Guidelines for Periodic Review
Sections
- Policy
- The Panel
- The Process
- Student Participation
- The Self-Evaluation Statement
- Review Meeting
- Following the Review Meeting
Policy
The School's policy is to conduct periodic reviews of all its programmes. Each programme will usually be reviewed once every six years. Programmes will be reviewed either along with the programmes offered in the same Department , or, in the case of programmes which do not belong to any one department, alongside other such programmes which are similar in subject area.
The School’s policy on periodic review is informed by indicators of sound practice set out in Chapter B8 (Programme monitoring and review) of the Quality Assurance Agency's Quality Code for Higher Education which recommends that ‘institutions periodically undertake a broader review of the continuing validity and relevance of programmes offered.’ The QAA’s current model of Institutional ReviewAudit makes use of periodic review documentation and outcomes to review an institution’s quality assurance procedures.
Periodic Programme Reviews [PPRs] provide an opportunity for dialogue between Departments, Faculties and the School as represented by the review panel. Reviews will focus on learning and teaching, and will cover other issues as they impact upon the standard of awards and the quality of the student experience. The panel will need to have seen sufficient evidence to be able to comment in its report on the ‘continuing validity and relevance’ of the programmes under review, and to make targeted and constructive recommendations for improvement and enhancement. Reviews are also one of the ways in which the School learns of exceptionally good practice in individual departments and programmes, and commends it to others.
Periodic Programme Review also provides an opportunity to monitor the Department’s use of the School’s agreed quality assurance mechanisms. The panel will need to assure themselves, by reference to the documents provided, the Head of Department/Programme Convenor’s commentary on them, and information provided by those attending the review, that the following processes have been engaged with and their outcomes used to maintain standards and enhance quality in the programmes under review:
- UK Quality Code for Higher Education
- Subject Benchmark Statements
- Other external reference points of relevance to particular programmes may include the requirements of Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies [PSRBs], and the policies and procedures of the External System of the University of London.
In evaluating the provision under review, panels will also make use of relevant external reference points, including but not limited to guidance issued from time to time by HEFCE and the following documents published by the QAA:
- the Academic Infrastructure
- Framework for HE Qualifications
- Code of Practice
- Subject Benchmark Statements
- Other external reference points of relevance to particular programmes may include the requirements of Professional, Statutory & Regulatory Bodies [PSRBs], and the policies and procedures of the External System of the University of London.
The Panel
Reviews are under the remit of the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee [LTQC]. Panels consist of the following members:
- Chair of Review Panels (ex officio member of LTQC)
- 2 external subject specialists
- 2 or 3 members of academic staff from the pool of possible panel members
- A student from the pool of possible student members
- The Director of Academic Development
- The Quality Assurance Manager as Secretary
External subject specialists will be chosen by the Chair from a list of four nominated by the Department or programme convenor. Their role is to provide an external perspective and to guide the panel on the subject area and disciplinary trends. They may be asked to focus on issues of curriculum. An honorarium will be paid for their contribution to review, together with expenses incurred for travel and accommodation.
LTQC will not appoint as an external panel member a person who has been a Visiting Examiner, student or teacher on any programme of the School within the previous three years. Other previous contacts with the School will be considered by the Chair on an ad hoc basis to determine whether or not a conflict of interest exists. At least one of the external panel members should be external to the University of London.
Internal panel members will be chosen by the Chair from a pool of possible academic staff. They should not be members of the Department under review. Academic staff can be appointed to the pool of possible panel members at any time by LTQC.
Student panel members will be chosen by the Chair from a pool of possible volunteers, usually postgraduate research students who are interested in participating as part of their training. They should not be members of the Department under review. Students can be appointed to the pool of possible panel members at any time by LTQC.
The membership of panels, once chosen by the Chair, will be subject to the approval of LTQC.
The Process
A schedule for PPRs has been agreed for the period up to 2015/16. Dates for these reviews will be set under the usual process for fixing the School's Calendar and noted by LTQC.
The person responsible for leading the department's or programme's contribution to review, including drafting the Self-Evaluation Statement, is the Head of Department or Programme Convenor (in the case of non-Departmental programmes). The person responsible for co-ordinating the process, and the first point of contact for the Head of Department/Programme Convenor, is the Panel Secretary.
A full timeline for the review process is available. The Head of Department/Programme Convenor is expected to send their submission to the Panel Secretary no later than one month before the date of review. This will be circulated to panel members.
Student Participation
Students of the programmes under review are also invited to contribute ahead of the review firstly by means of an electronic questionnaire, and secondly by attendance at a focus group convened by elected student reps of the Department. Their comments (which may be made anonymously if preferred) will be made available to the Head of Department/Programme Convenor.
Students are also invited to attend a session of the review, to talk to the panel about their experience of the programmes under review. The perspective provided by contributions from students is highly valued by panel members and is an essential element of the review process.
The Self-Evaluation Statement
The Self-Evaluation Statement provides a qualitative account of the department and programme's activities, strengths (including examples of activities which the Head of Department/Programme Convenor considers constitute good practice) and weaknesses or challenges. The Department or programme is encouraged to be reflective, self-critical and forward thinking, and to consider whether it has robust systems in place to support its aspirations. The structure for the statement can be seen by using the link on the right. The SES is an evidence-based document and should reference the supporting documentation appended. A list of supporting documents which must also be submitted can be downloaded by using the link on the right. These provide further details of the programme(s) under review, and evidence of effective participation in the School's quality assurance procedures since its last review. The SES itself should not normally exceed 12 pages in length (excluding appendices).
The Faculty Office will support the Department/programme in collating supporting materials, some of which (such as statistical data) will be generated by other sections of the School. The Panel Secretary and Quality Assurance Manager are also available for support and to answer any questions regarding the process of review.
It is expected that the Head of Department/Programme Convenor will draft the SES in consultation with their colleagues. It would be appropriate for the SES to be discussed at a departmental meeting.
Review Meeting
The review itself consists of a meeting of the panel with members of the Department/programme, usually taking a full day. The panel will also meet with the Dean and Associate Deans of the Faculty, the Faculty Administrator, a group of students, and the Head of Department/Programme Convenor alone. They may also invite representatives of other School departments or services to attend where specific issues have arisen which concern them. A typical timetable is available for reference.
The Head of Department/Programme Convenor should encourage as many colleagues as possible to attend the review, giving them reasonable notice of the date. Non-teaching members of staff are not usually required to attend: in case of uncertainty, the Head of Department/Programme Convenor should consult the Panel Secretary, who will need to know the names of those attending the review no later than one week before.
Where the review meeting extends for more than half a day, refreshments including a light lunch will be provided for all those invited to attend.
Following the Review Meeting
Following the review, the panel will meet briefly to confirm their findings. The Panel Secretary will prepare a draft report, including findings of good practice and recommendations for action. These may be necessary or advisable, and may be addressed to the Department/programme, the Faculty or any officer of the School.
Once approved by panel members, the report will be forwarded to the Head of Department/Programme Convenor and to the Dean for comments on its factual accuracy. The Chair of the panel will consider any corrections made and amend the text where appropriate. The report will then be put to the next meeting of the Learning and Teaching Quality Committee for approval.
Following its approval by LTQC, the report will be published on the School's internal website and circulated to the following people:
- Head of Department/Programme Convenor
- Dean of Faculty
- Faculty Administrator
- Any officers/sections to whom recommendations are addressed
- Registrar & Secretary
- Pro-Director (Research & Enterprise)
The approved report will include a summary of its findings and recommendations to be circulated more widely, including to the Students’ Union.
The Department’s submission, including the SES, forms an appendix to the report, available on request from the Panel Secretary. Copies are retained as a record, and for consultation internally and by QAA review teams. It is likely that the review report will refer to and include quotations from the SES.
Those to whom recommendations are addressed are expected to respond to LTQC with details of action taken within two months. A further update will be requested one year after publication, and again considered by LTQC. LTQC may request additional responses to recommendations if updates on further action are required. Finally, a description of action taken in response to the review will form part of the submission to the following review.
