4 Periodic Review of Academic Provision

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4.1Introduction

4.2The operation of periodic review

4.3Review documentation

4.3.1Document A: Self-evaluation

4.3.2Document B: Departmental information

4.3.3Document set C: Supporting documentation

4.3.4Document set D: Reference points

4.4The periodic review process

4.4.1Stage one: Scoping the periodic review

4.4.2Stage two: Appointment of review panel

4.4.3Stage three: Submission of review documentation

4.4.4Stage four: Panel review

4.4.5Stage five: Review reporting

4.4.6Stage six: Faculty response to review outcomes

4.5The role of the periodic review task group

Appendices

Periodic review overview form

Nomination of external panel member for periodic subject review

Indicative agenda for the periodic review panel meetings

4.1Introduction

  1. This interim process is designed to strengthen and broaden the University’s periodic review of its academic provision. The arrangements identified here operate in full for areas of academic provision under review in 2013-14. They will be implemented in respect of reviews occurring after December 31 2012 during 2012/13 as follows:
  1. The requirement for document B as specified here
  2. The requirement for data specified as the final item in document set C
  3. Review panel composition
  4. Specification of the student group (stage four)
  5. The judgements
  6. The designation of processes of approval and re-approval and their specification within the approval rather than the review schedule
  7. The approach to review reporting and Faculty response (stages five and six)
  8. The role of the periodic review task group
  9. The review panel meeting agenda (unless varied by exception)
  1. Periodic review is based on a process of self evaluation, undertaken by the academic area in question and endorsed by the relevant Faculty.
  1. The purpose of periodic review at the University of Bedfordshire is to provide assurance to Academic Board that it can have confidence in the academic standards and quality of provision leading to its awards and in the faculty structures and processes that will maintain standards and quality in the future. The process is designed in line with the QAA Quality Code, and in particular chapter B8 thereof, and the following indicators:

Indicator 1

Institutions ensure that their responsibilities for standards and quality are discharged effectively through their procedures for the monitoring and review of programmes.

Indicator 2

Institutions ensure that the overriding responsibility of the academic authority (for example senate or academic board) to set, maintain and assure standards is respected and that any delegation of power by the academic authority to review programmes is properly defined and exercised.

Indicator 3

Institutions make use of external participation at key stages for the review of programmes, as independence and objectivity are essential to provide confidence that the standards and quality of the programmes are appropriate.

Indicator 4

Monitoring and review processes are clearly described and communicated to those who are involved in them.

Indicator 5

Institutions routinely monitor (in an agreed cycle) the effectiveness of their programmes:

  • to ensure that programmes remain current and valid in light of developing knowledge in the discipline, and practice in its application
  • to evaluate the extent to which the intended learning outcomes are being attained by students
  • to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of the curriculum and of assessment in relation to the intended learning outcomes
  • to ensure that recommendations for appropriate actions are followed up to remedy any identified shortcomings

Indicator 6

Institutions periodically undertake a broader review of the continuing validity and relevance of programmes offered.

Indicator 7

In the event of a decision to discontinue a programme, measures are taken to notify and protect the interests of students registered for, or accepted for admission to, the programme.

Indicator 8

Institutions have a means of assessing the effectiveness of their programme monitoring and review practices.

  1. Periodic review forms one element of a range of processes designed to sustain and develop academic quality, i.e. course approval, the approval of changes to provision, annual reporting and monitoring, and periodic review.
  1. Annual monitoring provides faculties and their subject and course teams to reflect on the standards, operation and development of its courses and units, and the experience of learners undertaking those units and courses. Periodic review allows for a broader and more holistic consideration of courses and subjects, through a more sustained review process of self-evaluation and peer review.
  1. Periodic review provides an opportunity in particular for evaluation of:
  1. Subject standing and development, in the context of university strategy and sector norms and development;
  2. Faculty and departmental management of quality and standards in the provision offered within a subject, including the maintenance of core documentation (CIF and UIF) and the appropriate management of changes to provision;
  3. Academic standards and the maintenance of structures and processes designed for their support (including external examination, annual monitoring, unit and course reporting, and academic due process in the assessment and grading of student performance);
  4. The quality and the student-led enhancement of the learner experience and opportunity in the context of the University mission;
  5. External engagement and benchmarking - with QAA Code of Practice, sector benchmarks, PSRBs (where relevant), employers, alumni and other external reference points that support the development and enhancement of provision and the learner experience;
  6. Faculty and department engagement and compliance with University policy (e.g. peer observation of teaching) and initiatives over the period of review.

4.2The operation of periodic review

  1. The schedule of periodic review is operated on a five-year cycle and is approved annually by TQSC prior to each review year (i.e. academic year). The schedule is drawn up by the Quality Directorate and includes all subject areas and courses leading to awards of the University. Any exceptions to the five-year periodic review of subjects are approved and recorded by TQSC.
  1. Each periodic review includes within its scope all provision within a subject area, including collaborative provision (other than that offered and delivered solely by accredited partners), and short course provision leading to University award of credit. Where the dimensions of a subject area indicate a comprehensive review to be unwieldy, it may be divided provided that subject coherence remains the abiding principle of organisation. Where a subject area includes units offered to courses in other departments, those units should be included in the subject review; where courses operated by a department include units operated by other departments, these should be reviewed within the course review.
  1. It is appropriate for periodic review to include consideration of new and changed provision within a subject area, in line with University requirements for the approval and new and changed provision, provided that such approval is approved by TQSC at the review scoping stage as appropriate for consideration. 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.
  1. Courses may require re-approval for one or more of the following reasons:
  1. because significant and material concerns have been expressed about quality and/or standards through the University external examining or annual monitoring processes;
  1. because the provision is approved under an operational arrangement that has changed substantively;
  1. to satisfy the requirements of certain professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRB accreditation may not substitute for periodic review).
  1. 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 considered and recorded as an ‘approval’ event and the University’s approval process will apply, with the course identified on the approval record as ‘re-approved’ and not included in the Periodic Review record.

4.3Review documentation

  1. The following documentation is required for periodic reviews (note: in all cases coverage should normally include the period since the previous review:

4.3.1Document A: Self-evaluation

  1. This is a critical self-evaluation of the subject and its provision in the context of University benchmarks and policies, and external benchmarks and requirements. The self-evaluation should be around 20 pages long and provide evidence that the department and faculty are devoting sufficient and effective attention to the enhancement of quality and the maintenance of standards. It may include data and information in appendix form.
  1. Introduction
  • Scope of the subject area at UoB in relation to sector understandings and provision, including a list of courses, including short courses and collaborative provision, current and operational within the past two years;
  • Specification of 3-5 benchmark institutions (benchmark institutions should be selected by departments and identified in each case as a current competitor, a similar provider, or an aspirational target). Changes in the benchmark set between reviews must be explained.
  • Progress since the previous review, including evidence of the management of conditions and recommendations.
  1. Subject evaluation
  • The relation of the course and/or subject area to departmental, Faculty and institutional strategy and developments;
  • Recent subject developments that have strengthened, shifted or broadened the subject scope (staff appointments, staff development, development of new curriculum areas etc.);
  • Any current proposals for further development of the subject/provision, including identification of any new courses confirmed in the Periodic Review Overview form as for approval during review;
  • Student performance on units within the subject areas under review, since the previous review;
  • Units identified in scheme reports and USP process as exemplary or requiring monitoring, with details of actions taken and impact;
  • Student feedback and departmental responses since the previous review;
  • Benchmarking (NSS) vs. competitors.
  1. Course evaluation

Demand and recruitment

  • Portfolio changes since last review (new courses and major changes requiring University approval)
  • Evidence and analysis of demand and recruitment patterns since the previous review
  • Benchmarking (recruitment) vs. competitor and sector demand patterns

Performance, progression, retention and outcomes

  • Student performance, progression, retention and outcome since the previous review (using definitions of the annual reporting and monitoring process)
  • Benchmarking (good degrees, employability and other indicators) vs. competitors

Learner experience

  • 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;
  • Benchmarking (student satisfaction) versus competitors

Teaching, learning and assessment

  • An evaluation of the development of teaching, learning and assessment in response to student feedback, university, faculty and sector developments

Academic standards

  • Evidence of the attainment of appropriate academic standards of courses across the provision (external examination)
  1. Quality assurance and management

Confirmation of completion and overage of key processes

  • Annual reporting and monitoring
  • Student feedback (survey and field committee)
  • Examination Boards (including external examiner perspective)
  • Peer observation
  • Personal tutoring
  • Procedures manuals (collaborative provision)
  • Transition arrangements in respect of any substantive course changes

4.3.2Document B: Departmental Information

  1. Departmental information document including

Research activity and income over the review period

Consultancy and CPD development and provision over the period

Sector engagement

Staffing and resources including CVs

Staff review and development

Benchmarking (RAE/REF) versus competitors

4.3.3Document set C: Supporting documentation

  1. The following documentation should also be submitted (on USB sticks, which will be returned):
  • annual monitoring reports since the previous review;
  • updated Course and Unit Information Forms (CIF/UIFs) for each of the courses under review (paper copies to be provided);
  • The CIFs of the currently approved courses under review;
  • online location of Course handbooks finalised for provision to the first post-review student cohort;
  • 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;
  • previous periodic review report;
  • PSRB reports (if any);
  • Field Committee minutes;
  • FAB and FTQSC minutes since the previous review;
  • Link tutor reports;
  • Data from KIS, Unistats, NSS and DLHE covering the provision under review.

4.3.4Document set D: Reference points

  1. The Quality Directorate will supply the following additional documentation to the review panel
  • Strategic plan 2012-2017
  • Scheme reports
  • QAA audit report (most recent)
  • Subject benchmarks statements
  • Other relevant documentation

4.4The periodic review process

4.4.1Stage one: Scoping the periodic review

  1. Each periodic review will commence in the academic year preceding review (and no less than 9 months prior to the review panel meeting) with a meeting between the Head of Quality, the Head of the Academic Department that manages the quality of the subject under review, a nominated review leader, and the Portfolio Leaders and Course Coordinators of the provision within the review, and the review coordinator.
  1. At this meeting
  1. the review overview form will be finalised for subsequent sign-off by the Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality)and the Quality Directorate
  2. the scope of the review and of the provision within it will be finalised
  3. the date and duration of the review panel meeting will be confirmed
  4. the institutional benchmark set will be confirmed by the Faculty
  5. The requirement for externality at the review panel meeting will be established on the basis of subject and course breadth and level
  6. The inclusion of any planned course approval within the review will be confirmed (subject to completion of the University approval process). Additional approvals may be added later, in which case the relevant form (new course proposal / modification of course list) will be appended to the review overview form
  7. Any relationship between the review and PSRB engagement will be established.
  1. The review overview form will be presented by the Head of Quality to TQSC for its approval, and to Faculty TQSC by the Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality)

4.4.2Stage two: Appointment of review panel

  1. The Quality Directorate will appoint and invite the review panel, including internal panel members and external subject specialists and representation from the Students’ Union.
  1. Panel composition
  1. The University review panel will usually consist of:
  • a Chair, normally an academic member of Academic Board or the TQSC
  • one or two (depending on subject breadth) external academic specialists
  • a practitioner from a practice field related to the subject provision
  • 2 senior UoB academic representatives from outside the Faculty (grade 9 or above and at least one formally research-active);
  • a student representative (or an approved representative of either the BedsSU or the University’s Student Services if a student representative is formally noted at the review panel event and documented in the final report as not available)
  • Academic Registrar, Head of Quality or their nominated representative

and

a secretary to the panel

  1. Variations to this expectation must be approved by the Chair of TQSC. This panel will also conduct any approval / re-approval confirmed to occur within review.
  1. Note of panel roles
  1. The panel chair will lead the panel and ensure that the requirements of the review process are achieved effectively.
  1. External academic specialists will be selected on the basis of their coverage of subjects under review at an appropriate level of seniority. They will be independent of the University. Where a review includes a range of subjects deemed by the Head of Quality sufficiently broad to require additional external academic input (as indicated, for example, by the range of subject benchmarks to which the provision responds), this will be specified on the Periodic Review Overview form.
  1. External practitioners must have substantial practitioner expertise in an area of industry commerce or practice with the potential to constitute a career destination for graduates of provision under review. The practitioner may have some knowledge of the faculty and/or department and its provision, but may not be involved in the direct delivery or support of the provision under review.
  1. Student representatives must have current or recent experience as a student of the University (within the previous two academic years). Where a student representative is not available, a member of either BedsSU or the University’s Student Services who has current and direct engagement with the student experience may be appointed.
  1. The secretary’s duties include liaising with the Faculty Review Coordinator, about the arrangements for the review process, communicating with panel members, drawing up a draft programme for the panel review and preparing the review report.
  1. The secretary books the venue and refreshments for the panel review event and makes the logistical arrangements for the external, such as hotel reservations or parking. The secretary circulates the documentation to the panel and is responsible for acting as conduit between the panel and the course team vis a vis initial observations prior to the event and in the response to the outcomes of the review.
  1. The academic department will nominate the external subject specialists. The initial identification of nominees should be made at least six months prior to the University review panel meeting. The External Panel Member nomination form should be completed and submitted to the Faculty Sub-Dean (Quality), 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. Each nominee must:
  • 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;
  1. 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.

4.3.3Stage three: Submission of review documentation