|
Purpose of Periodic Review
Process of Periodic Review
The Periodic Review Meeting
Documentation
Roles of the Panel
members
Sample questions
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
consists of two parts – Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Stage 1
The Stage 1 event covers both
UG and PG provision and is undertaken once every five years. It precedes
the main Periodic Review meeting (Stage 2) and does not involve the whole
Periodic Review panel.
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
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.
The
Stage 1 report is valid for 5 years, subject to any recommendations being met.
Recommendations resulting from the report will be fed into the Stage 2 meeting.
Stage 2
Stage
2 is the 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 has.
The Panel will have an
opportunity to speak to students as part of the review process.
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 standards and quality.
The broad themes correspond
to those used in annual monitoring to facilitate ease of reference between the
two processes.
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 most important document
for the Stage 2 event is the Reflective Document provided by the
department under review. 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 to the broad agenda themes for periodic review.
Additional documentation in
support of the Reflective Document:
|
Annual Monitoring Reports
|
The
last 3 years Annual Monitoring Reports. These support the
reflective document, providing evaluative information in relation to issues
identified by students, staff and external examiners.
|
|
Programme specifications and Module Maps |
These
provide a broad overview of the course(s) and identify the course’s
learning outcomes. They should also provide mapping to any relevant Subject
Benchmarks.
Any
proposed changes should be clearly identified for consideration by the
periodic review panel. |
|
Most
recent External Examiners Reports and responses |
Where
this has not been included within Annual Monitoring Reports |
|
Progression and retention
statistics |
To
enable the Panel to identify any trends which might require exploration
during the meeting. |
|
Student Survey Results |
To enable the Panel to evaluate the appropriateness of
the department's response to the outcomes of both the internal student
survey (SSS) and the National Student Survey (NSS). |
|
Syllabuses
|
These
are intended to provide the panel with the information
necessary to engage in informed debate with the departmental team. |
|
Student Handbook |
The handbook enables the panel to assess the anticipated
student experience of their course. |
PG Research Periodic Reviews
For PG Research degree reviews the department will also
provide information about the research experience including any statement on
research training provision that has been provided to the research councils and
should include the range of research degrees offered, the strategic vision of
the department, the research environment, staffing, facilities, financial
support for students, supervisory arrangements, Supervisory Boards and Research
Student Progress Committees, compliance with the QAA UK Quality Code, research
skills training provided by the department and how the department supports
research students to acquire transferable skills, student feedback, how the
department supports the professional development of its GTAs and their
compliance with the QAA UK Quality Code on GTAs and statistics on recruitment,
progression and completion.
The
department will also provide the following contextual information:
|
Last internal
Periodic Review report and
follow-up |
Where this is not included within
Annual Monitoring Reports or as part of the reflective document |
|
Current relevant QAA benchmark
statement(s)
|
Provision should be inline with national benchmarks. |
|
Professional Statutory Body
Reports and departmental response
|
Where
available, these reports may provide the Panel with lines of enquiry. The
Panel should also feel confident that any issues identified in the report
have been addressed. |
Examples of questions you might
ask
These questions are provided
as a guide only and are intended to be neither prescriptive nor
exhaustive. However, Panel members may find it useful to refer to
these questions when reading the Periodic Review documentation as a
prompt for possible lines of enquiry.
Progress made since periodic review
-
Have the recommendations
made at the last review been met?
Curricula
-
Does the curriculum
reflect the requirements of the relevant subject benchmark(s)
-
Are the
learning outcomes appropriate to the course(s)?
-
How do employers
contribute to the curriculum and what impact has this had?
-
How has the curriculum
been developed over the last five years to reflect major developments
in the discipline?
-
How have changes in
student demand impacted upon the curriculum?
-
How has the
curriculum been influenced by the research interests of the teaching
team?
Assessment
-
Do the present methods
of assessment provide adequate opportunities for the learning outcomes
of the course(s) to be demonstrated?
-
Do the present
assessment methods have an adequate formative function in developing
students’ abilities?
-
What innovations in
assessment methods are under consideration or have recently been
introduced? Are there criteria to enable internal and external
examiners to distinguish between different categories of achievement?
-
Is the balance of
coursework and examinations across the course appropriate?
-
Is the
assessment strategy adequately responsive to the varying needs and
backgrounds of students (ie in terms of nationality or disability)?
-
What
evidence is there that all graduating students will have achieved the
required learning outcomes?
Learning and Teaching
-
Do the design, content
and organisation of the curricula encourage achievement of the
intended learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and understanding,
cognitive, practical and key skills?
-
Are there appropriate
methods of learning and teaching in place to enable students to
achieve the intended learning outcomes?
-
How have the possible
requirements of students with disabilities been anticipated in order
to enable students to achieve the intended learning outcomes?
-
Where there are work
placement and /or study abroad elements in the course(s), how
effectively do these contribute to the achievement of the learning
outcomes?
-
How are skills for employment promoted
and supported? (including a consideration of PDP)
-
What arrangements does the department
put in place to promote study abroad opportunities to students?
-
How many students has the department
sent abroad in the last three years?
-
What steps is the department taking to
increase the number of students participating in study abroad?
-
Have developments in
learning and teaching (either generally or in the particular
discipline concerned) affected teaching on the degree courses under
review over the last five years?
-
How effectively do staff
draw upon their research, scholarship or professional activity to
inform their teaching?
-
What are the
principal means by which good practice is shared among those involved
in delivering the course?
Student recruitment, progression and
support
-
If this is the first review since a
course’s inception, to what extent have the student number projections from
the New Course Documentation originally approved been
met?
-
In light of the statistics provided,
and considered against the background of evidence drawn
from the department's own quality management processes, is the Review
panel satisfied with the progression rates of students on the
course?
-
Are the feedback
arrangements considered adequate by (a) staff and (b) students?
-
Are the arrangements in
place for student support effective?
Learning resources
-
Are the learning
materials relevant, sufficient, and readily available (e.g. reading
lists; hard copy or web-based learning materials)?
-
How effectively do the
learning materials facilitate student learning?
-
Are there any
deficiencies in the provision of Library and IT facilities or of any
other facilities, which are subject-specific (e.g. laboratory
equipment)?
-
Is suitable learning and
teaching space available?
-
Are
there any staffing issues relevant to the effective operation of the
curriculum and the students’ ability to achieve the learning outcomes
of the course(s)?
Maintenance and enhancement
of standards and quality
-
Have recent External Examiners
been satisfied with the standards (a) set by the award and (b)
achieved by students?
-
How have regular
student questionnaires
(including SAMT in
the case of courses in University departments) contributed to quality
enhancement in relation to these courses?
Back to top
Roles of the various
members of the panel
The
external expert – every periodic review has at least
one external panel member. As an external panel member, your role is to
examine:
- The
currency of the curriculum;
- The
appropriateness of the curriculum in relation to national benchmarks and
similar provision at other HEIs;
- The
appropriateness of the strategy for assessment;
- The
quality of the student experience.
The student representative – every periodic review
should have a student representative panel member.
As the student
panel member you will be asked to:
-
read the periodic review documentation;
-
visit the University for a meeting and contribute to
discussions;
-
comment on a draft report;
Your role is
to contribute to discussions from the perspective of your experience to help to
ensure that the periodic review takes due regard of student opinion.
You can contribute to the agenda of the meeting and identify
questions for the team to answer. Normally the student panel member would
identify questions relating to the quality of the student experience; academic
support and guidance,
how the department provides advice on improving
student performance, the effectiveness of assessment methods; the availability
of resources and the clarity and accessibility of information.
You should think about the issues you would like the Periodic
Review to explore in advance of the meeting and identify them at the beginning
of the meeting during the agenda setting session.
The University will pay you a fee of £50.00
Briefing note for students meeting the Panel
Periodic Review takes place every 5 years and reviews the
quality of courses and the student experience on these course(s)
It offers you an important opportunity to:
-
Influence the future design and delivery of
courses in your department
-
Inform the University about problems with the
academic experience you and your peers are having as well as
what is done well or you have really enjoyed or benefitted from
within the department
-
Assist the University to assess the quality of
the student experience on the course(s)
You and a group of your peers will meet a small group of
academics (the Panel) who are reviewing and evaluating you department's
undergraduate or postgraduate courses. They are interested both in your
experiences with your course and in what you can tell them about the experiences
of the larger student community. There will be an opportunity for you to
tell the Panel anything you feel they should know and to contribute to
discussions arising from any questions the Panel has for the group. The
meeting will be at most one hour and will be quite informal.
Internal panel members - all Periodic Review panels
include members from cognate disciplines to those being reviewed. While you
are not expected to be able to comment on subject specific content, your
experience of your own department’s and the Faculty's practice in relation to learning, teaching
and assessment should enable you to critically evaluate the periodic review
documentation and identify possible issues or good practice. If you have,
for example, a particular responsibility or interest in assessment methods, then
you might focus on this area when reading the Periodic Review documentation and
be prepared to ask questions about this area at the review meeting.
Departmental team – as
part of the departmental team 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.
Back to top
|
