HE-Q03 — Institutional Self-Evaluation

Course Code: HE-Q03  |  School: School of Higher Education  |  Cluster: Quality Assurance

Level: Intermediate  |  Estimated duration: 6 weeks (approximately 40 hours)  |  Language: English  |  Certificate: Professional Certificate (non-degree)  |  Format: Self-paced with AI support under human supervision

Overview

Institutional self-evaluation is the practice by which a university examines itself without being compelled to do so by an external panel. Done well it is the most valuable quality activity an institution undertakes, because it is the only one designed around the institution’s own questions. Done badly it becomes a rehearsal for external review, in which the institution writes what it believes the reviewer wants to read.

The course draws on the self-study tradition established by Herbert Kells and on the organisational learning literature associated with Argyris and Schön, whose distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning explains precisely why most self-evaluation corrects errors without ever questioning the assumptions that produced them. Learners are asked to design evaluation processes capable of double-loop learning, which requires deliberate attention to psychological safety and to who is permitted to say what.

The work is methodological as well as political. Learners specify evidence, design instruments, plan participation, analyse findings and confront the central practical problem: a self-evaluation whose findings are unwelcome will be quietly buried unless the process was designed from the outset to make burial difficult.

Learning outcomes

On completion, a successful learner will be able to:

1. Distinguish self-evaluation conducted for improvement from self-study produced for external review, and design for the former.
2. Apply organisational learning theory to explain why institutional self-examination so often fails to change assumptions.
3. Design a self-evaluation framework with defined scope, questions, evidence sources and participation structure.
4. Select and construct appropriate evaluation instruments, including document analysis, survey and structured interview.
5. Analyse mixed qualitative and quantitative evidence and construct defensible findings from it.
6. Manage the political dimensions of self-evaluation, including candour, anonymity and the protection of critical voices.
7. Produce a self-evaluation report whose recommendations are specific, owned and monitorable.

Who this course is for

Institutional researchers, quality officers, planning staff, heads of department conducting departmental reviews, and senior leaders commissioning internal evaluation. Also relevant to consultants who facilitate institutional self-study.

Prerequisites

HE-Q01 Quality Assurance in Higher Education is recommended. Basic familiarity with survey and interview methods is helpful; the course revises what is needed.

Syllabus

Module 1 — Purpose, Scope and Honesty

Self-evaluation fails first at the framing stage, when the scope is drawn to exclude the questions that matter. This module establishes purpose and boundary deliberately and examines the incentives against candour.

Lessons. 1.1 Improvement-oriented self-evaluation versus compliance self-study  ·  1.2 Setting scope: what is examined and what is protected  ·  1.3 Commissioning, sponsorship and the independence problem  ·  1.4 Naming the questions the institution avoids

Deliverable. A diagnostic note defining scope and the three questions your institution habitually avoids in self-examination.

Module 2 — Organisational Learning and Its Obstacles

Argyris and Schön’s account of defensive routines explains why institutions detect errors reliably and revise governing assumptions almost never. The module treats these routines as the primary design constraint.

Lessons. 2.1 Single-loop and double-loop learning in institutions  ·  2.2 Espoused theory and theory-in-use  ·  2.3 Defensive routines and organisational skilled incompetence  ·  2.4 Designing for psychological safety in evaluation

Deliverable. An analytical brief identifying one espoused-theory and theory-in-use gap in your institution, evidenced rather than asserted.

Module 3 — Designing the Evaluation Framework

A framework converts purpose into answerable questions and questions into evidence. This module builds that chain explicitly so that no question is asked that cannot be answered.

Lessons. 3.1 From purpose to evaluation questions  ·  3.2 Mapping questions to evidence sources  ·  3.3 Participation design: who contributes and in what capacity  ·  3.4 Timeline, resourcing and governance of the exercise

Deliverable. A design artefact: a complete self-evaluation framework with questions, evidence map, participation plan and timeline.

Module 4 — Instruments and Evidence

Self-evaluation typically over-relies on documents and surveys because they are cheap. This module builds a wider instrument set and applies appropriate analytical discipline to each.

Lessons. 4.1 Document and policy analysis  ·  4.2 Survey design, sampling and non-response  ·  4.3 Structured and semi-structured interviewing and focus groups  ·  4.4 Triangulation, disconfirming evidence and analytical memoing

Deliverable. An evaluation report presenting findings from at least two instrument types applied to one evaluation question, including disconfirming evidence.

Module 5 — Findings, Politics and Follow-Through

Reporting is where self-evaluation is most often neutralised, through softening language, aggregation and the deferral of ownership. The module writes against each of those mechanisms.

Lessons. 5.1 Constructing findings that survive challenge  ·  5.2 Writing critically without becoming unpublishable  ·  5.3 Anonymity, attribution and protecting contributors  ·  5.4 Action planning, ownership and monitoring cycles

Deliverable. An implementation plan converting findings into dated, owned actions with a monitoring and escalation route.

Module 6 — Capstone: A Self-Evaluation Design and Report

The capstone delivers both the design and a worked partial application, demonstrating that the learner can run the process rather than only describe it. Candour is explicitly assessed.

Lessons. 6.1 Finalising questions and evidence  ·  6.2 Executing a limited evidence collection  ·  6.3 Constructing and testing findings  ·  6.4 Reporting for institutional action

Deliverable. A 2,500-word institutional self-evaluation design with a worked application to one evaluation question, findings and an action plan.

Assessment

Pass mark 70 per cent. All assessed components must be attempted. Every mark in this course is issued by a human assessor; no assessment outcome is generated automatically.

Rubric criteria

Each assessed artefact is marked against four criteria at four levels (distinction, pass with merit, pass, fail).

1. Design coherence. Purpose, questions, evidence and instruments form an unbroken and defensible chain.
2. Methodological quality. Instruments are appropriate, sampling and analysis are sound, and disconfirming evidence is sought.
3. Candour and political realism. Uncomfortable findings are stated, and the conditions for stating them are designed into the process.
4. Actionability. Recommendations are specific, owned, dated and monitorable.

Reading list

Core. Kells, H. R. (1995) Self-Study Processes: A Guide to Self-Evaluation in Higher Education, 4th edn. Phoenix: Oryx Press and American Council on Education.

• Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. (1996) Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008) Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (1995) Improvement and Accountability: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Yin, R. K. (2018) Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th edn. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
• Edmondson, A. C. (1999) ‘Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383.

Academic integrity and use of AI

Generative AI may be used in this course as a drafting, translation and critique aid, and its use must be disclosed. Every submission carries a short use-of-AI statement naming the tools used, the tasks they performed and the checks the learner applied to the output. Using AI to fabricate data, invent sources, impersonate an interview participant, or produce an artefact the learner cannot explain in a live viva is prohibited.

All citations are verified before submission; a reference that cannot be located by the assessor is treated as fabricated. Fabrication, plagiarism and undisclosed ghost-authorship result in failure of the component and referral to the academic integrity panel. Marks in this course are issued by human assessors, and any learner may be asked to defend a submission orally before a mark is confirmed.