When a course repeatedly produces unusually high failure rates over several academic years there is a bigger question than who is responsible

The important question is what is the evidence telling the institution

A high failure rate may involve teaching assessment, course design, curriculum, student preparedness, resources, workload, support, delivery conditions or several factors working together

Without a structured investigation an institution may respond too quickly focus on the wrong problem repeat ineffective interventions or allow a persistent problem to continue

Students can be affected

Lecturers can be unfairly blamed

Academic standards can be compromised

Institutional resources can be wasted

And management may struggle to demonstrate that appropriate quality assurance processes were followed

The KQM prompt is designed to help institutions move from concern to structured investigation and from investigation to corrective action

This prompt is designed for

Deans

Academic leaders

Quality assurance professionals

Quality assurance committees

Academic boards

Faculty leaders

Heads of department

Programme coordinators

Institutional researchers

Academic governance professionals

Instructional review teams

Assessment and curriculum committees

Student success leaders

Senior institutional management

It can also support institutions preparing for internal quality reviews, accreditation activities, academic program reviews and institutional improvement initiatives

This prompt is not designed to automatically determine that a lecturer is incompetent

It is not a disciplinary investigation by itself

It is not a substitute for institutional policy

It is not a replacement for human academic judgment

It is not designed to manufacture evidence where evidence does not exist

It should not be used to prejudge a lecturer, student department or institution

It should not be used to turn a high failure rate into an automatic finding of misconduct or poor teaching

Instead it is designed to support a fair evidence based quality assurance process

The prompt deliberately separates four questions that are often incorrectly treated as one

First

Is there a persistent student performance problem?

Second

Is there evidence that course design, curriculum assessment, resources or delivery conditions may be contributing to the problem?

Third

Is there evidence concerning the effectiveness of the lecturers teaching?

Fourth

Has management responded appropriately to the recurring problem?

These questions matter because they are not interchangeable

A course can have a serious performance problem without the evidence proving that the lecturer is the cause

Likewise, a lecturer may be performing appropriately while assessment design, curriculum alignment, student preparedness or institutional conditions contribute to poor outcomes

The prompt helps the institution investigate before reaching conclusions

Failure Trends

Review failure rates pass rates, withdrawals, incomplete grades, repeat patterns, progression and changes across academic years

Compare cohorts, sections of the course and similar courses where appropriate

Determine whether the pattern appears isolated, recurring, significant or potentially indicative of a broader quality assurance concern

Possible Causes

Systematically examine possible causes across teaching, course design, assessment, curriculum, student preparedness, engagement, resources, workload, timetabling, support, professional development, advising and institutional factors

For each possible cause the prompt asks what evidence would support it what evidence might contradict it what information should be collected and who should provide that evidence

Course And Assessment Quality

Review learning outcomes, course content, prerequisites, teaching methods, assessment methods, assessment weighting, examination and assignment difficulty, marking grading, moderation, feedback and alignment between teaching and assessment

The goal is to determine whether students have a fair and meaningful opportunity to demonstrate achievement of the intended learning outcomes

Fair Lecturer Review

Evaluate teaching effectiveness using multiple sources of evidence rather than failure rates alone

Consider student feedback, peer observation course materials, assessment instruments, grading patterns, student performance, lecturer qualifications and experience, professional development and previous actions taken to address student difficulties

The prompt specifically prevents a high failure rate from automatically becoming a finding of poor teaching

Management Response

Examine whether management recognized, documented and investigated the recurring pattern

Review whether the institution consulted relevant stakeholders, reviewed assessments, examined curriculum alignment, provided appropriate support, implemented corrective actions, established measurable targets, monitored outcomes and documented follow up

Corrective Action

Move beyond identifying problems

Develop practical actions with responsible persons or units, deadlines, success measures, priorities and review dates

Monitoring

Establish indicators that can help determine whether interventions are producing meaningful improvement

These may include pass rates, failure rates, withdrawal rates, repeat rates, progression, assessment, student engagement, student feedback, learning outcomes, achievement and completion of recommended interventions

THE FAIRNESS SAFEGUARD

One of the most important features of the KQM prompt is its insistence on evidence before conclusions.

When the available information does not support a conclusion the review is instructed to state:

Insufficient evidence to determine

This matters

It prevents assumptions from becoming findings

It encourages institutions to collect the evidence they actually need

It protects academic freedom

It supports procedural fairness

And it helps decision makers distinguish between a genuine quality concern and an unsupported allegation

The prompt can be used as the starting point for a structured institutional review

An institution can provide relevant information such as course performance data, assessment materials, course outlines, learning outcomes, student feedback, peer review information, previous intervention records and other appropriate documentation

The prompt can then help organize the review into a structured sequence

Define the problem

Investigate possible causes

Review the course and assessment

Review teaching fairly

Examine management response

Develop corrective actions

Create a monitoring framework

Prepare an institutional decision report

The resulting analysis can support discussion by appropriate academic and quality assurance bodies

It can also help identify where additional evidence is needed before a decision is made

The prompt is designed to help generate a professional institutional decision report containing

Executive summary

Statement of the problem

Evidence reviewed

Analysis of failure trends

Possible causes

Teaching review

Assessment review

Curriculum review

Student preparedness and support review

Management and quality assurance process review

Findings

Areas where evidence is insufficient

Corrective action plan

Monitoring and evaluation framework

Recommended follow up

Questions requiring further investigation

It also produces a concise executive summary suitable for consideration by senior institutional decision makers

The value is not simply identifying that students are failing

Most institutions can identify that

The value is creating a structured pathway for asking why

Why is the pattern happening

What evidence supports each possible explanation

What has already been tried

Did it work

What has management done

What has not yet been investigated

What should happen next

How will the institution know whether the intervention worked

That is the difference between noticing a problem and managing it responsibly

KQM developed this prompt around a simple principle

A persistent failure pattern should trigger investigation

Not automatic blame

Institutions have a responsibility to protect academic standards and support student success while also protecting academic freedom and ensuring fair treatment of academic staff

This prompt helps bring those responsibilities together through evidence structured analysis proportional recommendations and continuous improvement

THE KQM PROMISE

Do not guess

Do not prejudge

Do not manufacture findings

Do not confuse student performance with lecturer performance

Do not confuse a possible cause with an established cause

Investigate

Evaluate

Document

Act

Monitor

Improve

 

WHO SHOULD CONSIDER USING IT

If your institution has a course where unusually high failure rates have persisted across multiple academic periods this prompt provides a structured starting point for asking the questions that should not be ignored

Because sometimes the most important quality assurance question is not

Who failed the course

It is

Why has this pattern continued and what has the institution done about it

KQM HIGHER EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE REVIEW PROMPT

For evidence based investigation

For fair academic governance

For stronger quality assurance

For better institutional decisions

For improved student outcomes