Higher Education Sector Overview

The QAA leads Quality Enhancement Reviews (QERs) of higher education providers in Wales, including universities and colleges regulated under the Higher Education (Wales) Act, as part of a six-year cycle of engagement. In the higher education sector in Wales, self-evaluation is a well-established and embedded practice, forming a central part of institutional approaches to securing academic standards and enhancing the quality of the learning experience. QAA’s Quality Enhancement Reviews (QERs) build on this internal activity, using providers’ internal processes, which are required to be aligned to the UK Quality Code, and evaluations of their enhancement priorities as the primary basis for external review.

These Quality Enhancement Reviews are underpinned by the QAA UK Quality Code and Advice and Guidance (QAA, 2024b) and are designed to support institutional enhancement and safeguard academic standards. QERs are grounded in constructive dialogue and use a combination of documentation, evidence, and on-site review to explore the provider’s approaches to quality and enhancement. QAA’s review approach differs from inspection-based models in its methods, focusing more directly on evaluation of evidence, engagement and dialogue with critical stakeholders, rather than direct observation of teaching sessions (noting that all providers re required to have processes to facilitate peer observation). Central to this process is the Self-Analysis (SA), an extensive evaluative document prepared by the provider that sets the foundation for the review, including outlining how the provider meets baseline standards, and its approach to enhancement.

QAA also undertakes Gateway Quality Reviews (GQRs), and while the associated handbook (Gateway Quality Review Wales Handbook – QAA, 2020) does not explicitly refer to a “Self-Evaluation” or “Self-Assessment” document, there is an explicit requirement for a provider submission in advance of the review visit. As outlined on page 14 of the handbook, this submission serves a similar purpose, offering the provider an opportunity to present evidence, contextual information, and an overview of how it meets the regulatory baseline requirements. Therefore, while not named as such, the provider submission effectively functions as a self-evaluative document.

The Self-Analysis is an evidence-based account of how a provider secures academic standards and enhances the quality of the learning experience. It is expected to address three overarching areas: academic standards; the quality and enhancement of learning opportunities; and the effectiveness of quality processes. Providers are encouraged to offer a clear and honest reflection on strengths, areas for development, and the actions being taken to improve.  In line with the shared principles of self-evaluation across the tertiary system, effective self-analysis prioritises evaluative judgement over description, demonstrates tangible impact on learners, and informs clearly articulated enhancement actions.

QAA asks providers to engage with the core themes of the Review Report: academic standards, the learning experience, enhancement, the use of data and external reference points, and review findings, although the structure and format may vary depending on the provider’s context and priorities. The Self-Analysis is an opportunity for providers to explain evaluate what is distinctive or typical about their institution, reflect on the impact of strategic or organisational change, and demonstrate how policies and practices contribute to quality and enhancement. This includes drawing on both qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, such as the National Student Survey(NSS), Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) or Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO data), and considering the experience of different learner groups, including postgraduate, international, distance learners, and those with protected characteristics.  Common with other parts of the tertiary system, there remains some degree of variability in how confidently such datasets are interpreted, contextualised, and integrated alongside qualitative evidence to inform evaluative judgement.

Where applicable, providers are also asked to respond to relevant priorities or metrics identified by Medr, and to describe any relationships with awarding bodies or the use of external reference points beyond baseline requirements. Supporting information is typically signposted through appendices or embedded links. QAA also requires meaningful learner involvement in the self-evaluation process, reinforcing a shared commitment to transparency and enhancement. The Self-Analysis is expected to prioritise thoughtful judgement over process description, offering a clear account of how the provider understands, evaluates and enhances the quality of its provision and the learner experience.

All Higher Education providers in Wales are compliant with the UK Quality Code for Higher Education. A core element to consistently evidencing this compliance is providers’ own well established internal continuous, annual and cyclical review and reporting processes. Many providers have moved away from Annual Planning Review (APR) cycles to ongoing continuous enhancement cycles’ Processes are almost all data-informed, making effective use of data dashboards across organisations. In addition, providers in Wales are required to submit an Annual Report to Medr from the Governing Body assuring and evidencing that quality processes are working effectively, and that the Governing Body has oversight of and confidence in these processes. These reports are based on sector-benchmarked data (for example degree outcomes) and evaluate the effectiveness of processes each year. The final key element of internal self-evaluation within providers is the cyclical review process (often referred to as Periodic Programme Review or Quality Review), often linked to the programme revalidation process. These can operate like mini Quality Enhancement Reviews, including an internal Self-Evaluation at programme or discipline level to inform the review of the programme.  In all cases, students participate fully in processes and monitoring of outcomes and action plans.

Providers also have well developed systems for collecting feedback from external examiners and students (including through surveys such as the NSS), and approaches to analysis and self-evaluation, often integrated into continuous enhancement processes identified above.

Action planning is in operation at all providers in a range of formats and approaches, although it is acknowledged that this can sometimes be inconsistent within providers in terms of monitoring of completion and impact.

As a result, Higher Education providers have extensive and well-developed internal systems and processes for self-evaluation, evidencing many strengths which can be shared across the tertiary system, but there remain opportunities for enhancement and learning from other parts of the tertiary system in Wales.

Feedback from QAA reviewers has noted the following strengths to HE providers’ self-evaluations:

• Providers demonstrate mature and embedded approaches to self-evaluation, framed through established quality processes such as Continuous Enhancement, Annual Programme Review, Periodic Review, Annual Governor’s QA Reports, Self-Analysis for QERs and provider submissions for Gateway Quality Reviews.
• Self-evaluation activity typically draws on a wide range of evidence sources, including external examiner reports, feedback from student surveys, key datasets (internal and external, e.g. progression and outcomes data), and professional body requirements.
• Triangulation of evidence generally enables providers to identify areas of strength and development with reasonable accuracy.
• In some providers, self-evaluation is clearly action-oriented and continuous, with findings informing targeted enhancement activity and progress being monitored over time.
• Many providers use the process effectively to reflect on the impact of strategic or organisational change and to articulate the distinctive features of their provision.
• Learner involvement and partnership in self-evaluation, and quality assurance and enhancement processes in general, is increasingly evident, helping to ensure that the student perspective contributes to and shapes institutional understanding of quality and enhancement.

Feedback from QAA reviewers has also noted where some HE providers’ self-evaluations may be further improved:

• There remains inconsistency across the sector in the scope, depth and evaluative quality of self-evaluation processes.
• Some submissions were overly focused on describing processes rather than evaluating their impact on the quality of learning opportunities or student outcomes.
• There is an opportunity to develop greater critical reflection within provider and national self-evaluation processes, ensuring that both achievements and risks are considered in balance.
• Self-evaluations could expand on and deepen existing use of longitudinal and external data sets (such as NSS, HESA or LEO) to contextualise performance consistently and ensure that arising insights are explicitly linked with qualitative evidence.
• Further development could focus on ensuring that actions arising from self-evaluation are more systematically monitored within a continuous cycle, helping to sustain their role in driving enhancement.