EAQE study plan

Map the quality-assurance ecosystem: list at least six external frameworks or standards bodies relevant to education quality (for example ISO 9001, ISO 21001, ESG, national qualification frameworks) and write one sentence on the scope of each.

Distinguish the core vocabulary of Domain 1 in your own words: quality assurance versus quality control, accountability versus improvement purposes, fitness for purpose versus fitness of purpose, and internal versus external assurance.

Compare two frameworks by building a two-column table covering purpose, governance structure, evidence requirements, and review cycle.

Identify the five most frequently examined concepts in Domain 1 and write a one-paragraph summary of each from memory, then check it against a source.

Draft a governance map showing the roles of the governing body, senior leadership, quality unit, academic committees, and external stakeholders in a quality system, and state the decision rights of each.

Explain how institutional mission and strategy translate into measurable quality objectives, using a worked example with at least three objectives and matching indicators.

Analyse a case in which leadership commitment to quality was weak and write three specific governance interventions that would have changed the outcome.

Summarise the main strategic quality management models (for example PDCA, balanced scorecard, maturity models) and state one strength and one limitation of each.

Design a self-evaluation cycle for one programme, specifying the evidence sources, the stakeholders consulted, the timeline, and the approval route for the resulting action plan.

Write at least five self-evaluation questions that are answerable with evidence rather than opinion, and for each one name the evidence that would answer it.

Critique the risks of self-evaluation (self-congratulation, evidence gaps, workload) and propose one mitigation for each risk.

Practise writing a self-evaluation judgement with a rating, the evidence base, and the improvement action in under 250 words.

Describe the full external review sequence from self-evaluation submission through desk review, site visit, panel judgement, and follow-up, and list the documents a provider must prepare at each stage.

Compare accreditation, audit, and inspection on purpose, reviewer role, outcome type, and consequences of a poor result.

Prepare answers to five likely panel questions about evidence quality and demonstrate how to respond with specific evidence rather than assertion.

Identify the three most common reasons providers receive conditional or weak judgements and write a preventive action for each.

Design a stakeholder engagement plan that identifies students, staff, employers, and alumni, and specifies for each group the purpose, method, frequency, and how feedback is closed off.

Explain at least four ways to embed the student voice in quality decisions beyond satisfaction surveys, and state the evidence each method generates.

Build a small indicator set of six to eight indicators covering access, progression, achievement, student experience, and graduate outcomes, and define the numerator, denominator, and data owner for each.

Distinguish leading from lagging indicators and select two of each from your indicator set to explain how they would drive a decision.

Describe how to present data to a non-specialist committee so that the decision is clear, including one example of a chart choice and its rationale.

Write three evidence-based recommendations from a small dataset you construct yourself, stating the data limitation and the confidence level of each recommendation.

Apply a recognised improvement cycle (PDCA or similar) to one quality problem end to end, documenting each stage and the decision point.

Produce a change-management plan for implementing one quality initiative, covering stakeholder impact, communication, resistance risks, quick wins, and success measures.

Explain how to evaluate whether an improvement action actually worked, including baseline, target, and post-implementation review timing.

Evaluate the quality of assessment design against at least four criteria (validity, reliability, fairness, authenticity) and apply them to one assessment you can describe in detail.

Explain how internal verification or moderation of assessment judgements works and design a simple moderation sampling rule.

Draft an ethics and transparency statement for quality practice covering data protection, conflict of interest, publication of results, and protection of whistleblowers.

Analyse two ethical dilemmas in quality practice (for example pressure to inflate results, or selective use of evidence) and state the correct course of action and why.

Complete two full timed mock examinations under exam conditions and record the score by domain to identify remaining weak areas.

Revisit the two lowest-scoring domains and rewrite your own summary notes for each, condensing them to a single page.

Rehearse concise written answers to ten high-frequency question stems, keeping each answer within the time budget you would use in the exam.

Consolidate all weekly deliverables into one indexed revision file and check that each domain has at least one worked example you can recall.