Periodic Course Review

4 Periodic Subject and Course Review

4 Periodic Subject and Course review

Flowchart

4.1 Purpose of periodic review

4.2 Principles of periodic review

4.3 Procedure of periodic review

4.4 Additional approval

4.5 Timing of periodic reviews

4.6 Planning periodic reviews

4.7 Selection and appointment of panel members

4.8 Constitution of the periodic review Panels

4.9 Submission of documentation

4.10 Documentation requirements

4.11 Responsibility of the periodic review Panel

4.12 Purpose of the periodic review event

4.13 review reports

Appendices

o  periodic review template

o  External Panel Member Nomination form

o  Indicative agenda for periodic review event meetings

periodic subject and course review

Updated January 2012

periodic subject and course review

Updated January 2012

4.1 Purpose of periodic review

The purpose of periodic review is to:

·  confirm that the academic strength and quality of a subject area is sufficient for current and planned provision

·  confirm that current provision offers a high quality of educational and academic experience for its students;

·  ensure that the provision is academically appropriate, sound and consistent with the University’s strategic and educational plans and policies and reflects the expectations of external bodies, where appropriate;

·  verify the attainment of academic standards against external and internal benchmarks, including the Quality Assurance Agency’s (QAA) Academic Infrastructure, requirements of PSRBs, and the University level descriptors;

·  enhance the provision through academic debate between peers, thereby facilitating good course design and academic ownership on the part of the course team;

·  provide the opportunity for a summative judgement on the provision drawing on the other components of the quality assurance system, notably annual programme monitoring, external examining and student evaluation;

·  identify and disseminate good practice.

4.2 Principles of periodic review

The principles underlying periodic review are that:

a it is conducted on the basis of external peer group review involving appropriate persons who are external to the design and delivery of the provision;

b all courses within a defined subject area should be encompassed within the cycle of periodic review, and will normally consist of a sub-section of an academic department;

c proposals for new provision may also be considered, such as new or revised units, except where circumstances (for example certain forms of collaborative provision) justify a more focussed approach.

4.3 Procedure of periodic review

1 The University has the responsibility for determining which courses to include in its portfolio. The portfolio is reviewed annually, and courses added or deleted in the light of market demand, changes in staff specialisms, or emerging strengths and areas of interest.

2 The schedule of periodic review is operated on a five-year cycle and is considered and updated annually by the Quality Directorate, as necessary, to fit in appropriately with any other forms of internal or external review processes. The schedule is drawn up by the Quality Directorate, in consultation with the faculties, and approved by the Teaching Quality and Standards Committee. The schedule applies to all subject areas and courses leading to awards of the University.

3 periodic review must include all courses within a cognate subject, including relevant aspects of collaborative provision agreed at the planning stage.

4 The schedule also includes the cycle of reviews of provision in collaborative partners.

5 The procedures applicable to periodic review are related to those governing the approval of new courses. As with annual course monitoring, periodic reviews are occasions when course teams are accountable to the academic community for enhancing the quality of the courses for which they are responsible.

4.4  Approval and re-approval

1.  Periodic review can provide the opportunity for course teams to bring forward proposals for changes to a course or additional pathways or exit routes. To make it clear to the review panel which approvals are being sought, course leaders/Academic Directors should complete the periodic review template (form H) and include it with the standard documentation. Approval of new courses associated and concurrent with periodic review will be undertaken at a separate event within the timeframe of review, and will be recorded on the schedule of approvals maintained by the Quality Directorate.

2.  Where a single course is recommended for review by a Faculty, the Quality Directorate, or TQSC, on the basis of substantial proposed change or concern, this will be recorded on the review schedule within a separate section titled ‘course re-approval’.

4.5 Timing of periodic reviews

1 The timing of periodic review is proposed by the Quality Directorate and approved by the Teaching Quality and Standards Committee. Such a review may be held for a number of reasons:

a to be aligned with the 5-year cycle for review;

b because concerns have been expressed about quality and/or standards;

c the provision is approved under an operational arrangement that has changed substantively;

d to satisfy the requirements of certain professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRB accreditation may not substitute for periodic review).

2. The extant schedule for periodic review, including reviews (and re-approvals) conducted in the current academic year, will be presented to TQSC by the Academic Registrar at its final meeting in each academic year. TQSC will be responsible for reviewing this schedule to ensure that all reviews of subject areas and provision are scheduled.

4.6 Planning the periodic review event

1 It is expected that the Head of Department, course coordinators, nominated project leader, Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality Enhancement) and members of the Quality Directorate will hold planning meetings well in advance of the date of the review event to ensure that the scope, scale and objectives of the event are clear, responsibilities and timescales are determined and that the submission is likely to meet University and national expectations of quality and standards.

2 The Quality Directorate will agree with the Faculty the programme for the review event. Depending on the scale and scope of the provision put forward for review the review event will take place over one or two days.

3 The Quality Directorate will agree with the Faculty/Department the optimum number of external advisers to cover the provision coming forward. A periodic review, will normally require at least two external panel members, and any exceptions to this will require the approval of the Chair of TQSC.

4 The Faculty will arrange for students to be available to meet the University Review Panel.

5. The timing of review in relation to any concurrent PSRB requirements will be established.

4.7 Selection and appointment of panel members

1  The Quality Directorate is responsible for appointing and inviting the panel including internal panel members and external subject specialists and representation from the Students’ Union following the guidelines set for the approval of new courses.

2  The academic department is asked to nominate the external subject specialists. The initial identification of nominees should be made at least six months prior to the University review event. The External Panel Member nomination form should be completed and submitted to the Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality Enhancement), accompanied by a CV, for approval and then the Quality Directorate which is responsible for inviting the nominee, the logistical arrangements and arranging payment of the fee. The nominee should:

·  not have been an External Examiner or member of staff at the University within the last five years;

·  not have been engaged in any research or scholarly activity with the members of the course team;

Neither should any of the course team putting forward the proposal be acting as an External Examiner on a course with which the external nominee is associated.

4.8 Constitution of the University review Panels (URPs)

The University review Panel will usually consist of:

a a Chair, normally an academic member of the TQSC or a Head of Department from outside of the Faculty concerned;

b normally two senior subject specialist external members, at least one of whom should be an academic but one of whom may (and must, in the case of approval and re-approval) be external to the University and from the practice community;

c a senior academic representative from outside the Faculty;

d student representation where possible

As advisers:

e a secretary to the review panel, normally a member of the Quality Directorate;

f a representative of the Quality Directorate.

Variations to this expectation must be approved by the Chair of TQSC.

4.9 Submission of the documentation

1 Responsibility for preparing the submission documentation resides in the Faculty concerned. It is strongly recommended that the preparation for the review should be project managed with clear timescales and responsibilities with a designated project leader. The responsibility for ensuring that the documentation is of an appropriate standard before submission to the University review Panel rests with the relevant Faculty Manager.

2 The nominated project leader must ensure that the submission documentation, normally seven hard copies, is submitted to the Quality Directorate at least three weeks prior to the event. The Quality Directorate will circulate the documentation together with guidance material and relevant benchmarking standards to the panel to enable consideration of the submission prior to the event and to provide panel members with the opportunity to put forward comments or areas for clarification to the secretary. The secretary will circulate these to the other panel members and to the Project Leader to facilitate discussion.

4.10 Documentation requirements

1 Periodic review is based on a process of self evaluation, undertaken by the academic area in question and endorsed by the relevant Faculty.

2 The following documentation is required for periodic reviews:

a a critical self evaluation of the existing provision. The self-evaluation should be around 10 pages long and include the following information:

Introduction

·  definition of the subject area at UoB in relation to sector understandings and provision;

·  the relation of the course and/or subject area to departmental, Faculty and institutional statements, plans and policies;

·  contextual information about the subject or courses to enable the review panel to engage in discussion of past progress and future intentions;

Teaching, learning and assessment

·  an evaluation of the teaching, learning and assessment methods and alignment to the University’s relevant strategies and policies;

Admission, progression, retention and achievement

·  data about student admission, progression, retention and achievement with an evaluation of trends over the previous three academic years compared to institutional and sectoral trends;

Academic standards

·  evidence of the attainment of appropriate academic standards of courses across the provision.

Implementation of action plans

·  the implementation of the action plans consequential on the findings of the annual monitoring process;

Collaborative activity

·  information about the management of any collaborative activity;

Evaluation

·  views of students, staff and external stakeholders particularly on the quality of the educational experience of students on the courses in the provision and the outcomes;

Resources

·  a statement providing updated information on resources, including staff CVs, any relevant capital and revenue expenditure, development of learning resources provision, staff development and external engagement;

Research and scholarly activity

·  a statement providing updated information on staff research, consultancy, and other scholarly or external activity underpinning the subject, with particular reference to teaching at levels 6 and M.

The self evaluation should conclude with a discussion of:

·  strengths and good practice;

·  areas that need attention;

·  special distinguishing features of the course/s;

·  plans for future development.

b The following documentation should be submitted:

·  course journal(s);

·  annual monitoring reports from the previous three academic years;

·  updated Course and Unit Information Forms (CIF/UIFs) for each of the courses under review;

·  online location of Course handbooks;

·  online location of a representative sample of unit handbooks;

·  external examiners’ reports from the previous three academic years and the responses to the reports, and any PSRB reports, together with a statement or evidence of any action taken in response to those reports

·  reports from any approval of new courses within the subject area since the previous review

·  a paper demonstrating how the course/s map onto external benchmarks, such as the QAA academic infrastructure and other guidelines issues by PSRBs. In the case of foundation degrees, a mapping to the relevant Sector Skills Council standards should also be provided

4.11 Responsibility of the University review panels

1 University review panels are asked to ensure that the following considerations are made to provide the University with assurance about:

a Academic Quality and Standards

·  the academic standing of the subject area in relation to sector norms

·  the effectiveness of subject management and leadership at discharging its responsibility for managing academic quality;

·  the systematic use of external points of reference in course design, development and delivery, including employers, colleagues from the wider academic and professional communities, and the QAA’s academic infrastructure;

·  the courses offered and the quality and standard of provision as evidenced from external and internal sources, notably external examiners, students, and Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs).

.

b Course Structure

·  Evidence that the courses provide students with a coherent and rich educational experience with clear progression in the subject matter;

·  Evidence of the implementation of University policies, for example approaches to teaching, learning and assessment;