Periodic programme/departmental review

The purpose of periodic programme/departmental review is to contribute to the assurance and enhancement of quality in teaching and learning and the student learning experience. It offers the opportunity to review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment strategies of a programme or programmes beyond the annual programme reporting cycle and to ensure that College and Departmental quality assurance mechanisms are functioning effectively and efficiently.

 

Aims

The aims of the periodic programme/departmental review process are:

• To establish whether there are effective and appropriate mechanisms to ensure that intended learning outcomes are being obtained by students, standards are being achieved and the programme specification is being delivered;
• To establish whether the programme(s) remain current and valid in the light of developments in the discipline and in teaching and learning;
• To verify that the College’s agreed procedures are working effectively to assure the standards of the Department’s awards and the quality of the learning opportunities;
• To review the quality and consistency of the information provided to students and applicants;
• To consider how the Department is implementing its learning and teaching strategy;
• To identify good practice within particular programmes or areas that can be disseminated both within and outside the Department.

 

Outline of the process

Departments, through their Departmental Boards or their delegated Departmental Learning and Teaching Committees, are required on a periodic basis (usually every six years) to prepare for a detailed review of the department's programmes, a group of programmes or an individual programme by a panel co-ordinated by the Quality Office on behalf of, and reporting to, Learning , Teaching and Quality Committee.  Centres which deliver taught programmes are also required to take part in periodic programme review. The review will be based on a Self-Evaluation Document (SED) and supporting evidence produced by the Department.

• The Head of Quality and Standards will consult with the department regarding the scope of the review and membership of the review panel.
• After the Pro-Warden (Students and Learning Development) has approved the review’s scope, the Head of Quality and Standards will brief the departmental/programme team on the review procedure and on how to prepare the Self-Evaluation Document (SED) and associated documentation.
• Departmental/programme teams will prepare the SED using the guidance given below. The SED, with supporting evidence, should be discussed and agreed by the Departmental Board/Learning and Teaching Committee before submission to the Quality Office for consideration by the review panel.
• The review panel will convene for one or more days to consider the SED and meet with the departmental staff and students as appropriate. The agenda for the review meeting(s) will be agreed in advance with the department and initial feedback given at the end of the day.
• The Quality Office will then produce a draft report for comment by the department. This will ideantify areas of good practice and make recommendations to the department.
• The recommendations from the review will be considered by Goldsmiths Senior Management Team.
• An action plan will then be agreed with the department and the report and action plan will be considered by Standards Scrutiny Sub-Committee and reported to Learning, Teaching & Quality Committee.
• Progress on meeting the targets in the action plan will be monitored by the Quality Office and Standards Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

 

The Self-Evaluation Document (SED)

The Self-Evaluation Document should cover the areas listed below, although the headings are for guidance and are not prescriptive. Examples of how the Department/programme has made enhancements in response to feedback from students and External Examiners, or employers and graduates should be included in the evaluation, as well as evidence demonstrating the Department’s strategic approach to learning and teaching. Advice and guidance on drafting the SED and on drafts themselves will be provided.

The SED should be self critical and evaluative. Rather than being a ‘snapshot’ of the department at the time of the review, the SED should discuss how the provision under review and the department have developed since the previous review, identifying any challenges overcome and current challenges. The document need not be lengthy. The Quality Office will advise on length depending on the scope of the provision under review.

The SED should make extensive use of cross referencing to relevant supporting documentation and make use of concrete examples.          

Introduction

• Setting the context of the Department, its key characteristics (staffing, students, research), current/recent developments, plans for teaching and research, Learning and Teaching Strategy.
• The programmes to be reviewed should be listed together with the date when the programme was introduced and the number of students on the programme. The introduction should also list any programmes in the department not included in the review and indicate why they are not included.

Educational aims

A statement of the overall aims of the programme or programmes included in the review and how these relate to the aims of the Department.

Learning outcomes and programme structure

An evaluation of the intended learning outcomes and structure of the programme or programmes (reference may be made to their relationship with subject benchmark statements or requirements of relevant professional, statutory or regulatory bodies); how recently they have been reviewed/amended.

Teaching and assessment

An evaluation of the teaching and assessment strategies and how they support students to achieve the intended learning outcomes.

Quality of learning opportunities

• Teaching and learning - evaluation of the learning opportunities provided to students to enable them to achieve the intended learning outcomes; implementation/evolution of the Department’s Learning and Teaching Strategy;
• Departmental review mechanisms - internal arrangements in the Department for reviewing its provision and evaluating the effectiveness of its approach to learning and teaching;
• Student admission, progression and completion - evaluation of the ways in which students' progression through the programme(s) is supported and monitored, from intake to completion;
• Learning resources - evaluation of the effectiveness of the deployment of resources, human and material, that support student learning, and of the effectiveness of their linkage to the programme learning outcomes;
• Improvements/enhancements - to the learning and teaching on the Department’s programmes/provision over this period, e.g. new teaching and assessment methods, staff development.

Academic standards

Commentary on the achievements of students, any trends in examination results, the comments of External Examiners on comparability of standards, on any actions taken as a result.

Graduate satisfaction/employability

• Commentary on feedback from former students and on their career destinations, whether employment or further study, as appropriate;
• Commentary on how employability and career development are considered in programme design and delivery.

Evidence Base

The SED should include evidence from and make reference to the following:

• Programme Specifications
• Annual Programme Reviews
• External Examiners’ reports
• Student recruitment, progression and completion data
• Reports (if any) from accrediting or other bodies
• Feedback from former students and their employers; First Destination data
• A commentary on the statistical analysis of National Student Survey data provided by the Quality Office
• Comparability with other HEIs/external benchmarks
• Internal policy documents, as appropriate
• SWOT analysis of programme(s)/department (optional)

Where possible, evidence for key points should be included within the main text of the SED or as notes. The following documents should normally  be appended:

• Programme Specifications for programmes under review
• Annual Programme Reviews for the last 3 years for the programme under review
• Annual Programme Review data
• NSS results for the last 3 years
• External Examiners reports for the last 3 years
• Departmental handbooks and individual course guides
• Prospectuses
• Departmental Strategic Plan
• Record of staff development
• Departmental Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy and Action Plan.

 

 

 

The SED is circulated to the panel in paper form. All supporting documentation should be placed in a password protected folder on the department's VLE pages so that panel members can access this.

 

Membership of the Review Panel

Independent external input is a key feature of the periodic programme/ departmental review process. The Panel will include panel members from the College who are external to the cognate area(s) as well as members external to the College.

 

 

Pro-Warden (Chair) or nominee

Two external subject specialists

A member of academic staff

A student panel member

Head of Quality and Standards

Head of the Goldsmiths Learning Enhancement Unit or nominee

Quality Administrator (Secretary)

Panel composition might vary depending upon the size of the provision and the area to be covered.

 

Possible Questions for Review Panels

The following questions are taken (with minor amendments) from Appendix 3 of Section 7 of the QAA’s Code of Practice on ‘Programme Design, Approval, Monitoring and Review’.

It is not intended that review panels at Goldsmiths should feel constrained to use these questions systematically. The questions do, however, provide a useful framework to guide members of review panels when formulating their questions.

How do the intended learning outcomes relate to external reference points and to the broad aims of the provision?

1. What are the intended learning outcomes for the programme(s)?

2. How do they relate to external reference points including relevant subject benchmark statements, the qualifications framework, the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area and any professional body requirements?

3. How do they relate to the overall aims of the provision as stated by the Department/ Centre?

4. Are they appropriate to the aims?

How are the curricula design principles used to permit achievement of the intended learning outcomes?

5. How does the Department/Centre ensure that curriculum content enables students to achieve the intended learning outcomes?

6. How does the Department/Centre ensure that the design and organisation of the curriculum is effective in promoting student learning and achievement of the intended learning outcomes?

How are the intended learning outcomes communicated to students, staff and external examiners?

7. How are the intended outcomes of a programme and its constituent parts communicated to staff, students and external examiners?

8. Do the students know what is expected of them?

How does the Department/Centre create the conditions for achievement of the intended learning outcomes?

9. Do the design and content of the curricula encourage achievement of the intended learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills, subject-specific skills (including practical/professional skills), transferable skills, progression to employment and/or further study, and personal development?

10. Is there evidence that curricular content and design is informed by recent developments in techniques of teaching and learning, by current research and scholarship, and by any changes in relevant occupational or professional requirements?

How does the assessment process work?

11. Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of all the intended learning outcomes?

12. Are there criteria that enable internal and external examiners to distinguish between different categories of achievement?

13. Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of assessment procedures?

14. Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function in developing student abilities?

15. What evidence is there that the standards achieved by learners meet the minimum expectations for the award, as measured against relevant subject benchmark statements and the qualifications framework?

How does the Department /Centre/ College review and improve the quality of the student learning experience?

16. How does the Department /Centre/ College review and seek to enhance the quality of the student learning experience? Does it have strategies for building upon its quality assurance processes to enhance the quality of its provision?

17. How effective is teaching in relation to curriculum content and programme aims?

18. How effectively do staff draw upon their research, scholarship or professional activity to inform their teaching?

19. How good are the materials provided to support learning?

20. Is there effective engagement with and participation by students?

21. Is the quality of teaching maintained and enhanced through effective staff development, peer review of teaching, integration of part-time and visiting staff, effective team teaching and induction and mentoring of new staff?

22. How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of student workloads?

How is students' learning supported?

23. Is there an appropriate overall strategy for academic support, including written guidance, which is consistent with the student profile and the overall aims of the provision?

24. Are there effective arrangements for admission and induction which are generally understood by staff and applicants?

25. How effectively is learning facilitated by academic guidance, feedback and supervisory arrangements?

26. Are the arrangements for support clear and generally understood by staff and students?

27. Are students offered careers guidance?

How satisfactory are learning resources and how are they deployed?

28. Is the collective expertise of the staff suitable and available for effective delivery of the curricula, for the overall teaching, learning and assessment strategy and for the achievement of the intended learning outcomes?

29. Are appropriate staff development opportunities available?

30. Is appropriate technical and administrative support available?

31. Is there an overall strategy for the deployment of learning resources?

32. How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of the provision of resources?

33. Is suitable teaching and learning accommodation available?

34. Are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and accessible?

35. Are suitable equipment and appropriate information technology facilities available to learners?

 

Report

The review will be serviced by the Quality Office and the Quality Administrator will produce the report from the review.

The report will be directed to the Chair of the Panel in the first instance for comments on factual accuracy. The report will then be submitted to the full panel for comment. Once the report has been approved it will be submitted to the department for comments on factual accuracy.

 

Follow up to the report

Once the report has been approved, the Department will formulate its response and action plan. These will be approved by the departmental Learning and Teaching Committee and Departmental Board.

The report and departmental response will be submitted to Standards Scrutiny Sub-Committee for discussion. A further report on action points will be considered by SSSC after one year (where required).