Preparing for Periodic Review In Scientia Opportunitas Katherine - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

In Scientia Opportunitas Opportunity from Knowledge

‘Preparing for Periodic Review’

Katherine Griffiths Academic Quality Officer Tony Turjansky Director of Quality Assurance Academic Quality and Development Unit July 2016

National Context

The national context [UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8]

“The processes of monitoring and review provide a formal opportunity for higher education providers to reflect on their academic provision and consider how it may be changed to enhance the student learning

• experience. Programme monitoring refers to a regular, systematic
• process. It may take place annually or at shorter or longer intervals and

provides a check on ongoing learning and teaching provision at an

• perational level. Programme review occurs less frequently, but

periodically and to an agreed cycle. It has a broader remit and is informed by a view of trends over time. The review of a programme may be related to its re-approval, if the original approval was time limited; if the original approval was open ended, review is designed in a way which fulfils the function of re-approval.”

The national context [UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8] contd.

• Programme monitoring and programme review enable higher

education providers to reflect on the learning opportunities students have experienced, the academic standards achieved, and their continuing currency and relevance

• Monitoring and review provide a formal opportunity for

higher education providers to reflect on their academic provision and consider how it may be changed to enhance the student learning experience

• The monitoring and review of programmes also provide
• pportunities to ensure the student voice has been heard

The national context [HEFCE ‘Revised operating model for quality assessment’, March 2016]

• Periodic review should be the key mechanism by which

established providers improve academic outcomes and the student academic experience and :

 Be informed by the institution’s context, provision and students  Identify issues or problems that need addressing  Be focused on improving student outcomes, identifying innovations and developments and evaluating their impact  Have sufficient strong externality (e.g. from academics, employers and alumni).

• Will be used by Governors as evidence for completing their

HEFCE Annual Accountability Return (AAR).

• Will be reviewed by QAA during 2017-18 (‘one-off’ scrutiny).

Periodic review at EHU: Process

Process andDocumentation

• Critical Review document

 Authored by Head of Department and team of associated Programme Leaders

• First Panel Meeting including Student Focus Group (without staff) and Employer Focus Group

(NEW)

• Review of evidence/ data

 to agree ‘lines of enquiry’ and foci of pre-reading

• Chair’s pre-meeting with departmental lead(s)
• Main Review Event

 VASC Standing Panel: Chair, secretary, two staff members, one student member to bring a learner perspective  Two external academic/professional experts nominated by the Department  Discussions with the Department team

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

Critical Review/ agenda headings

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

First Panel Meeting (no department attendance)

• Identifies areas for consideration within the Main Review

agenda

• Reviews the supporting evidence (see next slide), identifies

and assigns ‘lines of enquiry’

• Holds a focus group meeting with student representatives
• Holds a focus group meeting with employers, including alumni

(NEW)

• Identifies any further evidence to be supplied by the

department/ area, Faculty or the AQDU before the Main Review Event

Supporting evidence:

• CVs of teaching staff, including associate tutors.
• Minutes of Programme Boards and Student-Staff Consultative Fora from the

most recent complete academic year.

• A list of all awards in current approval, including collaborative provision,

differentiated by:

• Programmes for which the department/area is seeking continuing

approval

• Programmes with no current students and no planned recruitment to be

formally closed and removed from the University’s List of Named Awards

• Programmes with current students for which the department/area is

seeking phased closure (via AQEC).

• Reports of all validations and major modifications undertaken since the

previous review.

• A list of all minor programme modifications undertaken since the previous

periodic review.

• A list of all modules re-validated since the previous periodic review.

Supporting evidence contd:

• Programme specifications of all awards currently in validation.
• The previous periodic review report for the department/area.
• The department/area’s most recent Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) including

the Head of Department’s Commentary.

• The department/area’s most recent Spring Planning Statement.
• Most recent external examiner reports and any relevant PSRB reports.
• Student recruitment, achievement, retention, progression and award data from

the most recent complete academic year for all programmes, including module first-time pass rates.

• Most recent internal student survey and National Student Survey data for

the department/area.

• Most recent graduate employment data (Destination of Leavers from Higher

Education Survey).

• Student-Staff Ratio data (supplied by the Faculty).
• A sample of programme and module handbooks (NB: sample marked

coursework no longer required).

Pre-Review Meeting & the Main Event Pre-Review Meeting

Approximately one week before the Main Review Event the chair, secretary and head of department/area meet to:

• Confirm the programme and

attendance for the Main Review Event

• Share the key issues identified at the

First Panel Meeting together with the written comments received from the external panel members

The Main Event

• Normally lasts one full working day
• Discussions are collegial, but rigorous
• Culminates in judgements

(endorsements), recommendations and affirmations (see next slides)

• NB Although periodic review

normally confers continuing approval, panels may refer any individual programme back to the host Faculty for modification or re- validation

Outcomes

Outcomes

• Confidence statement
• Endorsements (of standards and quality)
• Recommendations
• Affirmations (of actions already taken)
• Citations (of good practice)
• Continuing approval (of current provision) – with or

without exceptions

Reporting

• 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 only

• Confirmed report and department response to

recommendations is signed off by the Review Chair and goes to the next available Academic Quality Enhancement Committee meeting for consideration and approval (signals continuing approval of existing programmes)

• Report is filed and becomes available as evidence for future

internal review (as per HEFCE’s new quality assurance framework).

Questions