Periodic Review Panels Monday 25 th July 2016 Tony Turjansky - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

‘Student Participation on Periodic Review Panels’

Monday 25th July 2016

Tony Turjansky Director of Quality Assurance turjana@edgehill.ac.uk Helen Duell Academic Quality Officer (Engagement & Enhancement) duellh@edgehill.ac.uk

Aims

This session will aim to locate Periodic Review within: – National HE quality expectations:

• UK Quality Code for Higher Education

– Edge Hill’s own quality strategy – Student involvement in the process – Supporting guidance and information

UK Quality Code for Higher Education

• Governs all HE providers in setting and

maintaining academic standards, quality of learning opportunities, enhancement and public information

• Defined by a national HE level framework and

subject benchmarks (PART A), additional guidance on securing and enhancing the quality

• f students’ learning opportunities (PART B)

and guidance concerning information published by HE providers (PART C)

A1: UK and European reference points for academic standards A2: Degree-awarding bodies' reference points for academic standards A3: Securing academic standards and an outcomes-based approach to academic awards

B1: Programme design, development and approval B2: Recruitment, selection and admission to higher education B3: Learning and teaching B4: Enabling student development and achievement B5: Student engagement B6: Assessment of students and the recognition of prior learning B7: External examining B8: Programme monitoring and review B9: Academic appeals and student complaints B10: Managing higher education provision with others B11: Research degrees

Part A: Setting and maintaining academic standards Part B: Assuring and enhancing academic quality Part C: Information about higher education provision

UK QUALITY CODE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION

Edge Hill’s quality strategy

• We embed the national Quality Code within
• ur regulations and quality management

processes:

– Validation - detailed panel scrutiny of new programme proposals – Annual Monitoring (AMR) – includes module evaluation – External examiners – confirm standards through their annual reports – Periodic review of each academic department/ area every 5 years (including programme ‘re-validation’)

Aims of Periodic Review

• A five-yearly review of all existing programmes in a

department/cognate discipline area conducted with a view to recommending their continuing approval (a.k.a. ‘re- validation’)

– Includes both campus-based and collaborative/ distance learning provision

• Delivers a confidence judgement in the capability and

capacity of the department/area to deliver its awards

• Reviews the shape and direction of the curriculum:

– Market drivers – Academic benchmarks – Influence of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs)

• Considers drivers for change and the department’s

strategic response/ ‘5 year plan’

– Gives direction to annual Autumn Monitoring and Spring Planning, exposing departments’ plans and aspirations to both Faculty and University planners and influencers

Aims of Periodic Review (2)

• Confirms academic standards (using programme

performance data and feedback from external examiners)

• (Using student feedback) reviews the quality of

student learning opportunities:

– Teaching, assessment and student support – Teaching staff (capacity, qualifications, professional development) – Learning resources (central and course-specific; quality, sufficiency) – Course organisation (including placements, where relevant) – Quality assurance and enhancement

What does Periodic Review look like?

• Critical Review document

– Authored by Head of Department/Area and programme teams

• Critical evaluation of data on: programme recruitment, retention,

achievement (modules), progression and completion (awards); NSS

• utcomes; graduate destinations (DLHE); external examiner reports;

professional body reports (where available); previous annual monitoring reports (supports trend analysis)

• First Panel Meeting to agree ‘lines of enquiry’ and foci of pre-reading
• Focus group meetings with students and employers/ alumni (minus

department staff)

• Chair’s pre-review event meeting with departmental leads
• Main Review Event

– Internal panel chair, secretary, 2 members, 1 student member to bring a learner perspective – 2 external academic/professional experts nominated by the Department/Area – Discussions with the Department/Area

• Recommendations to Department/Area, Faculty and University
• Identification of good practice for University-wide enhancement

Critical Review headings

• Strategy for development
• Curriculum & Benchmarking
• Assessment & Achievement
• Teaching & Learning
• Student Recruitment, Support & Guidance
• Student Retention & Progression
• Staffing, Staff Development & Research
• Other Resources
• Course Organisation & Management
• Quality Management & Enhancement
• Assessment of Risk & Action Plan

Conduct of review meetings

• Collegial – not adversarial!
• Interrogative - but not an ‘interrogation’!
• Role of the Chair is crucial to managing

the discussions

• Secretary (AQO) provides expert

guidance on ‘process’ and keeps a running list of issues that may result in recommendations

Outcomes of the event

• Reassurance to the University that:

– Programmes are in good health and should continue in validation (with or without exceptions) – The Department/Area has the capacity and capability to continue delivering its programmes (and to develop new ones)

• Recommendations in respect of further

development: – For the Department/Area – For the Faculty – For the University

Outcomes of the event (contd)

• Secretary produces draft report
• ‘Chair’s Approved Draft’ is circulated to the

rest of the panel for verification and to the proposing team for confirmation of factual accuracy

• Department/Area responds formally to the

panel’s recommendations

• Confirmed report is signed off by the Chair

and goes to the next available meeting of the Academic Quality Enhancement Committee for consideration and approval (and delegation of any University-level recommendations)

Periodic reviews in November/December 2016

(dates to be confirmed)

FAS Business School FAS Computing FOE Professional Learning (formerly ‘Postgraduate Professional Education’) FOE Primary Education FOE Early Years Education

Periodic Review documentation

• Templates are available at

http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic- review/ including:

– Student focus group standard agenda – Skeleton agenda for the main periodic review event – Critical Review document template

• ‘Preparing for Periodic Review’ booklet

(based on QMH Chapter 3)

http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/ Publications/Documents/ quality-code-brief- guide.pdf

Any questions?

Thanks for your attention!