Introduction

An institution’s quality assurance procedures enable it to assure the standard of its awards and the quality of the learning opportunities it offers to students.

The procedures cover the design, approval, monitoring and review of modules and programmes; consultation with and feedback to students; and staff management insofar as it relates to teaching. Some such procedures are long-established, such as the appointment of external examiners, but others are newer, and most have been revised or amended in recent years in light of national requirements, changing student needs and expectations, or specific recommendations such as those following the School’s 2007 Institutional Audit.

Quality Assurance will not by itself create excellence in teaching and learning, but it can be a creative influence for staff and students as well as a necessary guarantee against poor practice. It is also a primary condition of the funding which allows us to continue teaching and research. We must comply with certain requirements, but will in any event wish to improve the quality of the programmes and academic support we offer.

This handbook provides a comprehensive guide to current procedures and systems. These are developed and reviewed through both internal and external consultation. Academic staff are repeatedly involved in shaping the systems and professional service colleagues also participate fully.

The primary intention of the Handbook is to help colleagues to comply with what has been agreed, to understand the formal aspects of our systems, and to appreciate what is and what is not discretionary.

This handbook has been compiled to provide a clear and comprehensive description of the School’s Quality Assurance [QA] systems. For each procedure, it lists those who can provide advice and support, and sets out the policy, process and timescale. A calendar of approximate dates involved in various QA processes is available on the QA Sharepoint page.  It is hoped that the calendar, and the Handbook as a whole, will prove useful to academic and non-academic staff as they go through the year.

A: Programme and module approval/amendment/withdrawal

Please note that all module and programme amendments, withdrawals and proposals are to be submitted on the QA section on Sharepoint. Please ensure that Departmental approval is granted prior to submission on Sharepoint.

Guidance, information and forms / templates are also available on this page. Forms sent to the generic QA email address will be returned.

Programme approval

Programmes offered by departments potentially lead to the award of SOAS degrees, and changes to the programme-level curriculum are therefore the responsiblity of Academic Board [AB]. From 2017/18 AB has delegated the approval of new and amended programmes to the Curriculum Quality Assurance Committee (CQAC), which has approved the following principles and process following their endorsement by Executive Board.

A1 Programme or module

Many Quality Assurance procedures, including those for approving new provision, are different for programmes and modules. This terminology is well-established but it may be useful to define it clearly, especially as new types of provision are introduced. By programme we mean a whole programme of study leading to an award, usually a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree, certificate or diploma.  Module can mean an element or unit which combines with others to constitute a programme, or a short (one year or less) offering which may or may not be credit-bearing, but from which students would not ‘graduate’ with an award. In cases of uncertainty advice can be sought from the QA Team.

Educational Developers from the Learning and Teaching Enhancement  have considerable expertise in the design and development of new programmes, and can be called on to advise. Please contact the Learning and Teaching Enhancement at academicdevelopment@soas.ac.uk.

A2 Principles for the approval of new programmes and amendments

  1. Until further notice, no programmes will be approved which would require additional staff recruitment unless the School had previously agreed a key strategic project, such as expansion in to a new academic area.
  2. No Programmes will be approved without a realistic expectation that they will break even within two years - this includes a robust enforcement of deadlines to ensure that all new programmes are approved in time to allow for timely and effective promotion ahead of the application cycle.
  3. New programmes will undergo a full review (academic and financial) within two years, with the possibility of closure to new applicants if they have not broken even.
  4. New undergraduate programmes should have a mainly fixed curriculum.  This enables a more accurate assessment of costs; reduces strain on systems such as timetable; and (most importantly) supports student success: a fixed curriculum at this level provide a clear structure for students' initial period in HE, for which academic guidance can more effectively be provided.  By seeing the first year as a coherent whole, departments can also more easily adapt it, to ensure that - by including appropriate formative feedback, methods of assessment and skills training - it facilitates transition and retention for the whole student body, including groups for whom there are currently attainment gaps.
  5. New undergraduate programmes, and existing programmes undertaking major amendments, should ensure that they comply with UK expectations (as set out in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (PDF), including ensuring students take a minimum of 90 credits at level 6.
  6. New two subject degrees will no longer be approved as amendments to one subject degrees, but will be expected to undergo the full approval process for a new programme, including testing of viability.
  7. From 2018/19, Comprehensive Reviews will include revalidation of existing programmes, testing their continued viability and contribution to SOAS strategy.

A3 What does a 'fixed curriculum' mean?

Year 1

Very limited choice - 75% fixed:

  1. 30 credits core (level4)
  2. 60-90 credits compulsory (level 4 or 5)
  3. 0-30 credits EITHER chosen from a limited list (no more that 4 modules*) OR a language module at an appropriate level.

Year 2

More space for choice, but still 50% fixed:

  1. 30 credits core (level 5)
  2. 30-60 credits compulsory (level 5 or 6)
  3. 0-30 credits chosen from a limited list (no more than 6 modules*, which should include some at least level 5 or above)
  4. 0-30 credits for an open option at any level, which may include a language module at an appropriate level.

Year 3

Far more scope for choice - 25-50% fixed:

  1. 30 credits core (level 6)
  2. 0-30 credits compulsory (level 6)
  3. 0-60 credits chosen from a limited list (no more that 6 modules*, all at level 6)
  4. 0-30 credits for an open option at level 5 or 6, which may include a language module at an appropriate level. (This must be included if it is not in Year 2.)

* Where a maximum number of modules is suggested, this is intended to be the maximum available in any given year.  If you anticipate that modules will run in alternate years, or that a number will be unavailable in any given year, this should be made clear.

Programme proposers are encouraged to consider whether any open options likely to be chosen in later years of a proposed programme need pre-requisite modules to be completed in Year 1. Committees approving programmes may take this into consideration if it requires a larger number of options to be included in the limited list than suggested above.

A4. Amendments to existing programmes

Amendments may include:

  • Change of title
  • Changes to the intended learning outcomes of the programme
  • Introduction of a year abroad or changes in the location of duration of existing arrangements
  • Changes to core (or compulsory) modules: addition or removal of such module requirements, amendments to existing core modules, or a change from one modules to another
  • Additions or removal of a large number of optional modules at once (six, or fewer if they constitute half or more of the options available to students)
  • Changes in the mode of delivery: e.g. introduction of a distance learning element or time spent at a partner institution.

These changes constitute an amendment to the programme and therefore need early approval, in order to publish correct information before prospective students accept offers of admissions.

The approval process is as follows:

  1. Informal discussion between department and Marketing & Student Recruitment, to establish possible demand for such a programme - this would usually form part of the Comprehensive Reviews, but can be carried out between reviews if there is strong justification for doing so;
  2. Informal discussion between department and Timetabling to allow for modelling of provisional curriculum;
  3. Identification by the Department of external subject specialists who can comment on the proposal, particularly the learning outcomes and structure of the programme;
  4. Department co-ordinates confirmation by professional services that the programme can be supported;
  5. Consideration of Part 1 of the Approval Form at Executive Board, and approval in principle of the development of a programme and of the nominated external subject specialists;
  6. Development by academic staff, recorded on Part 2 of the Approval Form and Module Approval/Amendment forms as necessary;
  7. Comment by the external subject specialist (and response or amendment by the programme team as appropriate);
  8. Consideration in departments;
  9. Approval by Head of Department;
  10. Forwarding to CQAC secretary for inclusion on the next agenda;
  11. Consideration and approval by CQAC;
  12. QA team informs all relevant parties of approval;
  13. Recording on UnitE by Curriculum Management team;
  14. Information about programme published online;
  15. Applicants apply and are admitted to programme;
  16. Teaching begins.

It is strongly recommended that approval takes place in time for it to be reflected in all published information, including the prospectus.  For undergraduate entry, this is produced in the spring in order to be available for prospective students well ahead of the UCAS opening in early September.  Approval in the early spring is therefore desirable and allows for a full programme of marketing and recruitment activity.

The last possible approval date allows steps 8-10 to take place before the closing date for application closes, but for very little recruitment activity.  Programme amendments will have twelve months added to the start date if they are brought forward after these dates.

Amendments will apply only to new students starting the programme from the approved start date.  It will be assumed that students already enrolled will be able to complete the programme in its existing format UNLESS permission is given by the Pro-Director (Learning & Teaching) for the change to include them.

Students should not be given information which has not yet been approved: this will not be accepted as a reason for making a change after the deadline.

The programme amendment forms are available to download on QA SharePoint pages and should be completed by the programme convenor(s).

A5. Approval of new programmes

The approval of new programmes has additional steps, as development of a programme should not be started until SOAS has agreed that is would be a valuable addition to its portfolio.  Programmes need early approval, in order to publish correct information before prospective students accept offers of admission.

The approval process is as follows:

  1. Informal discussion between department and Marketing & Student Recruitment, to establish possible demand for such a programme - this would usually form part of the Comprehensive Reviews, but can be carried out between reviews if there is strong justification for doing so;
  2. Informal discussion between department and Timetabling to allow for modelling of provisional curriculum;
  3. Identification by the Department of external subject specialists who can comment on the proposal, particularly the learning outcomes and structure of the programme;
  4. QA co-ordinates confirmation by professional services that the programme can be supported;
  5. Consideration of Part 1 of the Approval Form at Executive Board, and approval in principle of the development of a programme and of the nominated external subject specialists;
  6. Development by academic staff, recorded on Part 2 of the Approval Form and Module Approval/Amendment forms as necessary;
  7. Comment by the external subject specialist (and response or amendment by the programme team as appropriate);
  8. Consideration in departments;
  9. Approval by Head of Department;
  10. Forwarding to CQAC secretary for inclusion on the next agenda;
  11. Consideration and approval by CQAC;
  12. QA team informs all relevant parties of approval;
  13. Recording on UnitE by Curriculum Management team;
  14. Information about programme published online;
  15. Applicants apply and are admitted to programme;
  16. Teaching begins.

Any changes to the order of these steps could lead to incorrect information being given to students, causing unnecessary confusion, disrupting their studies, and breaching SOAS' obligations under Consumer Rights legislation.  Fines and other costs incurred as a result of such breaches will be passed on to the department responsible.

It is strongly recommended that approval takes place in time for it to be reflected in all published information, including the prospectus.  For undergraduate entry, this is produced in the spring in order to be available for prospective students well ahead of UCAS opening in early September.  Final approval in the early spring is therefore desirable and allows for a full programme of marketing and recruitment activity.

The last possible approval dates allows steps 8-10 to take place before the closing date for applications closes, but for very little recruitment activity.  Programme amendments will have twelve months added to the start date if they are brought forward after these dates.

Prospective students should not be given information which has not yet been approved: this will not be accepted as a reason for approving proposals after the deadline.

A programme proposer may be asked to attend a committee meeting at which their proposal is to be considered, if they are not already a member of that committee, and if in the opinion of the Chair there are likely to be further questions regarding the proposal.

The programme proposal forms and proposal timeline are available to download on QA SharePoint pages and should be completed by the programme proposer(s).

A7 Programme withdrawal

Programmes which are no longer offered, and which a department does not anticipate offering again in the near future, should be withdrawn. A department which has agreed to seek the withdrawal of a programme should submit the Withdrawal/Amendment Form to CQAC for consideration.

The programme withdrawal/amendment form is available to download on QA SharePoint pages and should be completed by the programme convenor(s).

A8 Module approval

CQAC will approve and keep under review the School’s procedures for the design and approval of changes to the curriculum at module level, including new modules, amendments and withdrawals and will monitor the approval of such changes by departments.

A department (or appropriate centre/institute) wishing to propose a new module should complete the module approval form (available on QA SharePoint pages) and submit to the appropriate Departmental Committee. Once approved, the form should be submitted to Quality Assurance (via the QA SharePoint pages). No module will be permitted to run if it has not been approved through this process.

In addition, new modules which are part of a programme approval and/or amendment should be submitted to CQAC for consideration as part of the programme approval/amendment submission process. 

For modules and programmes which will include work-based learning, please see the Careers Handbook (MS Word).

Non-departmental programmes

Institutes, professional services directorates and other sections of the School which do not belong to a Department may propose modules, and should contact the Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager for advice when planning to do so. TELSOC has approved a procedure for their consideration whereby scrutiny of a module approval form and supporting documentation is delegated to a panel consisting of academic and student members from across the School. The panel will carry out all parts of the procedure which would otherwise be undertaken by the department, and will make a recommendation to CQAC regarding approval of the proposal.

A9 Module changes

A department (or appropriate centre/institute) wishing to propose an amendment to a module should complete and submit the appropriate amendment form (available on QA SharePoint pages) to the appropriate Departmental Committee. Once approved, the form should be sent to Quality Assurance (via QA SharePoint pages). No module amendment will be permitted if it has not been approved through this process.

Module Amendments include:

  • Amendments to the Module title (if you are just changing the Title you should use the Module Title Amendment Form)
  • Amendments to the Module description/content
  • Amendments to the Module availability
  • Amendments to the Module status
  • Amendments to the teaching and learning pattern
  • Amendments to the assessment
  • An amendment to the credit level
  • An amendment to the FHEQ level
  • A change of department ownership of a current module

Changes to modules cannot normally be approved retrospectively. In exceptional circumstances such cases should be forwarded to the Chair of CQAC with a written statement from the Head of Department of the reasons for seeking retrospective approval. The statement should include evidence that all the students on the module have signed a document agreeing to the changes, or evidence that the details of the module in its amended form were in the documentation or electronic information supplied to students at the beginning of the module. In the latter case, an explanation should be provided as to why the documentation or electronic information supplied to students did not reflect the approved version of the module.

Non-departmental programmes

Institutes, professional services directorates and other sections of the School which do not belong to a Department may amend modules, and should contact the Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager for advice when planning to do so. TELSOC has approved a procedure for their consideration whereby scrutiny of a module amendment form and supporting documentation is delegated to a panel consisting of academic and student members from across the School. The panel will carry out all parts of the procedure which would otherwise be undertaken by the department, and will make a recommendation to CQAC regarding approval of the amendment.

A10 Module withdrawal

Modules which are no longer offered, and which a department does not anticipate offering again in the near future, should be withdrawn using the Module Withdrawal Form (available on QA SharePoint pages). It is the School’s policy to withdraw modules which have repeatedly failed to attract a minimum number of students (these quotas are set by Departments).

Module Withdrawal Forms should be submitted to the appropriate Departmental Committee for approval. Once approved, the form should be sent to Quality Assurance (via QA SharePoint pages).

A Module Withdrawal Form will also need to be completed where a new Module supersedes a current module and the current Module is to be withdrawn.

Non-departmental programmes

Institutes, professional services directorates and other sections of the School which do not belong to a Department may withdraw modules, and should contact the Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager for advice when planning to do so. TELSOC has approved a procedure for their consideration whereby scrutiny of a module withdrawal form and supporting documentation is delegated to a panel consisting of academic and student members from across the School. The panel will carry out all parts of the procedure which would otherwise be undertaken by the department, and will make a recommendation to CQAC regarding approval of the withdrawal.

B: Monitoring and Review of Programmes and Modules

B.1 Visiting examiners

The appointment of Visiting Examiners, and the collection of their reports, is under the remit of the Registry. The Quality Assurance team can advise on any questions regarding these systems.

NB – the procedures below apply to Visiting Examiner participation in the examination process. These procedures apply in respect of all taught courses (including distance and online learning), as well as the Language Centre, CISD, IFCELS and the Certificate and Diploma in Asian Arts.

B.1.1 Policy

Each board considering candidates for degrees, diplomas or certificates awarded by the University of London or by SOAS must have at least one Visiting Examiner, being an examiner from outside the University of London. Boards may also have an Intercollegiate Visiting Examiner, being an examiner from a University of London institution other than SOAS.

The primary duty of a Visiting Examiner is to ensure that the standard of the awards of the University of London in the field of study concerned is consistent with that of the national university system. Where appointed, this is also the duty of an Intercollegiate Visiting Examiner, who has the additional duty of ensuring consistency in the standard of awards of the University of London.

Visiting Examiners oversee the setting of examination papers, have the right to inspect any examination script or other assessed examination material within the purview of the relevant board of examiners and may be asked to adjudicate on borderline cases. They attend meetings of the board at which significant decisions are taken. The views of Visiting Examiners are particularly influential in the case of disagreement on the final determination of an award.

Visiting Examiners must be persons of seniority and experience who are able to command authority. The appointment process is conducted annually. Visiting Examiners may not normally serve for more than four consecutive years, with a minimum gap of five years between each period of office (exceptions can be made by the Curriculum, Quality Assurance Committee (CQAC) where it is particularly difficult to appoint examiners, for instance in the case of languages not taught elsewhere in the UK). CQAC approves the appointment of Visiting Examiners to the School’s examination boards.

B.1.2 Process

The appointment process for examiners for undergraduate and taught masters programmes is described in detail in the following documents:

  • General instructions for the appointment of examiners and the conduct of examinations for first degrees of the University of London taught and examined by SOAS
  • General instructions for the appointment of examiners and the conduct of examinations for postgraduate taught degrees of the University of London taught and examined by SOAS

These and other relevant documents, including an electronic version of the Visiting Examiners’ report form, can be found on the registry web pages.

Visiting Examiners are required to make a written report each year, on a form provided for that purpose by the Registry. Visiting Examiners may, if they wish, send a separate confidential report to the Director & Principal. The procedure for handling reports is as follows:

  1. Each report is received electronically and acknowledged by the Quality Assurance team [QA] in the Registry (or designated member of staff on behalf of QA)
  2. QA logs receipt of the report and becomes responsible for safe-keeping of the original and maintenance of the electronic archive.
  3. QA uploads the reports digitally to the BLE.
  4. QA alerts the Department Managers that the reports have been uploaded onto the BLE, to be discussed and scrutinised by the Department at the beginning of the next Academic session.
  5. QA emails the Chairs of the Sub-Boards with individual VE reports, making clear that they are responsible for addressing Sub-Board related issues raised by the VE and that programme related matters are to be addressed by programme convenors, the Head of Department and Associate Director for Teaching Quality as part of Annual Programme Review (see below).
  6. The Chair of Sub-Board scrutinises the report for comments (liaising with academics, Department administration and QA) and actions as required, with a report on all actions taken to be made at the next Sub-Board (updates on action taken being a standing item on each Sub-Board agenda).
  7. The Chair of Sub-Board provides feedback to the VE (copying in the programme convenor(s), Head of Department and Associate Director for Teaching Quality and QA), addressing issues raised and action taken.
  8. Programme convenors and Heads of Department address VE comments as part of Annual Programme Review (APR) (see below). As part of APR, the Associate Director for Teaching Quality makes a cumulative report to TeLSOC on points raised by VEs and action taken.
  9. Chair of TeLSOC to respond if necessary to VEs, liaising with Chair(s) of Sub-Board(s) on any School-wide issues identified at TeLSOC.
  10. Summary of major issues and action taken in response to VE reports in annual report from TeLSOC to CQAC and the Pro-Director (Learning and Teaching).
  11. VE reports and responses by Sub-Board Chairs to be made available (via Moodle) to students.

B.2 Student Evaluation of Modules

The Student Evaluation of Modules scheme is co-ordinated by the Quality Assurance Team.

B.2.1 Policy

Student feedback is a crucial part of the monitoring of modules and teaching in the School. Over the years it has led to significant improvements in module content and teaching methods.

The School regards the purpose of module evaluation as being threefold:

  1. to provide information to assist tutors to reflect on their module design and teaching;
  2. to encourage students to reflect on their own learning;
  3. to inform the annual monitoring of programmes.

It is therefore the position of the School that:

  • Every member of teaching staff is required to monitor and, where necessary and possible, to seek to improve her or his contribution to student learning. One important means of doing so is through the systematic evaluation of modules by the students who undertake them.
  • The views of students, including suggestions for possible improvements, should be obtained on all modules. At a minimum, formal student evaluations should be obtained on each module once a year by the use of Student Evaluation of Modules questionnaires. Departments may obtain evaluations more frequently and by other means (eg departmental meetings, focus groups etc) if they wish. The outcomes of this process and the effectiveness of actions taken should be fed into the annual programme review (APRs)
  • Students should be informed of actions taken via both the first departmental meeting of the new session and the relevant School-wide committees.

B.2.2 Process

It should be made clear to students why they are asked to evaluate modules, what happens after they have provided evaluations and how they will get feedback on the action taken as a result of their feedback. The method for obtaining module evaluation by students should be published to students. For example, procedures should be clearly stated in appropriate module documentation and/or online. Staff are also encouraged to make reference to the evaluation methods at induction events and/or at the beginning of each module.

Timescales for the completion of the process are given below and these confirm that this evaluation takes place at the end of the running of the module. This inevitably means that it will be too late to change anything for the benefit of current students, and it is therefore good practice to conduct some less formal evaluations mid-course so that action might be taken, or responses offered, in a timely manner if needed. 

The Student Evaluation of Modules surveys are completed online. The surveys are then analysed, and the QA team circulated an automatically created breakdown of the quantitative responses with qualitative responses verbatim, to Heads of Department/programme convenors.  Colleagues in Planning provide further detailed analysis of the data at Department and School wide levels which is shared and discussed both with Departments and at Committees.

Head of Department/programme convenor

  • discusses issues raised with individual staff members where necessary
  • ensures that issues raised in student feedback and action taken or planned as a result are reported to the first Departmental meeting of the academic year at which student representatives are present
  • reports on issues raised in student feedback and action taken or planned as a result in Annual Programme Review

Associate Director

  • ensures that Department/programme is supported in acting on issues raised in student feedback
  • considers student feedback across the Department and reports to TELSOC, highlighting good practice identified and comments with implications for more than one programme/Department.

Quality Assurance Team

  • provides data to Planning for expansive analysis, which is then shared with Department colleagues and TELSOC and other relevant groups for further discussion and action.

B.2.3 Timescale

Student Evaluation of Modules surveys are emailed to and completed by students at the end of term 1 for term 1 modules and modules that have different lecturers in terms 1 and 2. For term 2 and full year modules, the surveys are emailed at the end of term 2. Reports for individual modules with statistical analysis and comments are emailed to convenors and Heads of Department after the surveys have ended.  Summary departmental, faculty and School reports are produced by the QA Team during the summer.  Indepth analysis and reports are prepared over the summer by Planning and are sent to the relevant Heads of Department and presented to the relevant committees.

B.2.4 Monitoring

A review of the methods of obtaining student evaluations and of responsiveness to student evaluations forms part of the Annual Programme Review and Comprehensive Departmental review of programmes. TELSOC will monitor the effectiveness of the policy for student evaluation and revise the procedures as appropriate.

B.3 National Student Survey

In addition to the internal Student Evaluation of Modules, and other student surveys undertaken periodically, SOAS students participate in the National Student Survey. Introduced by HEFCE in 2005, the NSS undertakes to survey all final year undergraduates in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, publishing results online as part of the data available to prospective applicants and other interested parties. SOAS works with students to maximise their participation in the annual survey, so that representative feedback can be collected and published. The results of the NSS are reported to TELSOC and other committees annually and departments use them in planning enhancements to programmes. Programme convenors are encouraged to include consideration of this feedback along with other sources when completing their Annual Programme Reports.

B.4 Annual programme review

Annual Programme Review [APR] of taught programmes is co-ordinated by the QA team and Department Offices, both of whom can advise on the details of the procedure, including how supporting data, student feedback etc will be made available to programme convenors. Those completing review reports should read the guidance notes before completing the review report templates. For review of Postgraduate Research Degrees, please seek advice if required from the Doctoral School.

B.4.1 Policy

The purpose of APR is to ensure that, in line with QAA requirements, all programmes are routinely monitored to evaluate their continuing effectiveness and currency, with actions being identified to remedy any shortcomings.

APR collects together information provided by external examiners, student feedback, and management information provided by the Quality Assurance Team. It provides a concise snapshot of one year in the delivery of a programme, and contributes both to annual overview taken by the department and School, and to comprehensive review of the programme through CDR. APR is conducted for all programmes, both taught and research.

B.4.2 Process for review of taught programmes

Following discussion at various committees during the session, and approval by the Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes Committee, revised procedures for the annual review of taught programmes were introduced for the review of the 2010/11 session. Subsequent end of session reviews have taken place and minor adjustments have been made each year. Please see the guidance notes for full details.

Reporting takes place at programme and departmental levels by means of electronically submitted proformas. At programme level, the programme convenor reflects on input from module convenors, students and external stakeholders (including external examiners) as well as programme data supplied by the Planning Department before providing his/her own overview of the academic health of the programme. The programme convenor must confirm that the programme specification either remains appropriate for the forthcoming academic session or is being revised in line with the School’s amendment procedures. There is also the opportunity to identify and offer for broader dissemination examples of good practice arising from the operation of the programme. Targeted action plans are formulated to address any issues.
Programme level reports are then referred to the Head of Department who produces his/her own report to confirm that satisfactory programme reports have been received and considered at departmental meetings and that feedback on matters of concern raised and associated actions has been passed to students/examiners as appropriate. The departmental report also confirms that examples of good practice have been disseminated and that programme specifications are accurate or are being amended. Again, action planning is used to address any issues.
The cycle is completed when departmental reports are considered at a departmental meeting. This stage also asks that Head of Department highlight any matters relating to the implementation of good practice or matters of concern which the TELSOC might assist with. Finally, the department report includes a summary of themes arising from external examiner reports. Department reports are then considered by the Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes Committee.

B.4.3 Timescale

Please see the annual programme review cycle diagram (PDF) for details of the operation of the cycle for the review of taught programmes. 

B.5 Comprehensive Departmental Review

The School’s policy is to conduct periodic reviews of all its programmes. Each programme will normally 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. This process is untaken as part of the Comprehensive Departmental Review (CDR).

Comprehensive Departmental Reviews come under the remit of the TELSOC, and are supported by the Quality Assurance Team and the Student and Acdemic Support Team. Panels report to TELSOC following reviews, and make recommendations to the Department and to central departments or committees of the School as appropriate. 

B.6 Portfolio Review

B.6.1 Policy

Portfolio Review is the process of reviewing the modules offered by a Department (or other academic unit) and deciding which of them is viable to continue to run in the academic session after next. It is the first stage of the planning process, and feeds in to the approval of new programmes, decisions regarding staff and student recruitment, and other aspects of planning. The process by which Portfolio Review is carried out was approved by Governing Body in April 2010. The procedure is co-ordinated by the QA team, and supported by Department offices. 

B.6.2 Process

Portfolio Review is carried out at the very beginning of the academic year, at the same time as Annual Programme Review. Heads of Department receive a list of all the modules offered by their Department which in the previous session either (a) did not meet their quota of students (the quota agreed for 2009/10 was eight students) or (b) were on the books but did not run. The spreadsheet includes historical recruitment figures for modules which have been eligible for portfolio review previously, and comments made at that time by the Department, for information and updating. They are asked to put each of these modules into one of four categories for action in the coming year, and return the list to the QA team by the end of September. These actions are then considered and approved in Term 1, and subsequently implemented by the relevant committees, so that the status of each module is clear in plenty of time for online module registration to open between Terms 2 and 3.

Where a department approves categorisation of a module as (4) for the first time, their recommendation will be forwarded to Academic Board for confirmation. Thereafter the module will remain in category 4 until the next Comprehensive Departmental Review, when panels (which include external subject specialists) will be asked to make a recommendation as to its continuation. CDR panels will receive all annual reviews for the period and check that planned actions have been carried through.

C: Research students

Committees

  • Department Research Committee
  • Department Board
  • Teaching Learning and Student Outcomes Committee
  • Academic Board

Advice

  • Academic Support Managers
  • Associate Directors (Research)
  • Doctoral School
  • Secretary to TELSOC (Quality Assurance Lead Officer)

Sections

  • C.1 Admission
  • C.2 Monitoring
  • C.3 Assessment

The School’s Postgraduate Research Handbook contains the requirements which apply to research students. Particular attention should be given to the Code of Practice for Research Degrees and the Procedures in Respect of Research Degree (MPhil/PhD) Registration. The handbook, which also contains more general information of use to SOAS students, is given to students at registration. Those supervising research students are expected to familiarise themselves with the handbook, which is updated each year.

It is also important to note that external requirements for the supervising and monitoring of research students are slightly more prescriptive than those concerning undergraduate students, because the Research Councils have agreed that certain of their requirements should be audited through the QAA. A summary of external requirements can be found in the QAA's Quality Code.

C.1 Admission

The form for recording recommendations to admit research students is accompanied by detailed guidelines on the process and the conditions which applicants must meet to be suitable for consideration. Both form and guidelines are available from the Registry. A decision to recommend admission should be signed by two members of staff, including the Departmental Research Tutor or Head of Department. The School’s Admissions Policy provides further information on this.

C.2 Monitoring

C.2.1 Logbooks

The introduction of logbooks for research students was identified by the QAA as a feature of good practice in the School's 2007 Institutional Audit, and all students admitted subsequently have been supplied with a compulsory electronic logbook on the BLE.

Logbooks have now been replaced with PhD Manager (a password-protected system). This is the project management tool used for all PhD students. PhD students will record all supervisory meetings and all milestones (e.g. upgrade, annual reports and examination). The record of supervision meetings can be particularly useful in the unfortunate case that difficulties arise between a student and supervisor; but even when the student's studies are problem-free, they provide a valuable record of discussions, decisions and achievements such as publications and presentations. Completion of all forms on PhD Manager is the joint responsibility of the student and supervisor, supervisors may find that their encouragement is needed to ensure its most productive use. The supervisory meeting log should continue to be maintained while the student is enrolled as a PhD student at SOAS.

C.2.2 Annual reviews

Annual reviews are compulsory for all research students. The form is sent by the Registry to the supervisor, who should complete it in full. The form includes space for the student's signature, to indicate that they have seen their supervisor's comments, though return of the form should not be delayed by waiting for the student's signature if for some reason it is not promptly obtainable. The annual report form also has a section for the student to complete, which is returned directly to the Registry: supervisors should encourage students to return this form. The supervisor's report should be copied and kept in the logbook; the student's report may be logged or not, as the student wishes.

C.3 Assessment

Details for students and supervisors of other aspects of the examination procedures can be found in the University of London’s publication Regulations for the Degrees of MPhil and PhD. Responsibility for the assessment of research degrees remains primarily the responsibility of the University, although from 2008/09 SOAS is responsible for the appointment of examiners, the procedure for which is available on the registry web pages. Examiners’ reports from PhD viva examinations are sent to the Registry, who forward them to supervisors and Associate Directors. Associate Directors are asked to note any recurrent themes, whether positive or potentially concerning, in their annual reports to TELSOC. Associate Directors also discuss with the supervisor any cases where the thesis is referred or failed.​

D: Staff Support and Monitoring

Committees

  • Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes Committee [TELSOC]

Advice

  • Department Managers
  • Head of Staff Learning and Organisational Development
  • Academic Registrar
  • Secretary to TELSOC (Quality Assurance Lead Officer)

Sections

  • D.1 New staff
  • D.2 Peer Observation of Teaching
  • D.3 Staff Development Reviews

The policies and procedures the School has for supporting and monitoring its academic staff form part of its quality assurance systems. It is intended that such procedures should represent good practice not only in human resource management, but also in assuring and enhancing the quality of the teaching provided to students studying at SOAS.

D.1 New staff

Staff Development documents set out procedures for supporting and monitoring new academic staff during their probationary period. These include the appointment of mentors; formal review meetings at set intervals; observation of teaching and completion of the SOAS Observation Record; and, where appropriate, additional staff development such as learning and teaching courses. Further useful information is available on the Staff Development website  and (on mentoring specifically) . The Academic Teaching Development Programme offered by the Learning and Teaching Development, although open to all staff, may be of particular interest to those new to SOAS, and details of this and the Graduate Assistant Training Scheme Programme can be found at on the Learning and Teaching Development pages.

D.2 Peer Observation of Teaching

D.2.1 Policy

In 2005, the School agreed a procedure for the use of Peer Observation of Teaching [POT] by all Departments. The intention is not to integrate POT with other staff development systems, but for it to run alongside them as a purely peer-operated, developmental tool.

Each member of staff should be observed in one class or lecture at least once every year. The role of the observer is to identify good practice and to share with the colleague under observation constructive feedback, including any suggestions for enhancement. POT is compulsory for full-time staff who are beyond their probationary period, and voluntary for fractional and hourly-paid staff.

D.2.2 Procedure

Details and downloadable forms can be found on the Staff Development website. Staff members are themselves responsible for ‘pairing up’ for reciprocal observation. Heads of department will remind staff early in Term 1 to submit the names of their agreed observation partner, and provide forms to record observations. Heads of Department will pair off any members of staff who have not provided the name of a peer observer by Reading Week. Peer observation is about teaching methods rather than content, so partners need not be from the same Department

POT can then be carried out at any mutually convenient time before the end of Term 2. The observer should share with his/her colleague any perceived strengths and weaknesses of the session. Any notes made during the observation are confidential, and should be kept by the teacher under observation for their own use. The observer records a short and neutral list of topics discussed on the POT form, which is returned to the Staff Development office as a record of the observation and a list of training needs.

D.3 Staff Development Reviews

Annual Staff Development Reviews are compulsory for all staff beyond their probationary period.  SDRs are a confidential discussion between staff and their managers (Heads of Department in the case of most academic staff). A form is sent to the Staff Development Office to confirm that the review has taken place and to identify any training or development needs over the coming year; otherwise all records of the discussion are retained by the manager.

E: QAA Quality code

Committees

  • Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes [TELSOC]
  • Student Experience and Outcomes Committee [SEOC]

Advice

  • Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager
  • Academic Registrar

The Quality Assurance Agency’s Quality Code replaces the guidance known as the Academic Infrastructure. It provides a shared means of describing academic standards in UK higher education. It is the basis of all quality assurance in the sector, including Institutional Review.  The Quality Code was revised in 2018 and is now know as the revised UK Quality Code for Higher Education (the Code).

The Code will continues to fulfil its role as the cornerstone for quality in UK higher education, protecting the public and student interest, and championing UK higher education's world-leading reputation for quality.

Structure

The revised Code is based on three elements that together provide a reference point for effective quality assurance:

1.  Expections which clearly and succinctly express the outcomes providers should achieve in setting and maintaining the standards of their awards, and for managing the quality of their provision.

2.  Practices representing effective ways of working that underpin the delivery of the expectations, and will deliver positive outcomes for students. These include:

  • Core practices that must be demonstrated by all UK higher education providers as part of assuring their standards and quality;
  • Common practices that will be applied by providers in line with their missions, their regulatory context and the needs of their students.  These are practices common to the underpinning of quality in all UK providers but are not regulatory requirements for providers in England.

3.  Advice and guidance which will help establish and new providers alike to develop and maintain effective quality assurance practices.

For the full UK Quality Code please see the QAA website. 

F: Institutional review

Committees

  • Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes Committee [TELSOC]
  • Academic Board
  • Governing Body

Advice

  • Secretary to TELSOC (Quality Assurance Lead Officer)
  • Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager
  • Academic Registrar

Like every other HEFCE-funded institution in England and Wales, SOAS is subject to periodic Institutional Review by the Quality Assurance Agency. The last review was in March 2013, and the review report, which can be found at QAA Code​, confirmed that the School meets UK expectations in all areas. Regardless of the outcome of an Institutional Review, recommendations are made for ways in which the institution can improve its management of quality and standards. SOAS's action plan shows the actions which have been and will be taken to address these recommendations, and will be monitored and updated by Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager under the oversight of Teaching, Learning and Student Outcomes Committee.

Institutional Review involves every part of the School which contributes to teaching or to supporting the student experience. The submission which the School makes before the reviewers’ visit is discussed by committees at every level, up to and including Governing Body. The reviewers can then request any additional document, and meet with any member of staff, in order to make their judgement about the School’s maintenance of standards. Recommendations made in the review report may refer to any area of the School’s provision. QAA Institutional Review reports are public documents, and their findings are widely noted in the sector and beyond. A critical report can be damaging for an institution in terms of reputation and recruitment (of both staff and students).

The School’s preparation for, and response to, Institutional Review, is co-ordinated by the Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager, under the remit of TELSOC. Every support will be provided for members of staff who are required to participate, but it is hoped that colleagues will recognise the importance of prompt and robust action both in preparing for this occasional scrutiny and in response to recommendations thereafter.

G: Good practice policy

Background

Strategy 

In SOAS Vision and Strategy 2016-2020 (PDF; 2mb), SOAS sets out certain aspirations and commitments for the current period. These include excellence in teaching and student support; innovation and distinctiveness in programme design; self-reflection with the aim of continuous improvement; and recognition and reward for excellence in its staff.

These commitments are supported by the more detailed objectives contained in the Learning and Teaching Strategy, notably:

To ensure that good practice in curriculum development from both internal and external sources is disseminated widely.

The strategy connects excellence in teaching, and institutional support for excellent and innovative teachers, with high academic standards and the recruitment, retention and achievement of students.

Institutional Review 2013

In its Institutional Review of SOAS in 2013, the QAA recommended that the School should (by the start of academic session 2013/14):

“ensure that a more effective system is put in place at School level to facilitate the dissemination of  good practice good practice.”

The review report notes that this recommendation is in line with potential improvements identified in the Student Written Submission and the School’s own intentions outlined in strategic documents, as above.

As part of its action in response to the recommendation, the School’s Learning and Teaching Quality Committee agreed to publish a Good Practice Policy, drawing together the ways in which Good Practice is defined, identified and disseminated at SOAS. The Policy will be monitored by TeLSOC and made publically available via the online Quality Assurance Handbook.

Definition 

Good practice is the term widely used in the sector for any practice or way of working in teaching or student support which ‘makes a particularly positive contribution’. This contribution could be to any aspect of the student experience and in any part of the institution. The practice need not be ground-breakingly innovative; it may be new to SOAS or new to the Department or programme, but it should go beyond agreed policies and procedures.

It is hoped that Good Practice can be particularly highlighted where it supports the School's strategic objectives, for instance by supporting the development of collaborative partnerships and inter-disciplinary programmes; by broadening the range of contexts in which students learn; or by the use of new technologies to support student success. It is not intended, however, to dismiss the possibility of good practice in 'traditional' teaching, and excellence in this context remains something the School will recognise and encourage.

Identification

Good practice is in most cases first identified informally. SOAS values the supportive and collaborative atmosphere which encourages colleagues and students to identify, share and replicate practice which they find to be especially good. Nevertheless a number of formal mechanisms also exist, one of the purposes of which is to ensure that good practice is identified systematically and disseminated throughout the School.

Good practice may be formally identified…

  • by student:
    • National Student Survey
    • Student Evaluation of Modules
    • Student representation on committees and at departmental meetings
    • Staff/students fora
    • Nominations to the Director's Teaching Prize
  • by external advisors:
    • Visiting examiner reports
    • Comprehensive Departmental Review
    • Programme proposals
  • by colleagues:
    • Peer observation of teaching
    • Nominations to the Director's Teaching Prize
    • Nomination, or support for an application, for academic promotion

Annual and Comprehensive Departmental Review may themselves provide an opportunity for departments to highlight good practice, but are also a mean of collating examples received via the routes above.

Dissemination

Formal QA procedures such as student feedback results, APR and CDR reports, and visiting examiner reports, are considered at Departmental meetings, which should have student representatives present. Each then has a route for consideration at School level, enabling good practice to be identified and minuted, facilitating its exploration by other departments. In addition to the usual minutes and reports of committees at which good practice has been discussed, each Department has its own internal communications, via newsletters, emails and online, in which good practice can be shared and commended.

The Director’s Teaching Prize is an important vehicle for capturing exceptionally good practice by individual teachers or teaching teams, and the criteria and procedure are set out at the Teaching Prize web pages. Teachers may put themselves forward or be nominated by students, colleagues or their Head of Department. Prizes are awarded at the annual Graduation ceremony, ensuring maximum visibility and prestige. Finalists are then asked to contribute to a series of workshops and/or podcasts showcasing their teaching practice.

From 2013/14 content contributed by DTP finalists will be available on the BLE as the starting point for a database of recognised best practice, which will in due course collate examples drawn from all the various identification routes described above.

The Students' Union is also committed to recognising and disseminating good practice, and does so via its network of student representatives, supported by the website soasunion and in its annual Educational Priorities.

Contacts

For more information on good practice at SOAS, please contact:

  • Curriculum, Assessment and Quality Assurance Manager (Cicero Souza, cs99@soas.ac.uk)
  • Academic Development Manager (Melanie-Marie Haywood, mh127@soas.ac.uk)
  • SU Co-President for Democracy and Education

H: Validation

SOAS is able to validate degrees on behalf of other institutions which would otherwise not have the authority do so. To do this, SOAS and the prospective partner institution work together to ensure that the programme that is being validated meets the standards that we meet when delivering our own programmes.

As the awarding body, SOAS is ultimately responsible for the quality and standards of all its programmes, including those designed and delivered by another institution. When approving the validation of an award that is designed and delivered by a partner, the School is confirming that it has the relevant disciplinary expertise and experience to approve, monitor and, if necessary, deliver teaching, learning and assessment.

Consequently, the framework to manage validation activity must be robust and ensure that programmes and the learning experiences delivered by its partners are of a high quality that is commensurate with other SOAS awards.

The Validation Handbook, available for download on the right hand side of this page, sets out this process in full.