Annual Programme Monitoring Report

Undergraduate and Taught Postgraduate

Programmes and Short Courses

Reporting on Year 2016-17 (completed in 2017)

Programme(s)covered by this report (include all relevant award and pathway titles)
Subject Area
School/Department/Centre
Faculty
Programme Director
Name of Partner Institution (where applicable)
CCCU Academic Link Tutor (where applicable)
Partner Programme Manager/Co-ordinator (where applicable)

Timelines:

  • September – November: Programme level process (includes production of the Annual Programme Monitoring Report, School-level Scrutiny Panel meeting and Production of Summary report from Scrutiny Panel meeting with exact dates to be confirmed at School / Faculty level)
  • December /early January: Faculty level process (includes Faculty Quality Committee(FQC) meeting to consider Summary reports from School-level Scrutiny Panels and production of Faculty report with exact dates to be confirmed at Faculty level)
  • 1stFebruary 2018: Quality Monitoring & Review Sub-Committee (to consider Faculty reports – Faculty reports to be submitted by 18thJanuary 2018)
  • 28th February 2018: Education and Student Experience Committee (to consider Quality Monitoring & Review Sub-Committee report)

Guidance Notes (please delete all guidance notes (in italics) prior to submission)

  • An Annual Programme Monitoring report should be produced for each taught programme/short course. The report should cover all modes of delivery and both single and combined honours where applicable. Separate procedures exist for consideration of Postgraduate Research programmes.
  • The same template is to be used for programmes delivered on-campus at CCCU and those delivered at collaborative partners. For programmes delivered at collaborative partners, where the collaborative partner delivers programmes in one subject area only at only undergraduate or postgraduate level, the additional Appendix – Collaborative Partner Annual Monitoring Report (CPAMR) should also be completed and submitted along with the Annual Programme Monitoring report.
  • Where a programme is delivered at CCCU and/or multiple collaborative partner institutions, a reportwill be produced by the Partner Programme Manager/Co-ordinator at each location of delivery and an overall Annual Programme Monitoring Report will be produced by the CCCU Programme Director. All reports will be submitted for consideration at the School-level Scrutiny Panel meeting.
  • The purpose of the Annual Programme Monitoring Process isas follows:
  • To provide assurances that the programme or short course is meeting its objectives;
  • To assess the quality of the student experience and consider mechanisms for enhancement;
  • To identify and manage any risks to the programme or short course and ensure appropriate action plans are implemented to address any identified risks;
  • To identify good / innovative practice and share it to facilitate quality enhancement.
  • The Faculty Quality Committee (FQC) has oversight of the process.
  • The report is to be produced by the programme team (led by the Programme Director).
  • The report should be evaluative and critically self-reflective, not just descriptive. It is intended that the Overview Commentary section remains brief and focuses on a few key specific areas that require further consideration as highlighted by the review of evidence / on the Academic Management Information dashboard. It is intended to be an exceptions reporting process and there is no requirement to provide commentary on all of the evidence reviewed.
  • The report should be produced in conjunction with student representatives. For this reason, it is important that individual student/staff members are not identified within the report.
  • Deadlines for the submission of reports will be determined by the School/Faculty.
  • The report will be considered at a School-level Scrutiny meeting organised at subject level. The Panel for the School-level Scrutiny meeting will comprise of: Head of School (chair); Student Representative (from the Faculty but outside of the programmes under review); Designated non-School Academic Panel Member to be determined by FQC, Senior Representative from the Directorate of the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education and Student Experience). The Subject Lead (or equivalent depending on Faculty nomenclature), the Programme Director and a current student on the programme will be expected to attend the School-level Scrutiny meeting.
  • There may be a requirement for the report to undergo further amendment following the School-level Scrutiny meeting.
  • Once finalised the report should remain a live document and the action plan should be reviewed for progress throughout the academic year via the Programme Management Committee and/or Student Staff Liaison Meeting. The report should also inform the University’s business planning process.

Checklist of Sources of Evidence

This report should be produced in reference to a range of sources of evidence. Much of the quantitative data will be drawn for undergraduate programmes from the Academic Management Information dashboard (accessible via the SAS Visual Analytics link in StaffNet or at the following website: ) or for postgraduate programmes the University Cohort Monitoring Data (available in the Students Folder at the following website: The following is suggested as a minimum requirements list, but this may be added to. Any additional sources of evidence considered should be added to the table below. The sources of evidence that lead to explicit commentary / actions in this report will need to be compiled in to an electronic data pack to be submitted along with the completed report for consideration at the School-level Scrutiny meeting. Evidence sources that are reviewed but do not require further consideration as part of this report do NOT need to be included in the electronic data pack. The Subject Lead or other designated person within the School is responsible for managing the production of the data pack.

(Please indicate with a Y / N / N/A in terms of documentation referenced.)

Evidence Source / Y/N/NA / Evidence Source / Y/N/NA
Student Retention data (progression rates and withdrawals, interruptions, transfers, return from interruptions rates) / External Examiner Report(s)
Student Success data (completion rates and 1st, 2(i) rates, Value Added) / Written Response(s) to External Examiner
(Please ensure this has been approved by the Head of School and forwarded to the Quality and Standards Office)
National student surveys (e.g. National Student Survey, Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, Postgraduate Research Experience Survey, Newly Qualified Teacher Survey, United Kingdom Engagement Survey) / Student Staff Liaison Meeting Minutes
Admissions data (headcount and average tariff required for entry and average tariff required for Entry compliance rate) / Module evaluation
League table data (Guardian, Times, Complete University Guide) / Any other sources of student feedback (where applicable)
Employability data (Destination of Leavers of Higher Education) / Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) Reports (where applicable)
Quality data (Academic Appeals, Plagiarism, Chair’s Actions, Complaints) / Placement reports (where applicable)
Equality and Diversity data (gender, ethnicity, disability etc.)

If any of the above evidence sources have not been reviewed as part of the process of producing the report (except in cases where it is clear above that it may not be applicable to all programmes), please provide an explanation below as to why those evidence sources have not been considered:

  1. Overview Commentary

(Provide a summary of the key developments from the last academic year and the key issues arising from the review of evidence. As Annual Programme Monitoring is an exceptions reporting process, it is not necessary to comment on all aspects of the programme where there are no particular developments / issues to note. The purpose of the overview commentary is to focus on the specific areas that require further consideration as highlighted by Academic Management Information dashboard / review of evidence sources, rather than providing commentary on all aspects. Actions should not be included in this section but should be included on the action plan).

  1. Update on last year’s action plan

(Include last year’s action plan with updated progress noted. If there are actions to be carried forward to the forthcomingacademic year, give reasons explaining why this is so and ensure they are included on the action plan for the forthcoming academic year).

  1. New Action Plan

(Formulate an action plan for the forthcoming academic year. Please delete and add lines to the table as appropriate. The actions should be:

  • Drawn from the issues identified in the Overview Commentary section of this report
  • Specific and achievable within a stated time period (SMART)
  • Owned by a named post holder(s) where responsibility for action rests at a programme, subject area or school level – in all other cases the responsibility for action column should be left blank and this will be given further consideration at the School-level Scrutiny meeting)

Carried forward from last year
Item / Issue / Origin of Issue (evidence source) / Action planned / Evidence needed for completion / Responsibility for action / Status / projection completion of review date
1
2
3
New Items
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

5. Examples of Good / Innovative Practice

Please provide details of any examples of good / innovative practice relating to the programme(s) under review that you wish to bring to the attention of the subject area / School / Faculty / University. Please distinguish between commendations received from external stakeholders to be noted and congratulated and good / innovative practice that is transferable.

1

July 2017