4 Evaluation area II: Learning supported by teaching and guidance

Evaluation area II assesses how the HEI plans, implements and develops its degree programmes and continuous learning provision to support education that is student-centred, research-based and connected to work life.

The audit team’s assessment for evaluation area II: Good

Key strengths and recommendations 

Strengths

The audit team identified the following key strengths across the university’s educational provision and quality management processes:

  • Strong alignment between programme development and the university’s strategic priorities, including sustainability, internationalisation, research integration, and labour market relevance.
  • Extensive consultation with employers, industry representatives, national stakeholders, academic staff, and students during programme development and review. Strong emphasis on industry engagement, practical learning opportunities, and work-life integration within many programmes.
  • Strong examples of student-centred teaching and supportive staff–student relationships identified consistently through student feedback and review meetings.
  • Effective use of collaborative review processes, including Annual Internal Assessment and Quality Workshops, education management meetings, and student guild engagement.
  • Good institutional supports for students, including career services, counselling supports, study guidance, and flexible study arrangements.
  • Strong collegial culture among staff, with examples of peer learning, collaborative teaching development, and sharing of pedagogical practices.
  • Continuous learning provision is well connected to degree education and work-life needs, with open university studies linked to degree curricula and customised continuing education planned in cooperation with clients, schools, and lecturers.

 Recommendations

The audit team recommends that the university

  • Develops more formalised and consistently applied quality assurance and enhancement processes across all programmes and schools to reduce variability in implementation. Strengthens the monitoring and evaluation of annual programme review actions to ensure development targets are implemented and followed through consistently.
  • Introduces more robust approaches for evaluating teaching quality and pedagogical effectiveness beyond student feedback alone, including peer review and evidence of student learning outcomes.
  • Develops clearer institutional expectations and monitoring processes regarding the use of curriculum analysis tools, constructive alignment practices, and annual curriculum review activities.
  • Improves the systematic monitoring of student workload, including assessment scheduling and the relationship between ECTS weighting and actual student effort.
  • Develops clearer institutional processes for embedding work-integrated learning and industry engagement consistently across programmes.
  • Develops clearer institutional guidance and shared practices regarding the pedagogical use of artificial intelligence and its implications for assessment and academic integrity.
  • Ensures that the increasing scale and diversity of the student population is matched by sufficient resourcing, staff development, and scalable quality enhancement processes.
  • Clarifies the institutional objectives, KPI framework and portfolio-level planning process for continuous learning, including non-financial objectives, monitoring and assessment responsibilities, and clearly documenting feedback-to-action.