EAQE key terms

An organised set of policies, standards, processes and responsibilities that an institution uses to plan, check and improve the quality of its provision in a consistent way.

Agreed statements of what good practice looks like, accompanied by advice on how to meet them; they provide the reference points against which quality is judged.

A structure that describes levels of learning achievement and the outcomes associated with each level, allowing qualifications to be compared and recognised across institutions or countries.

Short statements describing the nature and complexity of learning expected at a particular qualification level, used to place programmes and judge whether outcomes match the level claimed.

A set of agreed standards for internal and external quality assurance in higher education, covering institutions, external review bodies and agencies, widely used as an international reference.

A public authority with legal power to set requirements, recognise providers and impose conditions on institutions operating within its jurisdiction.

The shared values, attitudes and habits through which staff and students take responsibility for maintaining and improving quality, rather than relying only on formal compliance mechanisms.

Visible and consistent support from senior leaders for quality work, shown through resource allocation, decisions and personal engagement with evaluation findings.

The formal bodies, roles and reporting lines through which decisions about quality are made, documented and held to account within an institution.

A document setting out an institution's medium-term priorities, targets and the means for achieving them, against which quality objectives and progress can be aligned.

A way of targeting quality effort and scrutiny where the likelihood and impact of failure are greatest, rather than applying identical checks everywhere.

A maintained record of identified risks, their assessed likelihood and impact, the controls in place and the person responsible for managing each one.

The institution's own arrangements - policies, procedures, data and review activities - for designing, monitoring and improving the quality of its programmes and services.

A structured account, written by the institution or programme, of its own performance against agreed criteria, supported by evidence and identifying strengths and areas for improvement.

The process through which staff and sometimes students judge their own practice against standards, usually involving reflection, evidence gathering and agreed follow-up actions.

A recurring yearly review of programme data, student feedback and outcomes, used to confirm that standards are being maintained and to trigger improvement actions.

Evaluation carried out by people with relevant academic or professional expertise from outside the unit being reviewed, offering independent judgement while respecting disciplinary context.

An on-campus or online visit by an external review team to verify written evidence, hold meetings and observe practice before reaching judgements.

The group appointed to conduct an external review, typically combining academic specialists, professional practitioners and a student member, working to agreed terms of reference.

An organisation that reviews providers or programmes against published standards and reports the results, often operating under legal mandate or as a recognised independent body.

Formal recognition that a programme or institution meets specified standards, usually granted for a defined period and subject to renewal through further review.

Accreditation focused on a specific course of study, often involving professional or subject-specific bodies that judge whether graduates meet entry requirements for practice.

An external review that examines whether an institution's internal quality arrangements are effective and reliable, rather than judging individual programmes directly.

Requirements or advice attached to an accreditation or review outcome, specifying changes the provider must or should make, with deadlines for demonstrating compliance.

Any person or group with an interest in the quality of provision, including students, staff, employers, graduates, funders and the wider community.

The ways in which students' views, concerns and ideas are gathered and used to influence decisions about teaching, services and quality arrangements.

Working with students as active contributors to design, review and improvement, for example through co-creation of curricula or student membership of review panels.

An approach that designs teaching and assessment around what students need to learn and how they learn best, emphasising active engagement and responsibility for learning.

A structured instrument collecting students' perceptions of their experience, teaching or services, usually repeated over time to allow comparison and trend analysis.

A measure chosen because it signals whether an important objective is being achieved, used to monitor performance and inform decisions at institutional or programme level.

Comparing one's own performance, processes or outcomes with those of comparable institutions or with sector norms, in order to identify gaps and good practice.

Using several independent sources or types of evidence to test a conclusion, so that judgements rest on more than a single data point or opinion.

The collected documents, data and testimony on which a judgement or improvement decision rests, ideally sufficient, relevant and verifiable.

Choosing what to change or prioritise on the basis of systematically gathered information rather than intuition alone, while acknowledging the limits of the data available.

An ongoing cycle of planning, implementing, checking results and adjusting practice, so that quality gains are sustained rather than achieved once.

A four-stage improvement loop: design a change, carry it out, examine what happened, then adjust before repeating; widely used to structure quality projects.

A time-bound document listing improvement tasks, the person responsible for each, the resources needed and the evidence that will show completion.

The structured approach to moving people and processes from current practice to a desired future state, addressing communication, capacity and resistance.

Designing intended learning outcomes, teaching activities and assessment tasks so that they reinforce one another and students are assessed on what they were meant to learn.

Statements of what a learner should know, understand or be able to do by the end of a unit or programme, written so that achievement can be demonstrated and assessed.

The extent to which an assessment measures what it is intended to measure, so that the judgements made about learner achievement are defensible.

The consistency of assessment results across markers, occasions and tasks, so that similar performance receives similar judgements.

A process in which marks or judgements are checked against agreed criteria by another qualified person, ensuring consistency and fairness before results are confirmed.

An independent academic who reviews standards, assessment design and marking decisions for a programme and reports on comparability with similar provision elsewhere.

The obligation to explain and justify decisions and performance to those with a legitimate interest, and to accept consequences for the results.

Openness about criteria, processes, evidence and outcomes, so that stakeholders can understand how judgements were reached and challenge them if necessary.

A situation where a person's other interests could improperly influence a quality judgement, requiring declaration, management or removal from the decision.

Publishing review outcomes, data or summaries in a form accessible to students and the wider public, supporting informed choice and institutional accountability.