Academic Standards Learning Opportunities PERIODIC REVIEW Enhancement Public Information PERIODIC REVIEW GUIDANCE DOCUMENT Version 5 Owner Quality and Collaboration Unit Approved date 25 th June 2015 Approved by University Academic Enhancement Committee Review date Annually Page 1 of 11
Contents 1. Aim... 3 2. Process... 3 3. Documentation... 4 Self-evaluation document (SED)... 4 Guidance on preparing the self-evaluation document... 4 1. Context... 5 2. Evaluation of the provision... 5 Structuring the evaluative section:... 5 3. Evidence Base... 6 Student feedback for the Review Team... 6 Curriculum review (Revalidation)... 7 Appendix 1... 8 Timeline for Periodic and Curriculum Review Process 2017/18... 8 Appendix 2... 9 1. Action Plan in Response to PR outcomes... 9 2. One-year Follow-up Report... 9 Appendix 3... 10 Role of panel members... 10 Appendix 4... 11 Outline Process Flow for Periodic Review... 11 Page 2 of 11
Periodic Review 1. Aim To critically review the health of a Faculty/School/ area and the suite of courses within that area. To assess the effectiveness of the Faculties implementation of quality management processes in reflecting on and evaluating the performance of the Faculty/School. To evaluate the effectiveness of the Faculty/Schools engagement with those processes including a range of data (including survey data) that leads to the enhancement of the student experience. Periodic Review is designed to provide an opportunity for reflection on the quality and standards of the Faculty s academic provision over a period of time, through the measurement of student performance, the impact of change, merits of curriculum design and local strategies for learning, teaching and assessment. Periodic Review will enable a School/department /subject area to reflect on its strengths and areas for improvement in order to improve the experience of the students. Periodic Review will usually take place on a six-yearly cycle. It enables the University to verify over a particular timeframe, continuing academic standards, the quality of the student learning experience, the continuing relevance of courses to both internal/external needs, alignment with national and European expectations and frameworks as well as the identification of good practice and innovation. The Periodic Review method is aligned with the UK Quality Code Chapter B8. 2. Process In consultation with Faculty Deans, QCU will produce a rolling three-year schedule of reviews to be approved by UAEC. All taught courses, including those delivered by partner organisations, will be part of the review process. Reviews will be conducted by a team of peer reviewers comprising: Chair AD from outside of the Faculty FAEC Officer At least two members of UQP external adviser(s) stakeholders as appropriate (identified by the Faculty) student/su representation For the curriculum review it is expected that representatives of CAP, LIS and Registry will submit written comments on teaching, learning and assessment, resources and student management respectively. Internal panel members should have relevant experience of teaching and quality management. The Faculty in consultation with the School/department/subject area will make nominations for the external adviser(s); one will always need to be an academic Page 3 of 11
representative and if more than one is proposed the other will normally be an employer representative. The review meeting will usually take place over one day but Chairs, in consultation with the school, may extend the meeting by half or one further day if the items for discussion /scope of review warrant it. The panel will as far as possible make use of existing documentation. The review documentation will include a self-evaluation document (SED) which will inform the initial agenda. Review documentation will be made available to all panel members at least four weeks ahead of the review meeting. Panel members will be asked to give provide feedback on the submission document which will be used to inform the initial agenda-setting. Proposing teams will have the opportunity to respond to the initial UQP feedback by providing responses to minor queries, submitting additional evidence and closing outstanding actions so that the agenda for the meeting can focus on the key issues for discussion. A week prior to the review an agenda, which identifies the key areas for discussion and lead responsibilities, will be drafted and circulated to members of the panel. The agenda will be shared with the Faculty/School/ subject area in the interests of transparency. Any final request for additional documentation will be confirmed at this point. On conclusion of the review the panel members will agree any actions to be addressed, commendations and examples of good practice for dissemination. After the review the Officer to the panel, in consultation with panel members, will prepare a summary report for circulation to the panel and School/department/subject area for comments on factual accuracy. A final version of the report will be agreed by the panel for consideration by FAEC and UAEC. The report when submitted to FAEC and UAEC will be accompanied by an action plan prepared by the relevant academic teams within 15 working days of receipt of the report. The report and action plan should be made available to students. The action plan should be monitored by FAEC and a 12-month follow-up report prepared for FAEC and UAEC. 3. Documentation Self-evaluation document (SED) It is expected that the Faculty/School will produce a self-evaluation document with an electronically embedded and indexed evidence base. The SED should be prepared in consultation with members of staff teaching on the courses, including collaborative partners, within the Faculty/School and should be shared with the students studying on the courses being considered as part of the review. The SED should be no more than 3000 words. Guidance on preparing the self-evaluation document The self-evaluation document is intended to be a critically reflective and evaluative document which assists in informing the panel on the significant issues to be explored further and the line of questioning to inform discussions. In practical terms there should be a limited amount of description with the focus being on an evaluation of how things are Page 4 of 11
working and the evidence base to support this. The following are a series of headings that will enable the production of the self-evaluation documents: 1. Context This refers to the details about the provision contained within the School /Department/ Subject area e.g. a list of the courses (including collaborative provision) to be included in the review with student numbers. This list should also include the name of each collaborative partner and any PSRB accreditation or recognition. It should also include any particular characteristics of the subject area. It should refer to any proposed future developments as well as any changes that have taken place over the last six years and be aligned to the University s Strategic Plan and Sub-Strategies. Core Facts Student profile: this data can be contained in an appendix, but should include the number of students by year, level, course, gender, age, ethnicity and disability and entrance requirements. This should also include data for collaborative provision. Staff profile: again this can be contained in an appendix but should include the number of full and part-time academic staff; the number of technicians and other staff undertaking support roles, such as student interns, advisers and graduate teaching assistants, where relevant and refer to the staff team s areas of research and expertise. This should include the number of collaborative partners involved in the provision and the type of relationship with each partner e.g. supported delivery. Resources: to include basic information on physical resources such as IT suites, laboratories etc. and including that for collaborative provision. 2. Evaluation of the provision This is an opportunity for the Faculty/School/Department to demonstrate how well it does and how effective it is. The evaluation should refer to the aims of the subject area/suite of courses and include the index to evidence that supports this, including any areas of good practice. It should also refer to changes that have been made and an explanation why and how the need for change was identified e.g. through module questionnaires, course journals and/or external examiners reports. It should demonstrate how changes have been evaluated as having been successful or otherwise. Where appropriate, it should identify any difficulties that have been faced in introducing change and how these were resolved. This section will form the major part of the SED. Structuring the evaluative section: In writing the evaluative section there are core areas which should be covered: a) Curriculum development and planning b) Teaching, learning and assessment c) Student support: UG, PGT, PGR d) Student achievement and employability e) External feedback, such as from external examiners, PSRBs, stakeholders, business partners and employers f) Resources g) Research / research informed teaching h) Collaborative provision Page 5 of 11
i) Quality assurance enhancement j) Equality issues k) Aligning with and mapping onto external reference points including FAEQ and subject benchmark statements. l) Processes in place for assuring the accuracy of public information such as KIS, Course Finder and marketing materials. 3. Evidence Base To be provided for the review panel. The evidence to support the SED should include footnoted or similar references to the following: (This evidence base ideally should include live electronic links to documentation.) Course journals and action plans/summaries from the previous three academic years, including those for partner organisations. External examiner reports and responses to external examiners from the previous three academic years. A sample of module evaluation questionnaires and the analysis of them including those for partner organisations. National Students Survey data ; internal survey data; PGT survey & PRES from the last 3 academic years DHLE data from the last three academic years. Any publicly available information such as prospectus / specific publicity materials, including those for partner organisations. Data relating to student admission, progression, retention and achievement over the last three years compared with institutional and sectorial trends. Report on student conduct, appeals and complaints A statement providing information on current resources, including staff CVs and any future development of learning resources. Statement providing current information on staff research, continuing professional development, consultancy and other scholarly or external activity underpinning the subject/s. Student and course guides including those provided by partner organisations. Any relevant PSRB or other reports, any minutes of Faculty Academic Enhancement Committees, Faculty Student Experience Committees, Faculty Boards or other Faculty Committees that are relevant to the review, including staff/student liaison committees and other fora for student feedback, Faculty Collaborative Management Committees and so on. Any records of approval or modifications made since the last periodic review. Link tutor reports relating to partnership activity. Staff development including Faculty / School Away or Development Days, to include those undertaken with partner staff. Any further documentation requested by the panel. Student feedback for the Review Team As part of periodic review the students in the faculty / school studying the suite of courses under review should be offered the opportunity to complete a brief written submission which could take the form of a SWOT analysis. This information to be included in the analysis could be obtained by the student representatives through the Staff/Student Liaison Page 6 of 11
Committees or in consultation with the Students on the courses. Whilst the document need not be more than two pages, it should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the school. It should identify how the information was gained, if this was through focus groups or questionnaires, then the number of students involved should also be identified. Curriculum review (Revalidation) Based on the outcome of the Periodic Review, the school / faculty may propose making changes to their provision for the next academic year. Also, the school / faculty may wish to incorporate accreditation or reaccreditation into the curriculum review. Where this is the case, the school / faculty should identify: 1. Those courses proposed for deletion, modification, accreditation and/or reaccreditation; 2. New courses proposed for validation (subject to planning approval); 3. Any other proposed changes to courses and modules; 4. The timescales for implementing the proposed changes and any resource implications; 5. The consultation that has or will take place with University and partner staff, students and other stakeholders regarding the proposed changes. 6. Where provision is not identified as requiring curriculum change, these courses should be identified separately and subject to a satisfactory outcome of the Periodic Review, these courses will be revalidated with no change for a further 6 years or until the next Periodic Review whichever is soonest. UQP will then oversee the curriculum review process, in line with QCU processes for major and minor change and the validation and deletion of provision. Page 7 of 11
Appendix 1 Timeline for Periodic and Curriculum Review Process 2017/18 Periodic Review Key Dates February - March 2017: Panel chairs and members identified and approached for availability April 2017: Panel members confirmed April 2017: Self Evaluation Document (SED) circulated to the faculty April May 2017: Initial Planning Meeting (IPM) held 1 st October 2017: Self-Evaluation to be submitted to QCU Officer 1 st November 2017: Student feedback for the Review Team to be submitted to QCU Officer November 2017: Hold meeting day with staff, students and stakeholders 31 st December 2017: Periodic Review closed and Action Plan confirmed Curriculum Review (as part of the Periodic Review Process) Key Dates 30 th November 2017: Submission of Academic Development Proposals to the Planning Unit 31 st December 2017: Approval of ADPs by Deputy Vice Chancellor and RAVSC. September 2017 31 st May 2018: I. Curriculum Review documentation drafted and developed prior to submission to Faculty Academic Enhancement Committee (FAEC). II. Curriculum Review documentation formally reviewed by FAEC and any amendments to be made by proposing team(s). 31 st May 2018: Curriculum Review formally approved by FAEC. June 2018 August 2019: Publication, marketing and active recruitment of courses. 1 st September 2019: Curriculum Review changes take effect. Page 8 of 11
Appendix 2 1. Action Plan in Response to PR outcomes The chair of the periodic review, in consultation with the lead member of the faculty will specify a date when the actions identified will be addressed. The action plan will be approved by FAEC and ratified at UAEC. Faculty / Subject teams should complete this action plan template and forward it to their FAEC Officer. Enhancement / issue to be addressed arising from the PR Action Responsibility Timescale for completion Outcome Date closed 2. One-year Follow-up Report One year after the periodic review, a one-year follow-up report is required. The FAEC Officer will collaborate with the course leader regarding submission of the report using the agreed template: Introduction 1. A periodic review of (x) was held on (dates). A report of the periodic review and consequent action plan was submitted to FAEC and UAEC on (dates). Courses covered by the periodic review 2. The courses covered were: (list courses) Date of the Periodic Review 3. The periodic review took place on: (dates) Progress on proposed actions 4. The following table provides details and evaluation of progress in relation to the actions proposed in the action plan for the periodic review report: Enhancement / issue to be addressed arising from the PR Action Responsibility Timescale for completion Outcome Date closed Page 9 of 11
Appendix 3 Role of panel members Chair The role of the Chair is to manage and direct the review process. The Chair will convene an initial planning meeting to agree the final agenda, will chair all meetings held during the course of the review, will provide oral feedback to the review team at the conclusion of the review, and will approve the draft report. University Quality Panel members The role is designed to provide information about the values, strategies and policies of the University. The purpose of the role is to evaluate the evidence provided within the particular context of the University, bring experience to the panel of the operation, management and delivery of courses elsewhere within the University, provide a point of focus on the delivery of learning, teaching and assessment at the University, and contribute to the development of the agenda for the review. Officer to the panel To provide support for the Chair in preparing for the review, liaise with the review team, advise on the submission of documents for the review, confirm arrangements with all panel members, distribute documentation to panel members, prepare the initial and final agendas, attend and minute the initial planning meeting and Periodic Review meetings, prepare the draft report, including the agreed actions and areas of good practice, circulate the draft report to the panel and arrange for UAEC to receive the final confirmed report. They will also liaise with the faculty to arrange room bookings and catering, External adviser(s) The role should allow for appropriate subject expertise to be provided to the review team, within the wider context of HE, and business or industry. External members should evaluate the subject specific evidence in the context of external reference points with particular reference to academic standards, quality of learning opportunities and employability. This role should provide a broad focus on quality assurance and enhancement. Student Panel Members It is expected that student members will be drawn from the pool of trained student representatives. Students selected to join the review panel will normally be enrolled on L5 or above and will be inducted in the review methodology. They will be full members of the team and be expected to comment on the SED, inform the agenda setting and pursue lines of questioning during the meetings with the review team. Students will be paid a daily rate for their contribution to this role. Page 10 of 11
Appendix 4 Outline Process Flow for Periodic Review UQP membership agreed Initial planning meeting held Self Evaluation Document SED submitted UQP consider SED and supporting evidence UQP comments provided to faculty Meeting day with students, staff and stakeholders UQP produce report Action plan produced and agreed Curriculum Review undertaken Review closed and reported to UAEC Action plan monitored through FAEC Page 11 of 11