Guidance for Annual Programme Evaluation. (Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Programmes)

Transcription

1 Guidance for Annual Evaluation (Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught s) Scope For all taught students studying for an award at City including those on partnership programmes. Separate guidance exists for students on validated programmes. Summary of changes for 2017/18 form and guidance: The overall timelines for the process have been revised to enable time for peer review of APEs within Schools prior to submission. Please note that action plans should be implemented immediately where applicable to ensure appropriate measures are being taken at an early stage and can be reported to students at the beginning of the next academic year. Please see Timetable within this guidance. The addition of a link within Appendix 1: Management information section of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate taught forms to enable staff to access key data related to the completion of the appendix. Introduction of one new thematic element Internationalisation of the Curriculum. The two questions within the APE have been developed in order to explore how internationalisation is interpreted within each discipline and the extent to which it is embedded within programmes; please see the guidance for further details. In response to feedback from Senate the introduction of an additional row within the Good Practice table has been added in order to support staff in reflecting and reporting on good practice and strengths made by the relevant EE. Similarly an additional row has been added to the Action Plan which supports staff to record and monitor any EE Recommendations and Items for Response. This is a pilot year for inclusion in this format, pending a more comprehensive review and consultation for the 2018/19 form and guidance. In response to the revised Periodic Review Policy an additional row has been added within the Action Plan to support staff to record and monitor progress against the agreed actions, further details can be found within this guidance document. Introduction of the Good Practice Template as Appendix 2 for use by the Associate Deans (Education) for the identification and dissemination of good practice. To be read in conjunction with: Periodic Review Policy and Guidance

2 Contents Contents 2 Guidance on Annual Evaluation 3 Overview 3 Can more than one programme be included in an APE? 3 Planning for the next Periodic Review 4 Management Information 4 Data can be accessed via SharePoint: 4 Timetable 4 Undergraduate Timetable 5 Postgraduate Taught Timetable 7 Completing the form 9 Front sheet 9 Targets and Staging Points 9 Summary Evaluation 10 Good Practice 10 Good Practice Template (Appendix 2) 11 Thematic Focus (UG only) 11 Actions 12 Student Feedback 13 Appendix 1: Partnership provision 15 Appendix 2: Good Practice Form 18 2

3 Guidance on Annual Evaluation The Policy on Annual Evaluation (APE) sets out the purpose of APEs and the principles that guide their development and use. This guidance should be used in conjunction with the policy and provides additional information to support the development and use of APEs. This guidance is specifically for internal and partnership provision. Overview APEs are designed to support reflection on the past year s activity and to capture and monitor actions being taken to enhance programmes across the course of the present academic year. They are the primary way in which programme teams plan and report on performance against key metrics for student satisfaction, progression and employability. Purpose Reflection Action Planning Target setting Key contacts for supporting Annual Evaluation and Periodic Review are given in section 8 of the Quality Manual under Guidance. Process Evidence based On-going updates throughout the year They are living documents updated throughout the year to reflect on-going feedback, developments and new data. Committees monitor progress at every meeting and Boards of Studies consider APEs twice each year. APE (and particularly action planning) should be undertaken in consultation with Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs). Educational Quality Committee, together with Education & Student Committee and its substructure consider APE reports to inform strategic decision-making. Senate receives an annual report on quality and standards as part of the APE cycle. APEs should be based on evidence from a variety of sources including (but not limited to): data on admissions, progression, SSLC minutes satisfaction, employability, degree External Examiner feedback class distribution professional body reviews or audits NSS/PTES/PRES/ Your Voice periodic reviews surveys Careers registration data module evaluation APEs are also designed to capture actions being taken by Professional Services and by management colleagues within Schools. Can more than one programme be included in an APE? Some Schools/departments choose to cluster a number of programmes into a single APE. This is very helpful where a number of modules are shared or the broad provision is comparable. Advice should be sought from the Associate Dean (Education) and School Professional Services lead for Quality Standards and Enhancement on how best to group programmes. It is vital that differences across provision are adequately reflected and feedback action plans may relate specifically to a particular route or cohort. The summary evaluation is also an excellent place to draw out any key differences between the groups covered. 3

4 Consideration should also be given to whether some or all of the Management Information tables and survey results should be separated out so that differences in admissions, progression, destinations and the student experience can be identified and addressed. A balance must be struck between covering a very small programme or clustering too many programmes together both approaches present risks for undertaking meaningful evaluation and action planning. It is therefore vital that where a cluster of programmes are covered by a single APE, each programme has a separate and targeted action plan. Planning for the next Periodic Review Periodic Reviews take place every five years. If you do not already know the year of your programme s next Periodic Review please check with your Associate Dean (Education), School Quality and Standards lead or Student & Academic Services (please see key contacts for 2017/18* (*Section 8 of the Quality Manual). The APE action plan should also be used to identify where actions could be taken forward through the Periodic Review process (occurring every five years). Actions here could be quite broad-ranging and should support the development of action plans for Periodic Review. Management Information Staff responsible for preparing the draft of the APE should reference the technical annex. If a programme is required to provide statistical data on an annual basis to an accrediting or professional body, and if this data covers the above areas, the programme team may be able to append that data rather than duplicating the information using the tables in the APE. teams should discuss these options with Student & Academic Services. Data can be accessed via SharePoint: c97e9b766 Timetable Throughout the lifecycle of the APE on-going monitoring and development takes place via a standing item on Committee and SSLC agendas. Both Committees should receive a full copy of the APE as early as possible in the APE lifecycle. Following this the Committees will focus on the progress of the action plan and development required resulting from feedback and new data including matters arising during the year. 4

5 Undergraduate Timetable Monitoring and development of previous year s APE via Committee and SSLC. Overseen by ADE, PD and HoD. Timing Activity Input Responsibility Committee(s) June June - Oct According to School planning cycle Oct - Nov Nov Nov Review and planning Identify broad issues to be covered in new APE Draft APE Incorporate inputs as they become available Identify and incorporate any development support needs for each action (insert under Support needs for implementation ) Where possible early consultation with students is also helpful (e.g. on internal survey results APE and School Plan Meeting to discuss APE s interaction with School plan Committee sign-off committee takes place and discuss good practice and areas for improvement which feed into final version of APE and form the basis for PARC submissions SSLC takes place and draft APE is discussed Critical Reader School APE deadline. Sent to critical reader for comment & workshop where critical readers make comments and discuss. Directors make necessary amendments Board of Studies approval APE Review Meetings take place Boards of Studies approves reviewed APEs 30 th Nov 2018 Final Submission Approved APE s are submitted to Student & Academic Services Previous year s APE School and University strategic developments Your Voice survey data and NSS results Reflection on operation of programme/ modules, student feedback and direction of enhancement activity Admissions & progression data Destinations data (DLHE) and Careers Registration data Assessment Board data External Examiner comments & External Examiner report(s) Resit Assessment Board data Partnership co-ordinators statement School plan/ impact of any strategic developments Resource implications Targeted focus groups and other forms of feedback might usefully be used here in addition to SSLC ADE, PD, HoD PD in liaison with HoD and ADE as appropriate ADE, Dean, HoD, PD PD, ADE PD, ADE Dean Dean Committee Committee School Exec Committee, SSLC Committee Board of Studies Board of Studies 5

6 Timing Activity Input Responsibility Committee(s) Oct - Dec Each PC & SSLC Jan March As needed By last BoS Good Practice Report ADE to complete good practice template (Appendix 2) and share at their School L&T Committee for discussion before submitting it to the APE Coordinator for City L&T Committee and EQC On-going updates Monitoring and updates Quality & Completion Report Report to University-level Committees Reporting Student and Academic Services report on good practice/themes Report written on thematic element of APEs (LEaD) Issues for institutional consideration Discuss University-level issues Board of Studies receives APE update Actions updated/ monitored Matters arising Additional feedback Additional data Use APE to commence development cycle for new APE. ADE PD S&AS, DP&P S&AS DP&P PD, Dean School L&T Committee, City L&T Committee, EQC Committee, SSLC EQC/E&S Com/ Senate EQC/E&S Com/ Senate Senate, UET/ExCo Board of Studies 6

7 Postgraduate Taught Timetable Monitoring and development of previous year s APE via Committee and SSLC. Overseen by ADE, PD and HoD. Timing Activity Input Responsibility Committee(s) Sept Nov Dec Jan According to School planning cycle Jan - Feb Feb March - April 12 th April 2018 Review and planning Identify broad issues to be covered in new APE Draft APE Incorporate inputs as they become available Identify and incorporate any development support needs for each action (insert under Support needs for implementation ) Where possible early consultation with students is also helpful (e.g. on internal survey results) APE and School Plan Meeting to discuss APE s interaction with School plan Committee sign-off Assessment boards held, APEs are completed and approved by Committees SSLC takes place and draft APE is discussed Critical Reader Directors submit APEs to School Quality Team for circulation to critical readers. Directors make necessary amendments Board of Studies approval APE Review Meetings take place Boards of Studies approves reviewed APEs Final Submission Approved APEs are submitted to Student & Academic Services Previous year s APE School and University strategic developments PTES survey data Reflection on operation of programme/ modules, student feedback and direction of enhancement activity Admissions data Destinations data (DLHE) and Careers Registration data Assessment Board data External Examiner report(s) & External Examiner comments Resit Assessment Board data Partnership Co-ordinators statement School plan/ impact of any strategic developments Resource implications Targeted focus groups and other forms of feedback might usefully be used here in addition to SSLC ADE, PD, HoD PD in liaison with HoD and ADE as appropriate ADE, Dean, HoD, PD PD, ADE PD, ADE Dean Dean Committee Committee School Exec Committee, SSLC Committee Board of Studies Board of Studies 7

8 Jan - May Each PC & SSLC May As needed By last BoS Good Practice Report ADE to complete good practice template (Appendix 2) and share at their School L&T Committee for discussion before submitting it to the APE Coordinator for City L&T Committee and EQC On-going updates Monitoring and updates Reporting Student and Academic Services report on quality/completion of submitted APEs, on good practice/themes and thematic element of APEs Issues for institutional consideration Discuss University-level issues Board of Studies receives APE update Actions updated/ monitored Matters arising Additional feedback Additional data ADE PD S&AS, DP&P DP&P PD, Dean School L&T Committee, City L&T Committee, EQC Committee, SSLC EQC/E&S Com/ Senate Senate, UET/ExCo Board of Studies Use APE to commence development cycle for new APE. 8

9 Completing the form Front sheet Purpose: To provide the School Board of Studies with an overview of responsibilities and progress Completion: 1. Complete all sections of the first box except key contact which should only be completed where the APE covers more than one programme (see page 3 for guidance). 2. Complete the Progress Tracking section as the APE progresses through the year. 3. For all partnership provision complete the Partnership section and ensure the Academic Partnership Co-ordinator Annual report is appended to the APE. More information is available at Appendix 1. Targets and Staging Points s are asked to provide a summary/commentary of their current position against targets and staging points of the Vision & Strategy 2026 for the three Academic Output KPIs: Student progression or completion Student experience Student employability If programmes are below targets and staging points for the above areas programmes should explore the reasons for this and may wish to provide contextual information that explains weak/ strong performance. Vision & Strategy 2026 City targets and staging points can be viewed in the Vision & Strategy 2026, and School/programme targets can be viewed within individual School plans: Areas of weakness should be addressed through appropriate corresponding developments within the action plan. s may also wish to provide commentary on performance in relation to equivalent programmes/cohorts and sector competitors, significant trends and comparisons to sector competitors. Postgraduate Taught programmes may wish to include other targets, staging points and statistics available to them related to the specific discipline, demographic information or other areas which will help with evaluation and planning. The APE is accompanied by the Management Information appendix, which includes data on admissions, progression, degree class distribution, graduate destinations and student survey scores which will support programmes in completing this section of the APE. Some programmes will not achieve publication thresholds for student survey data due to small student groups or low response rates. Where this is the case aggregate data can be requested from Shereen Sally in Student & Academic Services; the aggregate data will group a programme with other equivalent programmes to provide the most meaningful data possible to support the programme in setting and working towards targets. 9

10 Summary Evaluation This section provides an opportunity to reflect on the overall health of the programme over the past academic year, assessing the intended impact of enhancement activity and any relevant wider changes within the programme, discipline area, School, City-wide and/or the sector. It can also be used to reflect on future development, relevant opportunities and challenges as well as to highlight any issues and contextual factors the programme team has not raised elsewhere on the form. The summary could include, but is not limited to: - Strengths/concerns - Degree class distribution - Educational offer and academic standards - Effectiveness of provision - Relevant wider changes within the programme, discipline area, School and/or City wide - Currency of the programme and its content - Trends seen year on year - Future development - Intended impact of programme amendments/ enhancement activity - Admissions data - Impact of changes to entry requirements/ intake - Survey response rates - Careers registration data: s/wo_careers_registration Some programme teams have usefully employed a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis as part of the summary evaluation. Good Practice This section is an opportunity for programme teams to reflect on new developments and existing good practice. It also allows for identification of practice, activities and initiatives, either planned for or already embedded in the programme, which can be shared and implemented elsewhere. In particular, programmes are asked to highlight practice, activities or initiatives relating to: Student progression or completion Student experience Student employability External Examiner Report(s) & Feedback Other examples of good practice that can be shared with others s may also wish to include examples of good practice students have said they like via feedback (e.g. student surveys, module evaluation or SSLCs). s are not limited to including one example of good practice per section, multiple examples can be included. s may also include practice, initiatives or activities that do not fit within the specified sections. 10

11 Good Practice Template (Appendix 2) Following a review of the 2016/2017 APE process it was agreed that a method to support identification and dissemination of good practice within Schools would be developed. The template provided in Appendix 2 has been designed to capture examples of good practice identified within a programme that could be shared and/or transferred to others, for instance where it has a positive impact on student learning, engagement, progression, outcomes or employability. Once ADEs have reviewed their School s APEs, they will highlight good practice via the template and share at their School Learning and Teaching Committees for discussion before submitting it to the City Learning and Teaching Committee and Educational Quality Committee. Thematic Focus (UG only) The thematic element will enable reflection and the capture of good practice; it will inform institutional activity during the year of review and beyond. The theme for the current round: Internationalisation of the Curriculum Internationalisation is becoming increasingly predominant on the Higher Education agenda. It is broad in scope ranging from creating an inclusive environment for international students to promoting global perspectives and opportunities for learning in a global context for all students. There are many different ways to define/understand Internationalisation of the Curriculum and the term can be interpreted differently to be appropriate for each discipline and programme. The two questions within the APE have been developed in order to explore how internationalisation is interpreted, and the steps taken to embed this throughout the curriculum. There will not be one correct or specific way of embedding internationalisation in the curriculum, and the diversity that will be evident across programmes, disciplines, Schools and lecturers is recognised. Some disciplines are international by their very nature, while with others, the international element may be less obvious. The thematic element aims to facilitate discussion around this topic, identify programmes where internationalisation is embedded, share this good practice, and support the development and progression of internationalisation in other programmes, where appropriate. Internationalising the Curriculum An internationalised curriculum may include but is NOT limited to some of the following components: Learning Outcomes written in a way that are clearly understood by all students; Assessments and/or teaching styles providing opportunities to share different perspectives; Creating opportunities for learners from different backgrounds/cultures/countries; Global perspectives; Intercultural communication; Socially responsible citizenship; 11

12 International case studies reflecting awareness of historical, local and global perspectives Comparative examples from different cultures and/or countries; International student exchanges and international student interaction; Intercultural competence - developing a broadminded approach, an understanding, respect and empathy for other people, their culture, values and ways of life; Support and experience to equip graduates to live and work successfully in an interdependent, multicultural and global world. Staff forums on Internationalising the Curriculum to provide guidance to programme directors on completing these questions will be taking place in August/ September. Actions The action plan should provide an update of any incomplete actions from the preceding year s action plan and outline new actions arising from the evaluation process. Outstanding and new actions should be updated regularly. s should include specific changes/actions taken or made within the programme as a direct result of student feedback received via student surveys or other channels (e.g. SSLC), within the second half of the table. This section should be shared via SSLC and in any fora where it will have a positive impact on the student body. This will ensure the feedback loop is closed prior to the point at which student surveys are released in the academic year. For each action a number of pieces of information are requested: Six boxes are provided within the action plan. However, additional boxes should be included to ensure that each area is adequately covered. A single action point may cover more than one area and there is no minimum or maximum number of actions that can be recorded in the document. Date and academic year provide a specific date when issue/ area for enhancement was identified and/or the academic year in which it arose (e.g. 12 th June, ) Area, specific issue and source Indicate the broad area e.g. arising from data, feedback (student/ external examiner/ professional body etc.), enhancement activity related to quality and standards, strategic hubs, thematic element. Identify the specific issue and how/where it was identified (for example SSLC) Action taken or to be taken - provide a broad indication of the proposed action Person(s) responsible for action - identify the individual(s)/team responsible for bringing the development forward and reporting back via the APE (also note the individual / body responsible for monitoring progress where different) Intended impact or actual impact of action - what will change as a result of the development Support needs for implementation of action Indicate any support needs a programme may need, such as a specific service or technology. Wherever possible the programme team should seek the necessary support for the action prior to first receipt by Board of Studies Deadline - proposed completion date of action (or actual completion date if action has been taken) Status of action - status should be updated regularly to reflect progress, challenges arising, and evidence of success. This should be overseen by Board of Studies. 12

13 Actions arising from Periodic Review: In accordance with Policy the Periodic Review Report and Action Plan will be considered by the PARC on behalf of the Board of Studies prior to consideration by the Educational Quality Committee. Progress against the agreed actions should be embedded in the APE action list for ongoing monitoring and review by the School PARC. An annual report on the process, covering the outcomes and key themes, will be produced by Student and Academic Services to be considered by the Educational Quality Committee and Senate. Consideration through the year Discussions on progress with all actions within APEs form a standing item at each Committee. Discussions on progress with actions addressing student feedback will form a standing item at each SSLC. It will not always be necessary for a full copy of the APE to be re-circulated (e.g. where updates are only to the Action Plan). The APE is designed to support ongoing reflection on and development of a programme throughout the year. While it is beneficial to seek student input during the drafting stage, formal student participation in the APE process does not take place until the first SSLC of the year. Therefore: actions planned in response to student feedback should be adjusted if feedback from students or others suggests that an alternative action would be more effective in resolving issues; the APE should be updated to document progress on actions and/or new actions on a regular basis. These will tend to arise from discussions with students at SSLCs, SECs and Committees and consideration of the outcomes of module evaluation and student surveys. Student Feedback Student feedback and student views on content are core to the APE process. The APE can also be revised throughout the year to include additional student feedback and ensuing actions. There is a Student Guide to APEs which is available in section 8 of the Quality Manual under Guidance 13

14 Whenever practical involve students in the APE process as early as possible, ideally at the drafting stage. Outline how student views have been sought and incorporated, not only as a means of assuring quality but to demonstrate to our students how much we value their input and that it is taken seriously. SSLCs provide an important mechanism for discussion on actions designed to address student feedback and/or enhance student satisfaction. The first SSLC of an academic year provides an opportunity for programme staff to gain students views on the contents of the first iteration of the APE including proposed actions designed to enhance the student experience and address student satisfaction issues. It is recognised that not all SSLCs will have met by the point of the Board of Studies meeting where APEs are initially considered where this is the case state how student views will be sought and updated once students have contributed. Mechanisms Other Updates should be provided to students via the SSLC and other appropriate mechanisms that help ensure students are aware of further actions being taken and on-going programme developments. It is good practice to ensure students are able to access relevant sections of the APE via Moodle and to provide copies of previous APEs that will also help ensure students are aware of issues that have previously been raised and addressed. Data SSLC Moodle and group feedback Updated July

15 Appendix 1: Partnership provision City s current partnerships listed by partnership type are set out in the Collaborative Provision Register, which is available in section 10 of the Quality Manual under Guidance The same forms and guidance are used for partnership provision. However, the way in which partnership provision is reflected within the APE is dependent on the type of partnership programme being evaluated. Academic Partnership Coordinator Annual Report Separately to the APE, each Academic Partnership Coordinator is required to complete an annual report covering the operation of the partnership. This is intended to support the Academic Partnership Coordinator in fulfilling their responsibilities and to enable the School and University to take oversight of the operation of the partnership. This report will be considered alongside the relevant APE by the Board of Studies and must be attached to it. A distinction is made in the guidance below between those types of partnerships for which City holds direct responsibility for the quality and standards of the partnership programme, and those where this is the responsibility of the partner. Responsibilities Generally, responsibilities will be split as follows: Production Director Senior Tutor for Research Curriculum development, student experience and day-to-day management. Ensures oversight of the APE process through Committee (to ensure completeness/shared ownership and to undertake oversight and monitoring), consultation through SSLC (to ensure on-going student involvement and engagement) and presents APE to Board of Studies. Undertakes Director role for research degree programmes. Academic Partnership Coordinator Professional Services Direction and oversight Head of Department (or equivalent) 1 Associate Dean (Education) Associate Dean (Research students) For partnership provision, separately to the APE, each Academic Partnership Coordinator is required to complete an annual report covering the operation of the partnership. /department/school professional services staff (as appropriate to arrangements in the School) provide support with the provision of data available through the SAP system and via Careers as for the production and development of the APE. Direction of the discipline, implementation of academic policy and regulations, staff performance and management, resource management. Plays a key role in supporting the development of APEs including the wider strategic and management context. Directing and supporting teaching and learning enhancement. Plays a key role in directing the development of APEs in line with the University and School strategy. Contributing to and supporting Graduate School activity. In collaboration with Associate Dean (Education) supports the development of research degree APEs in line with University and School strategy. 1 The Dean may also take the role of the Head of Department where the latter function does not exist. 15

16 Dean Overall educational direction and resource management of programmes within the School in accordance with University Strategy, Policy & Regulations. Leads on oversight including through the Board of Studies (to ensure School endorsement and subsequent oversight and monitoring) and the School Exec (to consider any School or programme resource matters). Institutional Monitoring City Senior Direction of all educational activity, including support needs. Relevant Management committees include Education & Student Committee, Graduate School Committee and Collaborative Provision Committee which receive overview reports on APE activity. Joint s with non-dap, Joint s with DAP, Dual Awards, Franchised Provision, Franchised Access/Feeder Provision, Off-site Partnership Delivery An APE should normally be completed separately for each partnership programme for the above partnership types. This is to ensure that each partnership programme is explicitly evaluated, to facilitate the partner institution s involvement in the production of the APE to enable the partnership programme to be given an appropriate level of scrutiny and oversight by the School and University. However, it is recognised that in some instances it may be appropriate for the APE for a partnership programme to be combined with the APE for one or more other programmes, e.g. where the same programme is delivered in more than one location either through a franchised or off-site delivery arrangement. This should be discussed with the Associate Dean (Education) and Student & Academic Services. Where it is agreed that a combined APE will be completed, the APE should clearly and explicitly identify in each section matters relating to the partnership programme. It is also important that management data is provided for the partnership provision and any differences related to admissions, progression and graduate destinations are noted and addressed. Responsibilities of City and the partner institution for completion of the APE and arrangements for its consideration and approval will be set out in the Memorandum of Agreement for the partnership. Unless specified otherwise in the Memorandum of Agreement, the standard City APE process will be followed for partnership provision. The Academic Partnership Coordinator for the partnership programme is responsible for liaising with the partner institution in writing the APE and in ensuring it is presented to the relevant Board of Studies. The role of the partner institution in writing the APE will be dependent on the partnership type. The table below sets out normal expectations in relation to the different types of partnership programmes: Joint s (DAP and non- DAP), dual awards Franchised provision The APE should be completed in the context of the partnership and should cover the entire programme, include those elements delivered at or by the partner institution There is joint responsibility for the production of the APE and joint oversight throughout the year at programme level via the Joint Committee APE is received annually by the Board of Studies. The APE should be completed in the context of the partnership. The programme team at the partner institution will play a significant role in the drafting of the APE alongside the Academic Partnership Coordinator. The relevant Committee, which will have representation from City and the partner, will have oversight of the APE throughout the year APE is received annually by the Board of Studies. 16

17 Where the franchised programme is offered in more than one location (including at City), the APE should reflect on any differences between the locations and provide a reflection on the comparability of the quality and standards of the two programmes. Franchised access/feeder provision Off-site partnership delivery Arrangements will be as for franchised provision. In addition, the APE should reflect on any developments to either the franchised access/feeder programme, or the City programme to which students progress, and continuing alignment of provision. The APE should reflect on any differences between the off-site partnership delivery and internally-delivered provision and provide a reflection on the comparability of quality and standards in the two locations, e.g. on mode of delivery, learning support, student satisfaction. Access/feeder and Articulation Arrangements Access/feeder programmes do not lead to the award of credit or a degree award from City but enable students successfully completing the programme at the partner to progress to a City degree programme (normally with guaranteed admission). Articulation arrangements are similar to access/feeder arrangements but lead to admission to the City degree programme with advanced standing through Accreditation of Prior Learning. As such, City is responsible for ensuring that the content and level of the partnership programme in an articulation arrangement, is comparable with the part of the City programme that students are exempted from. However, for both types of arrangement, responsibility for the maintenance of quality and standards of the partnership programme rests with the partner. Due to the nature of these arrangements, a separate APE is not required. However, appropriate reference should be made within the APE for the programme which receives students from such an arrangement, on the comparability of the performance of students who have entered via the partnership programme with those who have been admitted directly. The APE should also comment on any additional support needs identified for students who have entered via the partnership programme and the impact of those students on the wider cohort. Where issues or concerns are identified, this should be reflected through intended actions for the forthcoming year. Appropriate reference should also be made to curriculum changes, either to the City programme accepting students or to the partnership programme, and resulting action that has or will be taken to ensure continuing alignment of provision. This is particularly important for articulation arrangements to ensure comparability of quality and standards between the partnership programme and the part of the City programme that students are exempted from is maintained. 17

18 Appendix 2: Good Practice Form Template for Associate Deans (Education) to identify and disseminate good practice from Annual Evaluation This template is designed to capture examples of good practice identified within a programme that could be shared and/or transferred to others, for instance where it has a positive impact on student learning, engagement, progression, outcomes or employability. This may have been noted in feedback from students or colleagues or by External Examiners. School Academic year under review Associate Dean (Education) or equivalent Summary comments and/or observations Date of Learning and Teaching Committee at which this APE good practice shared Please send the completed template to the Educational Quality Committee and the City Learning and Teaching Committee (via georgia.moustaka@city.ac.uk) Impact Good Practice Identified (s) e.g. student learning, engagement, progression, outcomes or employability and/or other Notes Additional rows can be added if needed 18