01.6B

PERIODIC/ELECTIVE REVIEW EVENTS: CHECKLISTS FOR CHAIRS, PANELLISTS AND STUDENTS

CHAIR’S CHECKLIST FOR PERIODIC/ELECTIVE REVIEWS

Summary of Purpose and Scope of Periodic/Elective Review
Purpose:critically to appraise a programme’s state of health and to approve any proposed changes, focussing on changes that have taken place since validation/previous review, on evidence of qualityenhancement,on academic standards achieved and on developments planned.
Scope:toreview the programme taking cognisance of any proposed incorporated modifications that the School proposes to make, to ensure that:
1.the standards set at validation/since the previous review have beenmaintained, quality enhancement taken place by virtue of taking action on issues raised, and appropriate programme up-dates have occurredvia the correct procedures.
2.changes proposed by the School would keep the programme(s) aligned with Cardiff Metropolitan University’s mission, would continue to attain appropriate levels of quality and standards and would continue to take cognisance of QAA subject benchmark statements and other external benchmarks as necessary.
3.the programme documentation (SED, Programme Specification and appendices, Module Descriptors, CVs and QA Audit Trail [APRs etc.]) is acceptable.
Requirements / Comments
Detail of programme(s) under review : school / award / title(s) / mode(s) (source: programme specification)
Purpose of event / summary of issues raised in earlier stages of the review process (Source: comments of panellists; outcomes from pre-meeting)
Programme characteristics and structure/ intake number(s), target group, innovative or other salient features of programme (source: programme specification)
Is the programme franchised (if so, see also Collaborative Provision section below)
CHANGES MADE TO PROGRAMME SINCE VALIDATION / PREVIOUS REVIEW / Comments
Summary of modifications during the approval period, including rationale (source: Self Evaluation Document)
Effectiveness of any changes made and the extent to which they have enhanced student learning (source: Self Evaluation Document)
ARE ANY CHANGES PROPOSED IN THE REVIEW SUBMISSION? / Comments
Are proposed changes rationalised in the SED and cross-referenced to the programme specification and/or module descriptors?
Has the external examiner and PSRB been consulted?
Will the changes affect the existing cohorts or take effect from the next new cohort?
If franchised, have partners and the moderator been consulted? Are there different effective dates for partners?
APPROPRIATENESS AND CONTINUED RELEVANCE OF: / Comments
Programme structure, content (reflects developments in discipline?), level and title (source: programme specification, module descriptors, SED)
For undergraduate degrees calculation of degree classification in line with academic regulations (apart from approved variations) (source: programme specification)
Are modules which cannot be compensated within and /or across modules clearly identified in the documentation (source: programme specification)
Number of resit attempts specified (source: programme specification)
Entry requirements(source: programme specification)
Learning and teaching strategies and methods (source: programme specification and SED)
Learning outcomes and their links to content, assessment, and feedback to students(source: programme specification, module descriptors and SED)
Balance of assessment methods across modules of the same credit value(source: programme specification and module descriptors)
Links between research and teaching (source: programme specification and SED)
Programme design reflects corporate drivers (e.g. internationalisation, sustainability, research-informed teaching, employability) and takes account of protected characteristics
Procedures for internal moderation of assessed work
Transparency in all these? (source: programme specification and SED)
Students’ achievement (source: SED, APRs)
Comparability of academic standards with similar programmes / use of QAA subject benchmark statements and/or other external reference points (source: SED, APRs, external examiner reports, reports from external reviewers)
Available resources for the programme (including staffing and staff development) and for students on the programme (including the learning environment, academic counselling and support, PDP) (source: SED, programme specification, CVs)
Staff research (source: SED, CVs)
Responses to external scrutiny such as external examiner reports, professional/statutory/regulatory body or other programme-related reports (Source: SED, APRs, responses to external examiner reports, programme committee minutes)
Where professional practice, work based and placement learning are incorporated, the management, support and assessment materials involved and observance of the QAA UK Quality Code (Chapter B10).
Responses to student evaluations – students informed of actions to be taken as a result of their evaluations?
COLLABORATIVE PROVISION / Comments
The familiarity of the prospective delivery organisation with the standards and ethos of UK Higher Education
The effectiveness of the work of moderator(s)/link tutors in assisting partner programme delivery (Source: SED)
The effectiveness of inter-institutional communication (Source: SED)
The effectiveness of any arrangements for joint assessment and joint examination boards (Source: SED)
Any initiatives relating to joint or exchange teaching, student exchanges and/or visits (Source: SED)
The effectiveness of student progression arrangements (Source: SED)
APPROVAL, CONDITIONS, RECOMMENDATIONSAND COMMENDATIONS
State any commendations (particular strengths of the programme).
State whether or not the programme (including any proposed changes) is APPROVED to continue, any CONDITIONS OF CONTINUED APPROVAL and the DATES BY WHICH EACH CONDITION MUST BE MET.
Recommendations should then be set out, to be monitored through the Annual Programme Review Reporting (APR) exercise.
NB: Ensure commendations conditions and recommendations are justified by points made in the body of the report and distinguish carefully between the two - a condition is required and has a timescale for completion, whereas a recommendation can be discussed by the programme team, and reported in the next APR.

CHECKLIST: PANELLISTS

[Contribute to an atmosphere in which critical professional discussion can take place. Note importance of confidentiality, respect, objectivity and sensitivity. The occasion should be a professionally HELPFUL experience. Role: to provide the crucial expertise and experience to enable the programme to be scrutinised effectively]
Purpose: to ensure the programme continues to meet the standards set at the introduction of the programme, and that quality enhancement has taken place.
Before the event:
PREPARE THOROUGHLY, identifying any apparent weaknesses and strengths, any irregularities regarding procedural matters, how issues raised through external or internal reports have, or have not been addressed, any indications in regard to the standards achieved by the students, the effectiveness of the external examiner arrangements and quality enhancement issues and whether the programme design reflects the University’s corporate drivers and takes account of protected characteristics. Check clarity of documentation, and the structure and assessment methods for the programme,
Submit to the Chair (via the ASQU) key issues for consideration at the event at least one week before the event (ideally two weeks)
Subject specialists (normally external panel members) - examine in detail the syllabus, content, teaching methods and capacity of staff to deliver the programme
During the event:
Keep questions and discussion balanced and constructive
Explore discrepancies between what is written and what is said
Seek clarification and confirmation where required
Listen as well as ask
Offer suggestions if appropriate
Concentrate on major rather than minor issues
Participate in a collaborative manner. Reviews are developmental, not inspectorial, events.
After the event:
Check and agree the report of the review
Be available, where possible and if required, to programme team members for further discussion
Complete evaluations of the event and send to ASQU. Such reflections on events inform the University’s future processes and procedures, as well as acting as peer review for the chair and hopefully helping you in future events for your own programme(s)

CHECKLIST: STUDENTS

Your Role: Focus on the quality of learning opportunities for students

Suggested areas to focus upon:
How are the following working: student representation: programme committee, support for student representatives, effectiveness of staff-student liaison committee?
Student feedback: NSS, module evaluation, responsiveness to feedback, feedback to students on action taken (including use of VLE, intranet, social media).
Student support: personal tutors; first year experience e.g. induction and transition to HE; personal development planning, careers and employability, specialist support e.g. disabled students and additional learning needs, international student support.
Assessment feedback: timeliness and quality.
Do staff value and actively seek contributions from students?
How does the programme team utilise feedback in annual reporting?

Academic Handbook 2017/18 – Volume 2 – 01.6B – Periodic/Elective Review Events: Checklists for Chairs, Panellists and Students – Introduced 08.11.11, modified 20.02.13, 30.05.13, 24.10.14, 20.10.15

1