Periodic Review and Enhancement Process
2017-18
Academic AffairsJuly 2017
ContentsPage Number
1.A Brief Summary of the Periodic Review and Enhancement Process (PREP) 3
2.Preparing for PREP 5
3.The Reflective Statement 7
4.Roles and Responsibilities 9
5.The Briefing Meeting11
6.The PREP Visit11
7.After the Visit12
Appendix 1: Sample Agenda
Appendix 2: Template for Panel Report
Appendix 3: Schedule of PREP
Appendix 4: Outline of the PREP
Appendix 5: Reflective Statement Template
1.0A Brief Summary of the Periodic Review and Enhancement Process (PREP)
1.1What is the Periodic Review and Enhancement Process (PREP)?
This is a process which combines quality assurance and enhancement of a School/Subject area and the review of the programmes within the School.
Itforms part of an integrated internal quality enhancement and review process whereby modules are reviewed after they are taught (Module Review), programmes are monitored every year (Annual Programme Review) and Schools are reviewed and programmesrevalidated on a five-six yearly basis by School. PREP can cover a School, or, by agreement with the Education Committee of the University, can concentrate on a more limited range of subjects within a School with multiple subject areas. The School is visited by a Panel which considers written documentation and consults with staff, students and other stakeholders such as employers before producing a report.
This process may consider staffing or other resourcing issues in relation to the impact on quality although that will not be the primary focus of the process. Where individual programmes have been approved/re-approved within the past two years a lighter touch process will be adopted.
1.2Why Does the University Have an Internal Quality Enhancement and Review Process?
The University needs to assure itself and others, for example the Department for the Economy NI,that the quality and standards of its educational provision are being maintained. The University also needs to ensure that steps are being taken to enhance the quality of its educational provision. The internal quality enhancement and review process is also a means of identifying and disseminating good practice across the University. In addition, the University currently approves programmes on an open-ended basis and it is good practice to review programmes on a regular basis to ensure currency and quality of provision.
1.3What are Academic Standards?
Academic Standards are the standards that individual degree-awarding bodies set and maintain for the award of their academic credit or qualifications. These may exceed the threshold academic standards. Threshold academic standards define the minimum standards which degree-awarding bodies must use to make the award of qualifications at a particular level of the UKframeworks for higher education qualifications. Threshold academic standards are distinct from the standards of performance that a student needs to demonstrate to achieve a particular classification of a qualification.
1.4What is Academic Quality?
Academic Quality is defined in the UK Quality Code for Higher Education: General Introduction as follows:
Academic Quality is concerned with how well the learning opportunities made available to students enable them to achieve their award. It is about making sure that appropriate and effective teaching, support, assessment and learning resources are provided for them. In order to achieve a higher education award students participate in the learning opportunities made available to them by their provider.
1.5What is Quality Enhancement?
Enhancement has been defined by the Quality Assurance Agency as:
Taking deliberate steps at provider level to improve the quality of learning opportunities.
This definition means that enhancement is about more than a collection of examples of good practice. It is about being aware of the University’s responsibility to improve the quality of learning opportunities and having policies, structures and processes in place to ensure that this can happen.
The Panel members will be pleased to note individual examples of good practice but they would prefer to see a structured approach to enhancement, i.e., how individual examples have informed wider practice in the School, the Faculty and the University, and how the School/Faculty facilitates the development and discussion of good practice.
1.6How Long Does the PREP Last?
The Panel visits the School over a period of three days (see Appendix 1 for a sample agenda). This may be shortened depending on the complexity of the School and the number of programmes to be reviewed. The Panel has an initial private meeting to consider documentation and lines of enquiry; and a final meeting to prepare feedback to the School and plan the Panel’s Report, at the end of the Visit. The Panel will also have a number of meetings with staff, students, and other stakeholders during the three-day Visit. The School is advised to start preparations at least sixmonths in advance of the Visit, with the Preliminary Meeting. Most of the documentation for the Panel should already be available. The only document to be written specifically for the review is the Reflective Statement in which the School reflects on achievements and plans for the future at a School level and at programme level. Prior to the Visit, the School will be invited to highlight any issues which it would like the Panel to consider.
1.7Who Carries Out the PREP?
Each Panel will be chaired by a professor from another Faculty. Panels will also include two members of academic staff from other Schools,an external member from a comparable academic department in another UK/ROIuniversity (nominated by the Head of School) and at least one student representative from the School’s Staff Student Consultative Committee(s) (SSCC). All internal Panel members will have been briefed in the process by Academic Affairs. The external Panel member will receive a briefing pack with information about the University and PREP. Exceptionally, and with the agreement of the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Education and Students, it may be appropriate to have two external subject specialists dependent on the spread of subjects within the School.
Schools should consider and discuss with Academic Affairs how PSRB (professional, statutory and regulatory body) reviews might be integrated into the PREP to prevent duplication of effort by the School and to add value to the process. A PSRB representative maybe nominated as a PREP external Panel member in professional disciplines. Where appropriate, PSRB reportswill form part of the document set for the PREP.
1.8What Is the PanelLooking For?
The remit of the Panel is:
(i)To examine School/Subject provision in four broad areas
- Academic Standards
- Quality of learning opportunities
- Systematic approach to Quality Enhancement
- How the School aligns with the University’s Education Strategy and Corporate Plan
(ii)To make recommendations to the University on the review of the programmes offered by the School.
1.9What Could the Panel’s Report Include?
The Panel’s Report (see Appendix 2) will summarise findings related to the overall operation of quality procedures, the student experience, and quality enhancement. The Report may identify gaps in standard practice, and areas where enhancement may be considered, and should also highlight areas of good practice. The Report will include the Panel’s findings on each programme and recommendations to the Courses and Regulations Group regarding revalidation. Where the Panel has concerns about the programme there will be a recommendation that the Courses and Regulations Group considers the programme in detail. The Report may include recommendations to the School, the Facultyor Professional Services/Senior Management, summarise issues raised by the School during the PREP and how they have been addressed, and summarise any issues/themes raised by the Panel during the PREP. The Report will also identify good practice which could be disseminated across the University.
1.10What Happens After the Panel’s Report Is Agreed?
The Panel’s Report will be considered by the appropriate School Committee and an Action Plan agreed within the School. Where conditions or recommendations have been made, the School must respond with an action plan to implement the recommendations or conditions. The Panel’s Report and the School Action Plan will be considered by the Courses and Regulations Group. Good practice identified from the PREP will be considered by Centre for Educational Development (CED) who will identify practice which should be disseminated across the University. A Milestone Meeting will take place approximately one year after the Panel Report has been issued to follow up actions taken in response to the Report.
2.0Preparing For PREP
2.1Schedule of PREP
The schedule of PREP Visits will be approved by the Courses and Regulations Group (CRG) in consultation with Schools. Schools will be contacted by Academic Affairs approximately eight months in advance of their PREP and arrangements put into place for a Preliminary Meeting. A timeline for PREP is attached as Appendix3.
2.2The Preliminary Meeting
Representatives from Academic Affairs and CED will meet with the Head of School and appropriate staff to discuss arrangements, themes and any issues which the School may want to raise, and to agree the programmes which must be reviewed. The School will nominate a co-ordinator to liaise with Academic Affairs and CED (normally a Director of Education and/or School Manager). Rather than rely on one individual, the School is strongly advisedto set up a small team to take preparations forward and this team is advised to make use of support/guidance available outside the School. Faculty Executive Boards may wish to nominate a member to be involved in the preparations.
2.3Gathering Information
The key document to be written specifically for the PREP is the Reflective Statement (see section 3.0 below and Appendix 4).
The following documentation should also be made available to the Panel:
(i)Current programme specifications for all programmes to be revalidated.*
(ii)Module templates for each programme.
(iii)Annual Programme Review submissions and feedback for the previous three years.*
(iv)Annual Review of Research Degree Programmes submissions and feedback for the previous three years*
(v)External Examiner reports and the associated School responses for the previous three years.*
(vi)SSCC Minutes for the previous three years.
(vii)School Strategic Plan and any update reports and amendments.
(viii)School/Faculty Strategies and relevant Policies including School/Faculty Education Strategy,School Employability Development Plan and Assessment Policy.
(ix)Relevant School Committee Minutes, eg School Education Committee.
(x)Any reports to CRG regarding changes to programmes in the previous five years*.
(xi)PSRB reports received by the School since the previous PREP/EEP (where applicable)*
*Academic Affairs will provide this information on a SharePoint site for the School
In addition, the School should seek to identify examples of deliberate actions taken to enhance the quality of education and should present examples of best practice. The School may also include any other documents which it believes to be relevant. It is important that Schools highlight their educational strengths as well as any challenges.
The Panel will also have access to the following document set which will be provided by Academic Affairs on a SharePoint site:
(i)University Corporate Plan
(ii)University Education Strategy
(iii)University Assessment Policy
(iv)University Courses and Regulations Group minutes (where programmes in the School have been approved in the previous six years)
(v)QAA Framework for HE Qualifications
(vi)QAA Doctoral Degree Characteristics
(vii)QAA Master’s Degree Characteristics
2.4Setting up the Panel
The School should nominate an external Panel member from the subject or cognate area. He or she should not be a current External Examiner of a programme within the School or have been an External Examiner in the School or a Queen’s member of staff within the past five years. The external Panel member must be of at least senior lecturer status. The nomination,together with the CV of the external panel member,should be received by Academic Affairs at least six months before the Visit for approval by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Education and Students. Academic Affairs will nominate the remaining academic members of the Panel, to be approved by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor Education and Students and liaise with the School regarding the dates and venue for the Visit. The School will identify students for the Panel, at least one of whom should be a SSCC representative.
2.5Practical Arrangements
Once the dates have been agreed, the School should book a meeting room for the period of the Visit. This room should be suitable for general meetings with the School and relevant stakeholders and for the Panel to use for private discussion. If one room does not fit all the requirements, it may be necessary to have two rooms, one as a base room for the Panel and the other as a meeting room. There should be adequate ICT facilities/internet access for the Panel (the Panel may require access to Qsis/QOL). Normally, Panel members use their own laptops/tablets. Other housekeeping arrangements should be considered, such as catering and car parking. The School will provide catering for the Visit when the Panel are in the School. Academic Affairs will make arrangements for the accommodation and travel requirements of the external Panel member(s).
3.0The Reflective Statement
3.1Key Document
The Reflective Statement is the key document for the review. Its overall theme is how the School enhances the standards of its educational provision. It should provide a brief review of the past, an analysis of the School’s current practice, and an outline of future plans. It is not intended to be a descriptive document but should reflect the School’s view of its own progress and plans with supporting evidence. Most of the supporting documentation, in particular the programme specifications, will provide the description. The Reflective Statement will be in two parts. The first part will deal with the School at a more strategic level and the second will consist of a brief commentary on each programme to be reviewed. A template for the Reflective Statement is attached as Appendix 5.
3.2Programme Review
It is a requirement of the UK Quality Code that every programme should be reviewedperiodically. University programmes are approved on an open-ended basis, but must nevertheless undergo a formal periodic review to confirm continuing University approval. Recommendations for approval and/or amendments will be reported to the Courses and Regulations Group for consideration and approval. The Panel will consider, inter alia, programme specifications, module templates, annual programme review reports, and external examiner reports, and will discuss the currency and operation of the programmes with staff and students in order to make evidence-based recommendations on revalidation.
3.3Enhancement
Enhancement is the pro-active process of considering and taking deliberate steps, where appropriate, to improve the student learning experience. The School is not expected to pursue a policy of change for its own sake. Rather Schools are expected to demonstrate an ongoing awareness of innovation and beneficial changes in practice in the Higher Education sector, the subject community, the University as a whole, and within the School itself. The School is expected to have suitable mechanisms in place to identify, evaluate and apply, where appropriate, new practices in order to enhance provision in an appropriate manner. For example, how does the School facilitate discussions on standards and the quality of learning opportunities? Is this done in a formal or in an informal manner?
This can be demonstrated, in part, by a focus, within the Reflective Statement, on the effectiveness of quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms in reviewing and enhancing provision. These include module review, annual programme review, external examiner reports and external quality reviews, where appropriate. The School should indicate how it has responded to student feedback from the National Student Survey, the First and Second Year Student Experience Surveys and the Postgraduate Taught/Research Experience Surveys. The School should also indicate any engagement with support units, for example, CED and how this has improved, or is currently improving, the student experience.
3.4Issues
The School is encouraged to identify its own issues for discussion during the Visit. These should be highlighted in the Reflective Statement, e.g. where the School would appreciate the views of the Panel and where it wishes to highlight good practice. The School should use the Panel as a sounding board and as a resource.
3.5Student Views
In drafting the Reflective Statement, the School is required to seek the views of students. Students can provide a very useful perspective and will be involved in the Visit as part of the Panel and in group meetings with the Panel. The Panel will consider the experience of both taught and research students within the School, and therefore consideration should be given to both groups when drafting the Reflective Statement, as well as students from a diverse range of backgrounds. In relation to research students, Schools should comply with the University’s Institutional Code of Practice for Research Degree Programmes (