or • C = effect (substantial) changes ; or • C =cancel or discontinue and phase out

  9. CONDUCTING PROGRAMME REVIEWS ADJUST PORTFOLIO (Electronic template) INTERNAL Peer review NEW APS!! SELF-EVAL PORTFOLIO(per programme group – most HEQC criteria) PWG & SENATE REPORTING (Per programme and module - Forms 1 +2) EXTERNAL Peer review

  10. PROGRAMME REVIEWS(3) • MASSIVE venture!! : Quality “tsunami” or “massacre”? • Some numbers: • 9 faculties offering 1477 programmes (Form 1s) • 36 capacity building workshops (using an electronic template) • 28 000modules in OBE format (3456 Form 2s reviewed) – Phase 1 • External peer reviews, template and paperwork  close to R3,5 million • R349,194 SA-Finland project money – to 9 faculties (R38,800 each) • R98,000 due in 2008  also payable to faculties • R140,000 forthcoming  research on impact + capacity building See PRODUCT!: UJ Academic Programme Structure + A quality ethos & quality “champions” in faculties…??

  11. LONGITUDINAL RESEARCH: QUALITY PERCEPTIONS 2 questions: To what extent do FQCs perceive - • QA and QPromotion as indicators of effectiveness and • themselves as “true owners” of quality matters? PROJECT FINDINGS(1999, 2002, 2005 & 2008) • QA/QP climate changed: Quality must be shown to exist • 1st research question? -  ; 2nd question? –  ??? • QA “champions within” the facultiesQuality Associates appointed  SA-Finland funding utilised (Thank you!) • EXPECT QA & QP from academic leaders? • Difference: Lady and Flower girl(Eliza Doolittle, My Fair Lady)

  12. Aftermath of the programme reviewsResearch • Role of PRs in establishing Quality Management Structures • FOTIM, AUQF • Quality Structures at Faculty level – Fotim • Quality management at faculty level – Fotim, AIR • Programme Reviews: A question of value - Transformational value – Role in QM System established? - Institutional Quality Awareness - Acceptance of responsibility THANK YOU HEQC! UJ and NMMU: SANTED project – comprehensive universities • Collaboration Edge Hill University, UK

  13. QUALITY PROJECT TEAMS:POLICIES AND PLANNING • New UJ policies: Task Teams developed more than 20 policies thus far – still a few to go, e.g. Policy for Quality Promotion – submitted to Senate • UJ Quality Promotion Plan Challenge: Institutional participation and buy-in • UJ strategic plan: Immense amount of work done in strengthening institutional mission attainment Challenges: Strategy management support and monitoring progress wrt the goals of the plan

  14. LESSONS LEARNT • Coordination and support at management level crucial • Interim management detrimental – lack of decision-making powers • Profound effect of merger politics • Strategic planning – Goals, KPIs, Metrics, Actions NB • QM structures – only once MEC established, Strategic plan developed and responsibilities assigned • Faculty Q structures mirror institutional Q structures • Programme reviews was a MAJOR challenge – healing in end • Lack of capacity – HE QM, Curriculum development • Loyalties to existing policies and practices – detrimental effect

  15. IN CONCLUSION • “Fastest” post-merger focus=Quality planningSA-Finland project main contributor!! • We’re building a new, bigger plane, while simultaneously trying to fly it quality & identitydialogues lag behind, but QA awareness excels… • QM cycle implementation takes time inmerged HEIs PROLONGED FINLAND INVOLVEMENT? • “Training” of QA practitioners • Coherent curriculum development (a new HEQF waits…) • Impact analyses (student learning scorecard), etc., etc. • Thanks HEQC (Herman) & DoE, CEPD & Fins! • We’re still enjoying it here! Mukavaa olla täöllö !!

More Related