Nelson College London has undergone a full review visit in September 2017 by the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA). The QAA report confirms that the College meets the relevant expectations under the scope of the review. The College has prepared and submitted to the QAA an action plan in response to the findings of the report.
The QAA final report is available at: QAA report
QAA action plan September 2017: Full Review Action Plan September 2017
How we ensure the quality of programmes at Nelson College London (NCL)
1. Nelson College London is committed to the continuous enhancement of the quality of learning opportunities provided. The College has deliberately taken a strategic and evidence-driven approach to improve the quality of learning opportunities.
2. The College has robust systems in place that generate information indicating the strengths of the learning opportunities that are provided to students. This information is systematically collated, summarized, evaluated in the form of reports and discussed in relevant College committees.
3. Enhancement initiatives are taken routinely in the form of three types of action plans the College produces:
a) NCL Strategic and Operational Action Plan,
b) NCL Annual PMR Action Plan,
c) Responses by the Principal’s Executive Group [PEG].
4. The College’s Strategic and Operational Action Plan is a radical and innovative document which typically derives from opportunities and challenges unfolding in the UK HE landscape. In response to regulatory requirements to submit statistics and performance indicators, the Board of Governance sets appropriate performance targets.
5. Programme Leaders compile Review and Enhancement Process (REP) reports for all programmes annually. These reports include a summary of student enrolment and progress, student feedback, action points from Standards Verifiers, teachers’ observation reviews, and action points from peer reviews.
6. The College also produces an annual College Review and Enhancement Report (CRER) to collate, record and evaluate all necessary information relevant to academic programme delivery and produces an action plan detailing improvements to be made. The CRER report draws on various action plans, recommendations and good practices identified in internal reviews. This report is presented for approval to the Academic Board and is received by the Board of Governance. This process permits good practice evidenced in one programme to be spread across the College.
7. To ensure that students’ performance is tracked at programme and module levels, the College has introduced discrete benchmarks. Any module which does not meet the threshold benchmark is flagged up by the module tutor in his or her annual module monitoring and evaluation report. Similarly, benchmarks have been established on students’ performance within a year using indicators such as success rate on assessment attempts and student success rates on enrolments. To track the progression from year 1 to year 2, benchmarks have been established for progression rates, completion rates and award rates.
8. To ensure the quality of the programmes delivered, the College engages staff and students in a bespoke quality framework, through a multiplicity of committees which are responsible for the development and enhancement of the quality of the programmes. These committees typically review the academic standards and learning opportunities offered. The College carries out an annual internal observation of teaching and learning, annual staff appraisals and considers feedback from all its students. Feedback is also collected from the Student Representatives Committee which meets once every term.
9. The College receives annual visits by Standard Verifiers or their equivalent appointed by awarding organisations. The College responds appropriately to the findings of their reports.
10. The College assesses the effectiveness of its quality assurance and enhancement frameworks by monitoring relevant performance indicators including external examiners’ reports, quality reports produced by awarding bodies, outcome of peer reviews, and student satisfaction survey results.