|
Quick links
Purpose of Periodic Review
Process of Periodic Review
Documentation
The Periodic Review Meeting
Role of the Departmental Team
Purpose
Periodic review has two main
purposes:
- To review the previous
five years operation of a course or group of courses;
- To make a recommendation
to the University’s Senate regarding the reapproval of the course or group of
courses.
The periodic review provides
a formal opportunity to critically reflect on the course(s), to consider
elements of good practice, highlight emerging issues and identify areas for
enhancement.
Process
The periodic review process
consists of two parts – Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Stage 1
Stage 1 precedes the main
periodic review meeting (stage 2) and does not involve the whole periodic review
panel. The Stage 1 report covers both UG and PG provision and is valid for 5
years, subject to any recommendations being met.
In advance of the review,
the Department/School should work through the Stage 1
proforma
and send it via e-mail to the Academic Standards and Partnerships Office (ASPO)
and their relevant Academic Officer (who would normally act as secretary to the
review).
The relevant Academic
Officer/Secretary in conjunction with the ASPO representative will complete a
report of Stage 1 and will submit this, with any recommendations, to the Chair
of the periodic review committee. The report from Stage 1 of the periodic review
is included in the documentation for Stage 2 of the process and any
recommendations resulting from the report will be fed into the Stage 2 meeting.
Stage 2
Stage
2 is the main periodic review meeting.
Each
periodic review will be slightly different, in order to both meet the specific
needs of the department and to address any particular issues or concerns the
Panel may have. While the agenda is flexible, there are a number
of broad themes which all periodic reviews should consider. These are:
curricula, assessment, learning and teaching, student
recruitment, progression and support, learning resources and the maintenance and
enhancement of academic standards and quality. The broad themes correspond
to those used in annual monitoring to facilitate ease of reference between the
two processes. All meetings also follow the same basic structure (see either
sample programme for undergraduate reviews
or the sample programme for postgraduate reviews).
The Panel will have an
opportunity to speak to students as part of the review process.
It is the department's
responsibility to identify a selection of students to meet with the Panel.
The department will be prompted to do this by the representative from ASPO.
The Panel normally sees 6-12 students, representing a cross section of the
provision under review (ie for undergraduate reviews at least one student from each
course and a mixture of first, second and final year students;
for postgraduate reviews a cross section of students from both taught and
research provision representing the full range of courses and stages of
completion).
In addition to
meeting a group of students, the periodic review involves the student body by
including a student representative on the Panel. The department will be
asked to identify potential students for this role. For undergraduate
events suitable candidates would be either a final year student or a masters
student who undertook their undergraduate degree within the department.
For postgraduate events an ideal candidate would be a PhD student who had
previously undertaken a masters degree in the department.
Back to top
The Stage 2 Meeting
A successful review and
reapproval event will be characterised by constructive dialogue, structured
around the reflective document provided by the head of the department
under review.
The Panel will need to be
assured of the continuing rationale for the course(s) concerned and that the
department has the necessary resource base for the continued successful running
of the course(s). In addition the Panel would expect to be assured that issues
identified through annual monitoring, including the comments of students and
external examiners, and issues from other sources eg Professional and Statutory
Body reports, have been addressed.
Back to top
Documentation
The department should provide
ASPO with electronic copies of the appropriate periodic review documentation
as outlined in the periodic review checklist. Copies can be sent via
e-mail, the ZendTo dropbox service or on a data stick to the Academic Standards and Partnerships Office no later than
4 weeks before the Periodic Review
event. Copying costs should be charged to the Academic Standards and
Partnerships Office. The Academic Standards and Partnership Office will distribute the documentation to the panel.
The most important document
for the Stage 2 event is the Reflective Document. This should take the form
of a critical commentary cross-referenced to any other documentation provided
and should identify those issues the department would find it helpful to explore
in greater depth. The structure of the Reflective Document should
correspond with the University proforma (a proforma is available for both
UG and
PG events).
Advice about the content of
the reflective document and examples of good practice are available from the
Academic Standards and Partnerships Office.
Role of the departmental team at
the Stage 2 meeting
As a departmental team member you help the panel understand the periodic
review documentation and gain a greater insight into the departmental ethos and
approach to learning, teaching and assessment. You should seek to be open and
honest about both the weaknesses and the strengths of the course(s) under review
and be prepared to engage in constructive discussions with the periodic
review panel.
|
