Quality Assurance as Continuous Improvement: Building an Internal Review System

Define the quality questions

An internal quality system should help an institution determine whether its education is sound, whether students receive the support promised and where improvement is needed. Begin with questions such as: are learning outcomes coherent, do assessments provide credible evidence, and can students access the required resources? The questions determine the evidence worth collecting.

The ESG framework provides a reference for internal and external quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area.^[1] Institutions elsewhere can examine its principles while applying their own legal and regulatory requirements. Using a framework for reflection does not constitute accreditation or demonstrate that an institution meets every standard.

Establish a proportionate review cycle

Set a regular cycle for course, programme and institutional review, with additional reviews when significant concerns arise. Define the scope, responsible body, participants and expected outputs. Avoid requiring every unit to complete an identical large template if the risks and educational activities differ substantially.

A review should describe the current position, analyse evidence, identify priorities and agree actions. Keep supporting records accessible to authorised reviewers. Use existing reliable information where possible rather than asking staff to recreate the same data for several committees. Good coordination reduces reporting burden and improves consistency.

Gather evidence that answers the question

Combine academic evidence with learner and staff experience. Relevant material may include assessment tasks, samples of work, progression patterns, feedback, external examiner comments where applicable and records of resource availability. Examine whether the evidence covers different delivery modes and learner groups.

Carnegie Mellon's assessment resources connect evidence of learning with improvement in teaching.^[2] Apply that logic at programme level: a concern about analytical skills requires examination of the tasks and work that demonstrate analysis. A general satisfaction score may help identify a question but cannot by itself show whether the capability has developed.

Include informed participation

Invite students and staff to contribute through processes that explain the purpose and protect appropriate confidentiality. Select participation methods that do not exclude those unable to attend a particular meeting. Summarise findings accurately and communicate what the institution will do in response.

External perspectives can challenge assumptions, but choose reviewers for relevant expertise and manage conflicts of interest. Provide clear terms of reference and sufficient context. A review should support candid analysis rather than become an exercise in defending every existing practice or producing only favourable conclusions.

Illustrative example: reviewing a programme transition

Imagine a programme where students progress successfully through introductory modules but struggle with a later research project. The review examines prerequisites, project briefs, supervisor expectations and samples of student work. It finds that students have practised individual methods but have had little opportunity to integrate them into a complete research plan.

The programme introduces a staged proposal task and a shared supervision guide. Owners and deadlines are assigned, and the next review examines whether students can explain the coherence of their designs. The institution does not claim success merely because a new workshop was delivered. It checks whether the original learning difficulty has changed.

Track actions to a meaningful conclusion

Create an action register with the issue, intended result, responsible person, resources, deadline and evidence of completion. Separate completion of an activity from achievement of an outcome. Installing a new platform, for example, does not establish that students can use it effectively or obtain timely support.

Escalate actions that depend on institutional resources or policy decisions. Departmental staff should not be held solely responsible for barriers they cannot remove. Report overdue and unresolved actions honestly. Where an action proves ineffective, record the learning and revise the approach rather than marking it complete for administrative convenience.

Review the quality system itself

Ask whether the review cycle produces useful decisions, reliable information and observable improvements. Remove duplicate reporting and clarify ambiguous responsibilities. Train new reviewers and maintain a record of changes to the process. Keep public statements about quality and credentials accurate and separate from internal improvement activity.

An internal system should remain usable between external assessment visits. Its value is demonstrated through an institution's ability to recognise a problem, understand its causes, act proportionately and examine the result. Documentation supports this process when it records evidence and decisions; it becomes a distraction when its production is treated as the purpose of quality assurance.