Periodic Review of Higher Education Programmes Procedure

Periodic Review of Higher Education Programmes
Procedure

Periodic Review of Higher Education Programmes Procedure

Version Control

Version: / 2.0
New or replacement: / Replacement
Approved by (Committee): / HE Quality and Standards
Date approved: / 20th January 2016
Title of author: / HE Manager Academic Standards
Date issued: / January 2016
Date for Review: / January 2018
Document reference: / TMC-PROC-HE-PERREV

Revision History

Version / New/Replacement / Summary of Changes
2.0 / Replacement / Procedure updated to reflect UK Quality Code and changes in partner HEI processes

Contents

1.Introduction

2.The Purpose and Objectives of Periodic Review

3.Self-Evaluation and Timescales for Completion

4.Supporting documentation

5.Conduct and Panel Membership

6.External Participation

7.Student Engagement

8.Evidence Based Judgements

9.Reflection on review activities

10.Lines of Reporting and Responsibility

Appendix 1: SED Template

Appendix 2: Supportive documentation

Appendix 3: Example Panel meeting agenda

Appendix 4: Panel guidance for meetings with staff

Appendix 5: Panel guidance for meeting with students

Appendix 6: Guidance for students involved in review processes

This procedure will be of interest to staff, students and external participants involved in the Manchester College’s periodic review activities. It provides clarity regarding the principles and procedures that the college adopts in order to ensure all of its provision is subject to regular intervals of periodic evaluation and review and rigorous internal and external scrutiny. In using this procedure other documents may need to be considered.

In using this procedure other documents may need to be considered:

TMC-PROC-HE-EXTEXMExternal Examiners

TMC-POL-HE-WBAPLA.Management of Placement Learning in Higher Education

TMC-POL-HE-ASSSTU.Assessment of Students

TMC-GUI-HE-ASFEBK.Giving Assessment Feedback to Students

TMC-POL-HE-MITCIR.Mitigating Circumstances

TMC-POL-HE-ACCMIS.Academic Misconduct

If you need any further advice on how the procedures work, you should contact the Higher Education Management Department.

Department Contacts:Higher Education Management
Openshaw Campus, OP124
Tel: 0161 67 41406

Additional guidance can be obtained by visiting and referring to the UK Quality Code for Higher Education: Chapter B8- Programme monitoring and review

This document is available in alternative formats on request to the Higher Education Management Department

1.Introduction

The purpose of this procedure is to make clear the College’s responsibilities for governing quality and standards and the effective discharge of its procedures for the periodic evaluation, monitoring and review of programmes (irrespective of their location)

Within the context of this procedure the term ‘periodic review’ is used to describe the principles and processes through which the college will monitor and take a broader review of its programmes in an agreed 5 year cycle

The procedure further defines the respective roles, responsibilities and authority of different boards/ committees/ bodies involved in periodic review to ensure that staff, students and external participants are clear about the hierarchy of procedures and about which body will take final responsibility

Whilst the purpose of periodic review is to seek assurance over the safeguarding of academic standards and the quality of the College’s higher education provision, its approach to periodic review is considered developmental and is based on dialogue between peers, self-evaluation and strategies for quality enhancement

The procedure categorises several key themes that the College considers central to the process of effective periodic review and worthy of clarity, these being;

  1. The purpose and objectives of periodic review
  2. Self-evaluation and timescales for completion
  3. Supportive documentation
  4. Conduct and panel membership
  5. External participation
  6. Student engagement
  7. Evidence based judgment
  8. Reflection on review activities
  9. Lines of reporting and responsibility

2.The Purpose and Objectives of Periodic Review

The College recognises the importance of assessing and evaluating the effectiveness, relevance and validity of its programmes alongside the quality of the student experience

Using enhancement led activities; the process of periodic review aids the College in assessing and planning for how staff development strategies and other activities may include the dissemination of good practice

A key concept within the College’s periodic review processes is that of continuous evaluation; evaluation processes must not be carried out in isolation from other college priorities

Periodic review avails the College in being able to assure itself:

  1. That programmes remain current and valid in light of developing knowledge of the discipline and practice in their application
  2. Of departmental responses to external or internal changes impacting the provision, including those which are cumulative and those made over time and which may affect the design and operation of programmes
  3. Of departmental responsiveness to changes to external points of reference, such as subject benchmark statements, relevant PSRB, relevant national legislation/ commitments to European and international processes
  4. Of the extent to which intended learning outcomes are appropriate, achievable and being attained by students
  5. Of the continuing effectiveness of curriculum and assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes
  6. Of the existence of effective departmental strategies and planning for actual or potential changes in student demand, employer expectation and employment opportunities
  7. Of departmental understanding, evaluation and action planning for enhanced data relating to student progression and achievement
  8. Of effective departmental systems for the collection, review and action planning using student feedback, including any National Student Survey results
  9. Of the continuing availability of staff and physical resources
  10. Of current research/ scholarship/ scholarly activity and its application to the relevant discipline(s) and developments in teaching and learning
  11. Of the accuracy and completeness of published information

3.Self-Evaluation and Timescales for Completion

Annually each department must produce a Self-Evaluation Document (SED) regardless of subsequent periodic review activities

The SED must be written in accordance with the College’s template and guidance notes (see appendix 1). An ideal SED is reflective, open, honest, concise, constructive and forward looking

Whilst description of a department’s context may be necessary, the SED is not a descriptive document, rather its emphasis must be evaluative and based on rigorous analysis to support judgements made. For example, the SED must incorporate evidence based reflections and signposts regarding what the department believe to be working well in their programme/discipline area and in addition to what is working less well

The SED should build on existing processes of evaluation within the department, especially student feedback, annual monitoring of programmes, consideration of external examiner reports, and any previous periodic or other review. It should not be a mere repeat of what was said in any previous SED

An effective SED will use data to support and justify its evaluations

The SED should be full and frank, not attempting to hide problems; it should be balanced, not forgetting to cover strengths; and it must be developmental, offering thoughts on how to take appropriate actions to resolve or make necessary improvements

The length of the SED will vary according to the complexity of provision however the narrative within the SED should be concise and critically effective

The first draft of each department SED must be submitted to the College’s Higher Education Management department via and by the published deadline

Each SED will undergo a process of moderation following which written formative feedback will be provided to the Assistant Principal.

Moderation of department SEDs will be carried out by:

  1. A Head of Department (or department Team Leader) from another department
  2. The Assistant Principal Higher Education
  3. A HE Manager
  4. Where practicable, a suitably experienced external advisor

Following moderation, revised SEDs must be resubmitted to the College’s Higher Education Management department via and by the published deadline

The SED for the department undergoing scheduled and subsequent periodic review within any particular year will form the basis for dialogue between the review panel and the department

The SED should be the only document that is prepared specifically for the periodic review

Annual periodic review activities will usually occur within the second semester of the year the SED was produced

4.Supporting documentation

During periodic review, a range of supportive documentation must be made accessible to the review team in a suitable base room or access provided to electronic resources (see appendix 2)

5.Conduct and Panel Membership

Periodic reviews are conducted by a panel (established for the purpose of this procedure) under the auspices of HE Quality and Standards Committee

The periodic review panel must comprise of:

  1. The Assistant Principal Higher Education (Chair)
  2. Academic Registrar
  3. HE Managers
  4. A minimum of one external participant
  5. 1 student from another department
  6. 1 member of staff from another department

A panel briefing meeting will be held 2 weeks prior to any periodic review activities commencing to permit opportunity to discuss housekeeping matters, the process and timetable of review and any emerging issues. The meeting will draw on an initial discussion of the SED and be chaired by the HE Manager

An agenda for the formal panel meeting must be prepared by the Academic Registrar and circulated to relevant parties 3 working days prior to the commencement of the meeting. The agenda should take a standard format as set out in appendix 3

Periodic review activity should take place over a maximum of 15 working days. This must include

  1. A maximum of 5 working days for desk based audit of evidence supplied by the department
  2. An opportunity for panel members to supply the Academic Registrar with their initial written comments on the self-evaluation document and evidence seen in the desk based audit, 5 working days before the formal panel meeting
  3. 1-2 working days for formal panel meetings with department staff and students

Initial written comments supplied by panel members should not be extensive, merely a summary of key areas for discussion and reflections on strengths and possible areas requiring further development

Panel members may, via the Chair, request to see further specific documentation

The Head of Department should decide on which staff to invite to the panel meeting, however as periodic review is seen as developmental as many staff as are available (without rearranging teaching) should be invited to attend the meetings including the feedback session; this should include part time and fractional staff

Guidance on the lines of enquiry which should inform the panel meetings with staff can be found in appendix 4

It is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that meetings with students are conducted in a manner which is inclusive, supportive, avoids use of jargon and encourages students to be open and constructive. Guidance on the kind of questions which should inform the panel meetings with students can be found in appendix 5

Feedback given by the Chair to the department at the panel meeting must reflect substantive issues and must be clearly set out in detail in the report of the review. The report may also include minor comments not included in the feedback session

6.External Participation

External participation is considered paramount to each stage of periodic review as independent advice and objectivity are essential to the promotion of transparency, quality assurance and opportunities for enhancement

External participation must be proportionate to the size and breadth of programmes being reviewed. The Assistant Principal Higher Education will agree the maximum number of participants to be used in any review activities

External participants should have credibility within their subject area, experience of internal reviews within their own institution, and must not be a current or recent (within 5 years) External Examiner

Where practicable external participants should be used to enhance the process of objectivity and to provide relevant information and guidance on current developments in the discipline(s) and/or workplace

Whilst external participants must always be used, where subject specific external participants cannot be accessed, academic peers from other relevant disciplines within the College’s may be used

It is considered good practice to involve employers in periodic review where foundation degrees are the object of focus

External participants must be appropriately briefed prior to any review activities and have been provided with the college’s relevant policies and procedure documents

7.Student Engagement

It is considered exemplar practice to involve students in the development and completion of department SEDs

It is the responsibility of the department being reviewed to ensure that a cross-representative group of students (e.g. from each programme within the scope of the review) is invited to the panel’s meeting with students and should confirm approximate numbers to the Academic Registrar. These students may, but do not have to, be elected representatives and may include graduates of relevant programmes

Prior to attendance at the panel meetings, students must be supplied with the College’s guidance document for students involved in review activities (see appendix 6)

The department should provide a list of students expected to attend the meetings and their designation (level, year, mode) no later than the morning of the first review day

The Head of Department must ensure that students who attended the panel hearing receive at the very least a copy of recommendations and strengths arising from periodic review and be given an opportunity to input into subsequent department action planning within staff/ student committee meetings

8.Evidence Based Judgements

The report produced upon completion of the panel review meeting must reflect the headings used in the self-evaluation document (SED) and must indicate the issues raised during the review, the evidence relating to those issues (whether of fact or opinion), and the views of the review panel

Issues arising in the report (whether fact or opinion) will be based on the evidence found in the SED, desk based audit and/or discussions with staff and/or students

Examples of evidence that may be referred to within the report include

  1. external examiners' reports
  2. any reports from accrediting or other external bodies
  3. staff and student feedback
  4. feedback from former students
  5. feedback from employers
  6. student progress and other relevant data
  7. material available to students
  8. programme specifications, student handbooks, websites
  9. student assessment
  10. second marking and moderation reports
  11. minutes of meetings
  12. PREPs
  13. action plans

Judgement made within the report will be grouped within 3 categories of recommendations:

  1. Serious: referring to important matters which the review panel believe are currently putting quality and/or standards at risk and which require urgent corrective action
  2. Medium: referring to matters which reviewers believe have the potential to put quality and/or standards at risk and require preventative corrective action
  3. Low: referring to matters which reviewers believe have the potential to enhance quality, build capacity and/or further secure standards

The report should include examples of where strengths have been identified which must be highlighted in bold and summarised at the end of the report

Strengths identified will be grouped within 2 categories:

  1. Exemplar Practice: referring to practice that demonstrates excellence in the governance and/or safeguarding of quality and/or standards and which other departments/ programme teams would benefit from knowing
  2. Good Practice: referring to practice that is compliant to relevant policies and procedures for the governance and/or safeguarding of quality and/or standards and which other departments/ programme teams would benefit from knowing

9.Reflection on review activities

Measures taken to assess the effectiveness of periodic review practices are pivotal to effective self-evaluation and duality enhancement

Annually, the HE Manager Academic Standards will coordinate opportunities for those involved in periodic review to assess the effectiveness of:

  1. the benefits gained by the College, staff, students and other stakeholders from the review activities undertaken
  2. how the outcomes of processes promote enhancement of the student learning experiences
  3. the identification and dissemination of effective practice, both internally and externally
  4. opportunities to make review practices more effective and efficient
  5. whether the College, through its processes, is managing risk appropriately and proportionately for its portfolio of programmes

Outcomes of such reflections and any subsequent enhancement to periodic review activities will be reported within the College’s Quality Enhancement Report

10.Lines of Reporting and Responsibility

In the first instance, the HE Quality and Standards Committee are the body responsible for determining the 5 year cycle of periodic review activities and within each review, the extent of the provision to be included within the review

Following periodic review, whilst the report will be produced by the HE Management Department, the review panel is responsible for the content of the report, including ensuring that the findings (strengths and recommendations) are founded on appropriate evidence (including discussion during the review day)

The chair of the panel is the final arbiter in the event of any disagreement

The Academic Registrar must ensure that a draft report is made available to the department no more than 3 weeks after the meeting with staff and students

Upon receiving the draft review report, the Head of Department is given an opportunity to comment on factual accuracy (but not the findings within the report) within two weeks of its receipt

The Head of Department is responsible for developing an action plan setting out how, and by when, it will address the recommendations set out in review report. This plan must be submitted to the HE Quality and Standards Committee within 6 weeks of the report being received before being presented to Governor’s HE Board Committee. The department is responsible for ensuring that all actions are completed within the timescale set out in the plan and must report on progress, including any actions not completed, in the College’s Quality Enhancement Report