Standard verifier report final version 13.1 dated Oct 2013

Nottingham Trent University

Collaborative Partnerships Office

Validation Service

Verifiers Standard Report Form

Verifiers should produce a separate report for each course verified within one month of each visit for the University to the Centre, following the standard report format below. Please note that comments are required for each field, not just a yes/no answer.

Further guidance on the Role of Verifier for Validated centre collaborative provision is available from CPO.

Centre (and location where appropriate):
Course:
NTU Verifier:
Date of visit:
1.Background and other visit information as appropriate (eg period/cohort covered by visit, who met with, etc.)
2.Standards, covering aims, learning outcomes and curricula, assessment and student achievement
(a) Aims and learning outcomes: are these being delivered as specified at approval? Please note here any discrepancies between the delivery of the course and the centres’ and your copy of the course documentation.
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(b) Are assessment strategies, practices and policies understood by staff and students, and being implemented appropriately?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(c) Is the achievement of students appropriate for the level of award being considered?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
3. Examination Board
Date of the Exam Board:
(a) Did you attend the Exam Board?
(b) Names of external examiners present at the Exam Board:
(c) Has the external examiner been fully inducted by the centre?
(d) Has the external examiner received information from NTU about the University’s reporting requirements?
(e) Is the external examining process working appropriately?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(f) Is the Board of Examiners operating effectively?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(g) Please indicate below the number of students being conferred and the classifications:
For example:
BA (Hons):
1st class Honours 2
2:1 10
2:2 15
3rd 2
MA:
Distinction:
Commendation:
Pass
FdA/FdSc:
Distinction:
Commendation:
Pass
NB: please check your centres CARs as they may not necessarily follow NTUs or have the above classifications in approval. The use of the approved terminology for your centre is essential.
Please also list any interim awards.
4. Quality of the student experience, covering teaching, learning, learning resources, student progression and student support
(a) Are the teaching and learning strategies and practices appropriate for
the subject, level and number of students?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(b) Are the available learning resources as agreed at validation and do they continue to be appropriate
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(c) Are the admission procedures and student support arrangements
appropriate?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(c) How are the views of students sought?
(d) Did you meet any students? If not, why not?
5. Subject Health, covering research, consultancy and professional activities, curriculum renewal and development, management and enhancement of quality and standards, and staff development
(a) Are the procedures for the maintenance and enhancement of
standards and quality understood, in place and operating
appropriately?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(b) Comments on the operation of the course committee (would not
normally require attendance). Are students represented at course
committee meetings?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
(c) Comments on the use of staff feedback in the quality process, and the
role and effectiveness of module leaders
(d) Comments on student satisfaction and feedback
(e) Comments on any research, consultancy, professional activities and
curriculum renewal and development.
(f) Comments on staff development
(g) Has the centre requested any or have you identified any areas for staff development?
6. Are the marketing materials being used by the Centre appropriate and
up to date?
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
7. General information or observations not covered in the above sections.
YES / NO / DID NOT COVER
Please delete as appropriate – if not covered, please give reasons why not.
Comments:
8. Action Plan
(a) Has the Centre responded to recommendations/actions from the
previous verifiers report?
(b) Recommendations to the Centre and/or the University including an
Action Plan
Note: any concerns about the standards and quality at the Centre should be reported to the Chair of VSSC via CPO immediately, and not wait for a visit or annual report to take action.
Please number the actions and cross reference them back to the main body of the report.
Action Plan:
Signature:
Date:

CPO updated March 2013