Quality 2019 Wednesday 23 January 2019 Welcome and Introductions - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Welcome

Quality 2019

Wednesday 23 January 2019

Welcome and Introductions Ian McCallum, Quality Manager, New College Lanarkshire

Introductory Address Steve Taylor, Vice Principal (People & Performance), Dundee and Angus College

Quality in Colleges - from Good to Great

#dag2g #moresuccessfulstudents

Steve Taylor – Vice Principal People & Performance

Today’s Agenda

• D&A College
• Why Change?
• Good to Great
• Reflections
• Q&A

About D&A College

So, Why Change?…

Chief Listening Officer Business Intelligence Officer Computational Linguist Drone Technologist Food Stylist

Our Students are changing too

We are in this new world…

So, what is

• A Transformation Project
• A Cultural Shift
• Multi Faceted
• Designed by staff
• Driven by data
• Built by Service Design

Designing Good to Great

‘By 2020 D&A College will be the

• utstanding model of how regional

colleges in Scotland operate and how they impact on their local economy’

Good to Great Vision

Recruitment

• Funding Focus
• Recruitment Days
• Help Points
• Learn 2 Learn
• Onboarding
• You Tube Channel
• Schools Engagement
• D & A Pledge

Digital

• Digital Community
• Digital Curriculum
• Digital Environment
• D&A Baseline
• Data Project
• MyLearning Changes

Learning & Teaching

• Gateway

Programmes

• IIIR Curriculum Portfolio

Review

• Curriculum Resources
• Future Skills
• Career Coach
• CommuniTay STEM Bus

Customer Experience

• Customer Charter
• College Website
• SA / SU Website
• Good to Great Student

Ambassadors

• Stakeholder Advisory

Boards

Retention

• Escape Room
• Wellbeing
• Government Retention

Project

• Curriculum Area Pilots

Good to Great Themes and Projects

Communication

Good to Great Metrics

Project Outcome Link High Level Good to Great Project Metric Baseline December 2018 Interim Measure Target Baseline/Data Source 1a Financial savings N/A 1.0m 1.5m Budget Monitoring Reports linked to Financial Strategy 1b Reduction in Administration costs by 10% £8M £7.4M £7.3M* Jul 17 Support centres I&E (excl vat; projects; teaching pay), *out-turn 10% reduction will be rebased to account for pay cost increases 2017 - 2020 1c Total Income by FTE (staff) £51,200 £56,000 1d Credits per FTE (staff) 158 181 167 2016/17 Credit out-turn and Annual Staffing Return 1e Commercial Income generation increased by 5% £2.2M £2.3M £2.3M July 17 Academic I&E non-core income report 2 Learner Retention 84.6% 92.6% 90% Performance Indicators Summary Report 2016/17 3a Full Time Learner Attainment 74.4% 75.7% 77% Performance Indicators Summary Report 2016/17 3b Courses Below National Average PI 214 185 100 National Retention Project Dashboard 2016/17 (Business Intelligence) 4 Learners into employment 15.7% 18.1% 20% Course Leaver Destination Survey 2015/16 5 Learners into self-employment 26 31 40 Couse Leaver Destinations Survey 2015/16 (new metrics added to show self-employment) 6 Customer Satisfaction 8.1 8.4 8.5 2016/17 Learner Satisfaction Survey 7 Staff Engagement 68% 69% 70% Staff Engagement Survey 2016/17

Outcomes so far

Stu tudent t Rete tention Stu tudent nt Outcom tcomes New ew Curricul ulum Bu Budget et

• £1

£1m

New w Recruit itmen ent

On Onboa

• ard

rding

Digit igital Sk Skil ills Gat ateway ay Cours urses

Reflections on Quality from

• Culture and Engagement – Service Design
• Data & Intelligence – Enterprise Data

Layer

• Right Curriculum
• Innovative Learning & Teaching
• Effective & Responsive Services
• Small Changes = BIG Impact

Questions?

How Good Is Our College (HGIOC) and Quality Arrangements Andrew Brawley, HMI and Karen Corbett, HMI, Education Scotland and Dr Dee Bird, Assistant Director (Head of Learning & Quality) SFC

Document title Transforming lives through learning

Document title Transforming lives through learning

How Good is Our College (HGIOC?) and Quality Arrangements

For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2

Approaches which support accurate Evaluative Reports (ERs)

• Carefully crafted ERs which reflect college performance
• A clear focus on requested QIs including close reference to SFC published

guidance

• A forensic analysis of performance indicators (PIs) including all learner

categories and subject level outcomes

• Reference made to Regional targets and progress made against these

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2 (continued)

Approaches which support accurate Evaluative Reports (ERs)

• For almost all ERs a desire to ensure they present college performance accurately

and identify improvement actions required

• A bottom-up approach where programme teams and faculties contribute to the

process and take ownership of the ER

• Areas for development capture clearly what the issues are and link well to the

improvement actions for the Enhancement Plan (EP)

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2 (continued)

Approaches which do not support accurate Evaluative Reports (ERs)

• Aggregating PI outcomes together for all leaner categories only
• No comparisons made to sector averages for early/further withdrawal or
• utcomes or to regional targets
• Only stating comparison outcomes where they present a positive picture, not

taking a comprehensive college-wide approach

• Not including current data to show trends in relation to PLSPs/numbers receiving

counselling/support

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2 (continued)

Approaches which do not support accurate Evaluative Reports (ERs)

• No reference to student survey outcomes to show improvement/deterioration over

time or national comparisons

• A cherry-picking approach to learner views to provide an overly positive picture,

not telling the full story

• Lack of clarity around areas for development
• An approach which perceives stating more than one or two Areas for

Development (AFDs) as having a potentially negative impact on the grade profile

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2 (continued)

Approaches which support accurate Enhancement Plans (EPs)

• Accurate reporting update of progress made against the 2016-17 EP
• SMART targets which link well with AFDs identified within the ER
• Targets which have appropriate milestones to monitor progress against spread
• ver a three-year timeframe
• Easy to read and understand

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for colleges from the experiences of years 1 & 2 (continued)

Approaches which do not support accurate Enhancement Plans (EPs)

• Lack of SMART targets
• Improvement timescales restricted to one year only
• Where long-standing underperforming subject areas are known, improvement

actions are often unclear

• Reference made to Outcome Agreement targets within the EP for PI outcomes

where these are insufficiently challenging

• Lack of synergy between AFDs identified within the ER and actions stated within

the EP

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Learning points for Education Scotland (ES) and Scottish Funding Council (SFC)

• Recognition that more guidance is required to support accurate reporting of the

Capacity to Improve theme

• The timescales for delivery of a rigorous and robust endorsement process,

including grading outcomes across 27 colleges is challenging to achieve. It impacts on all other delivery activity

• There is very close alignment between ES and SFC endorsement decisions.

Purposeful supportive meetings were of great value

• Year one experiences (2016-17) helped support processes adopted during year

two to ensure accurate and appropriate outcomes

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Excellent Practice

• There is recognition that best practice acknowledgement and promotion has not

been at the forefront of the Arrangements over the last two years

• Agreement has been reached that the 2018-21 Arrangements will include

capturing best practice and promoting it more widely.

• Recognition that there is a burden on a few colleges of responding to ongoing

visit requests from other colleges

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Workshop Session One 10.55-11.30

• What worked well in accurately capturing college performance within your own

college for inclusion within your ER?

• What aspect of college performance was more challenging to report on and what

can be done about this?

• How can ES/SFC/CDN further support colleges as we continue to refine and

improve the whole process?

• Suggest three examples from the first two questions and one from the last (seven

in total) for each group

Document title For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Education Scotland Denholm House Almondvale Business Park Almondvale Way Livingston EH54 6GA T +44 (0)131 244 5000 E enquiries@educationscotland.gsi.gov.uk For Scotland's learners, with Scotland's educators

Workshop Session One - Workshop

• n HGIOC

Karen Corbett, Andrew Brawley and Dr Dee Bird

Break

Workshop Session Two – Data and Quality Kenny Wilson, Senior Policy/Analysis Officer (Data Collections), SFC

A GAME OF CONSEQUENCES

Part 1 Q1 - What is your understanding of rule application for when a student should be withdrawn (code 11) or failed (code 07) for assessed units? This rule was first established when we had the SARU (Student Assessment Ratio of Unit of learning) PI. If a student attempts at least one summative assessment on any individual unit and then withdraws from the unit or course then the unit outcome should be recorded as Outcome 07 – unsuccessful.

Part 1 Q2 - What are the consequences for not applying the rule correctly? College PIs may not be comparable. Particularly for college devised courses (Code 34) as success can be overstated as withdrawn units will not be part of the 70% course success criteria calculation. The SQA Element PI Tool will not accurately reflect unit achievement levels at both college and sector levels.

Part 1 Q3 - “Big course with a wee group award” A full-time college devised course has a 4 credit SQA National Progression Award (NPA) @ SCQF Level 6 embedded within it. This is named and marketed as NPA by the college. If NPA appears in the course marketing title, should NPA Code 35 be entered as the Qualification Aim and should the NPA Group Award (GA) code be in the FES student record? For this example SFC wouldn’t want to see the NPA as the Qualification Aim nor see it in the Group Award field.

How should success on this course be measured? As the course if substantive non-advanced (full-time – 16 credits minimum) and does not incorporate a group award of 12 or more credits the Qualification Aim will be Code 34 – “National Qualification Award (college devised non-accredited award)”. The determining success factor at course level should be based on the 70% rule i.e. achievement of 70% of assessed units undertaken.

Part 1 Q4 - Students who transfer course A SFC funded course has 20 student enrolments. Two students move to another course in the college and for both a student outcome Code 05 (transfer) is entered in FES - one student transfers before the 25% funding date and the other student transfers after the 25% funding date and funding is claimed.

• What are the performance indicators (%) for this course if all of the other 18

students completed; 16 with outcome Code 08 (successful) and 2 with

• utcome Code 07 (unsuccessful)?

Completed Successful = 16/19 (84%) Partial Success = 2/19 (11%) Early Withdrawal = 0/19 (0%) Further withdrawal = 1/19 (5%) Total Withdrawal = 1/19 (5%) Students who transfer courses before the required funding date and students who meet the funding date but no funding is claimed are removed from PI

• calculations. Therefore, in this scenario the student transferring before the

25% funding date does not count in the PIs for this course. Therefore the denominator for PIs is 19 not 20.

Can you think of any other potential performance indicator or funding consequences in this scenario? The credit funding for the learner who transferred before the 25% date moves to the new course. The credit funding for the learner who transferred after the 25% date stays with this course, and funding credits should not be allocated to the new course. Funding credits should not be claimed again if a true transfer but the student would count towards the new course PIs. We often have an issue over the use of ‘transfer’. This should be used for a student leaving one course and starting the other almost immediately. If there is a delay in starting the other course it should be a ‘withdrawal’ from the first and if the student has stayed on the first until after the 25% date then funding can justifiably be claimed for both courses. If a ‘withdrawal’ not a ‘transfer’ then the student will count in the PIs for both courses irrespective of funding credit claim.

Part 2 Q1 - The below 8.5 credit programme is delivered as mode of attendance ‘other part-time day’ over 2 years to S5 school pupils. What are the consequences from the above coding? The Qualification Aim is such that this course will not count for OA measures 2(a) and 2(b) – volume/proportion and number of senior phase age pupils studying vocational qualifications delivered by colleges. The criteria for success for a Code 34 Qualification Aim course would be based on 70% assessed unit attainment. However, as this NPA is 7.5 credits this should be the main qualification award and achievement of the NPA award in the final year should be the determining factor for success. Coding the Qualification Aim correctly as Code 35 – SQA National Progression Award would resolve all issues.

cotitle SCQF code Qual code Qualification aim NQ in Building Services (Incl. NPA Building Services Engineering @ SCQF Level 5) 5 34 National Qualification Award (college devised non-accredited award)

. Part 2 Q2 - Twelve HND Accounting students achieve all 15 SQA units in the 1st year. The FES student outcome for 11 students at the end of year 1 is reported in FES as;

• Outcome 18 - Student has progressed to next year and has

achieved 70% of the assessed credits undertaken. The FES student outcome for 1 student at the end of year 1 is reported in FES as;

• Outcome 20 - Student has achieved 70% of the assessed credits

undertaken but has chosen not to progress onto the next year. Only ten students out of the eleven who were reported in FES as continuing actually returned for the 2nd year of the course.

What are the consequences from the above coding? The two students - the Outcome 20 one who left at the end of the first year and the one coded as Outcome 18 that then did not continue into the 2nd year, should have been coded in the final FES as Outcome code 22 – ‘student completed first year of an HND but has chosen to leave with an HNC’, as they would have achieved the 12 credits required for the HNC Award. Although the 1st year success PI for this course would not be affected. The knock-on effects of not recording either student as leaving with an HNC before the final FES is submitted are;

• The student may never be certificated for the HNC Award
• The student would not be followed-up in the College Leaver

Destination Survey (they would be for an Outcome code 22) and if they progressed on to university study they may not be included in the National Articulation Database

• The one student who was given an Outcome code 18 that then did

not continue into the 2nd year would appear in the following years FES error report for non-continuing students

Lunch

Learner Involvement in Quality Improvement Eve Lewis, Director, sparqs, with representatives from across the sector

@sparqs_Scotland # Quality2019

Learner I nvolvem ent in Quality I m provem ent: Tow ards strategically aligned SAs

Eve Lew is, Director, sparqs Graem e Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive, HI SA Quality2 0 1 9 , W ednesday 2 3 rd January 2 0 1 9

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

What we’ll do today

• 1. Discuss the benefits of developing the

SA’s role in self-evaluation and enhancement planning, thus becoming more strategic and aligning with college priorities and activities.

• 2. Explore a college case study.
• 3. Reflect on practical tools for strategic

alignment.

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Strategic alignm ent

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

SE in HGIOC

Institutions have to demonstrate effective student engagement throughout: “It is a Scottish Government priority that student engagement in colleges should be progressed and that the role of students’ associations in all aspects of college life should be further developed.”

– Supplementary Guidance for College Evaluative Reports and Enhancement Plans for AY 2017-18: http: / / www.sfc.ac.uk/ quality/ quality-colleges/ quality-colleges.aspx

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

SE in HGIOC

“work of students’ association and learner voice is integral to colleges understanding the needs of diverse student groups and tackling issues that are being progressed through

• utcome agreements and quality
• improvement. Colleges/ college regions are

therefore expected to engage with their student body in the development of their Evaluative Report and Enhancement Plan.” – Supplementary Guidance for College Evaluative Reports and

Enhancement Plans for AY 2017-18: http: / / www.sfc.ac.uk/ quality/ quality-colleges/ quality-colleges.aspx

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Benefits of alignment

• 1. Demonstrates partnership, without

dictating a process to the SA.

• 2. Makes engagement at all levels

relevant and mutually supportive.

• 3. Draws reps into understanding the

wider college and national process.

• 4. Allows college to raise its

expectation of the SA’s contribution.

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Tools of alignment

• 1. A strong and effective students’

association, including:

• Policy capacity within SA staff team.
• Strong, regular links with college staff.
• 2. An SPA or similar document:
• Agreeing the tools of engagement.
• Committing to shared objectives.
• 3. Robust support and induction for

student members of college committees – Quality, L&T, board etc.

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Case study: Highlands and I slands Students’ Association

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

What is UHI?

• A collection of 13 Colleges/ HE Institutions

and over 70 Learning Centres

• Over 40,000 students
• 10,000 Full Time
• It is Tertiary Institution (FE, HE, Post

Grad)

• One Regional University

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

What did representation look like pre HISA?

• Local Colleges has their own Student Associations for FE (in

theory)

• UHISA was set up to represent HE Students
• Model of having officers, but very little staff support
• They didn’t have much resource
• They had a very difficult job

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Big Question… ..

• College Students’ Associations – Why have they never

worked in UHI before?

• Two traditional ways of doing representation/student

voice in Colleges

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

The “Parent Model”

• Good social activity
• Events on the ground
• No real responsibility/Very low expectations
• Focus groups/rep meetings about parking and price of

chips in canteen

• No autonomy for Students Association
• Long term direction set by College
• No real impact on academic issues, quality processes or

College strategy

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

The “Pioneering Model”

• Degree of independence/autonomy
• Full time officers
• Officers regularly quit, drop out and check out
• Officers struggle to cope with number of academic meetings,

jargon and processes

• Drown in committee papers and meetings
• Feels like “tick box” representation
• No long term direction
• No real impact on academic issues, quality processes or

College strategy

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

The HI SA W ay

• Strategic Focus and long term plan
• Align strategic plan with UHI and

College strategies

• Dedicated staff with supported officers
• Autonomy with Partnership
• Proactively engage with quality

processes

• Engage at local, regional and national

level

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

HI SA

• HISA – FE to PHD
• A joint Students’ Association

for the whole region

• Independent Charity
• Company Limited by

guarantee

• 3 full time Sabbaticals, 18

local part time officers

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Benefits to Colleges/ UHI

• FE Students able to contribute

to policy, Outcome Agreement and quality processes in a meaningful way

• Help Colleges achieve their

strategic vision

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Benefits to Colleges/ UHI

• Engage with HGIOC
• Focus on improving

student experience and improving scores

• Sustainable and evolving

student voice

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Exam ple - Course

Committee Meetings

• Clear on the purpose
• Workshop style
• Invite Employers
• Content relevant
• More students than staff

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Exam ple – Single Policy

Environment

• Streamlining every FE Policy across

UHI

• HISA Rep and staff member for

every meeting

• Making real policy changes

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Exam ple – Student

Partnership Agreements

• Students vote on what they want

HISA to work on during elections

• HISA work with UHI/ Colleges on

three specific issues over year

• Progress tracked and reported on –

ensuring impact

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Association Director Graeme Kirkpatrick Student Engagement Coordinator – Hermione Blackshaw Administration/Comms - Isla Pedrana PT

HISA Staff Structure at Launch

@sparqs_Scotland # Quality2019

Administration Coordinator Ashley Sumner

Student Association Assistant SAMS/Argyll (PT) Student Association Coordinator (Inverness/Moray) Kat Bateson Student Association Coordinator(North Scotland) Helen Doyle

Administrator Anne Thom (PT Inverness)

Administrator Diane Weldon (PT Perth)

Chief Executive Graeme Kirkpatrick

Senior Student Association Coordinator William Mohieddeen

Activities Administration

Lewis Whyte (PT)

Student Engagement Manager Pamela Urquhart Regional Activities Coordinator Emma Robson Senior Education Policy Advisor

Hermione Blackshaw (PT)

Student Association Assistant Moray (PT) Student Association Assistant Lews Castle (PT)

Student Association Assistant West Highland (PT)

Communications Coordinator Vacant

HI SA Staff Structure Today

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Discussion

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

In groups…

• 1. Identify three tools you use to align

the work of the college and SA on self-evaluation.

• 2. Identify any barriers to doing this.
• 3. Identify how you might overcome

those barriers.

@sparqs_ Scotland # Quality2 0 1 9

Contacts

Eve Lewis, Director, sparqs

• eve.lewis@sparqs.ac.uk

Graeme Kirkpatrick, Chief Executive, HISA

• graeme.kirkpatrick@uhi.ac.uk

GDPR Sandy Murray, Head of Curriculum and Teaching, CDN and Rob McDermott, Quality Manager, Forth Valley College

General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) for the College sector

Presented by Rob McDermott & Sandy Murray

How was it for you?

In terms of your role within the Quality team discuss:

• What impact the new GDPR regulations have

had on you and your teams?

• What across the sector can be done to help us

in our role? Report back

Quality & CDN’s response

• SLWG formed to investigate the

impact of GDPR regulations on the FE sector.

• Its purpose to identify the needs

within the FE sector.

• Look to develop a sector wide

standard approach and understanding of the new regulations at all levels.

SLWG response & ideas

• GDPR area within CDN

website?

• Use standard documentation

across the sector?

• Understand the roles of Data

Protection Officers (DPO’s)

• On-line training?
• Guidance on changes within

GDPR.

GDPR Contacts and further information

• Information Commissioner’s Office:

https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/data-protection- reform/

• GDPR text (PDF): http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-

content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32016R0679&from= EN

• European Commission data protection reform blog:

http://ec.europa.eu/justice/data- protection/reform/index_en.htm

Looking ahead - Leaving the EU

• GDPR will still apply (especially

if UK remains a member of EEA)

• GDPR still applies to our

processing of EU citizen data

• UK will still have powers to

amend some parts of GDPR

Going Forward

Is there anything more we can do for you?

Tel: 01786 272409 info@cdn.ac.uk www.collegedevelopmentnetwork.ac.uk Follow @ColDevNet on Twitter facebook.com/collegedevelopmentnetwork

Contact Details

All images sourced from Pixabay, CC0 Public Domain

Professional Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges Bernadette McGuire, Consultant, CDN and Christine Calder, Professional Learning Course Leader, Dundee and Angus College

Professional Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges

Bernadette McGuire MSc : Consultant College Development Network

Where to next?

Sector Ownership

• Embedding the Professional Standards

in Policy and Practice

• Review of Qualifications
• Collaboration

College Development Network

• Consultation Regional Road Shows
• Review of current materials and links on

the website

• Development of interactive Professional

Standards web site

• Collaborative Developments with the

sector and other key stakeholders

Consultation Regional Roadshows

Will inform

• Sector Needs
• Sharing what is already available
• Collaboration potential
• Development priorities

The Potential for Embedding is Significant. The need for Collaboration and Development has never been greater

Tel: 01786 272400 info@cdn.ac.uk www.collegedevelopmentnetwork.ac.uk Follow @ColDevNet on Twitter facebook.com/collegedevelopmentnetwork

Contact Details

People T eam

Professional Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges 2019

Professional Standards for teachers – what are they good for?

Adoniou, M., & Gallagher, M. (2016)

• Standards as professional learning
• Standards as regulators
• Standards as a personal story
• Standards as professional credibility

Professional Standards for Lecturers in Scotland’s Colleges in 2019

• Opportunity to remind all in curriculum – and beyond
• Opportunity to revisit some of our approaches and align
• Opportunity to communicate with potential employees

* Not another task for lecturers to do

My Potential

D&A approach to CPD and people development

• CPD Calendar
• Development applications
• Development conversations
• Learning, Teaching & Mentoring

Internal Calendar

Learning Festival June 18

• Curriculum and Support
• Activity / Event

Professional Development Log

• Individual record
• Activity or Event
• Held online but can be printed
• Individual can add manually
• Personal Log

PHOTO/ILLUSTRATIO NS – PLEASE DELETE COLOUR BLOCK AND THIS TEXT BOX

Learning and Teaching Observations

ROLE

• General or themed observations
• Reflective dialogue
• Feed in to cpd events

Opportunities for 2019

e.g. Professional Knowledge and Understanding 2.2 Learning, teaching and assessment theory approaches 2.2.1 Engages with current theories of learning, teaching

and assessment… Individuals / Teams / People Team / Strategy

Categorisation of CPD

Development Conversations

Line Manager & Individual

Advocate a coaching style conversation e.g. Professional Values

• New starts
• Teaching Qualifications
• Experienced Lecturers
• Lecturers with management/leadership

responsibility

Curriculum Departments

• Team Meetings – planning & implementation
• Goal Setting

People Team (Human Resources)

• Inform job adverts, specifications and job role

documentation

Additional Implementation

Thanks and Close Ian McCallum