Guidance for Annual Monitoring

Transcription

1 Guidance for Annual Monitoring Author Academic Quality Services Date created July 2015 Due for review July 2016 Approval route Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee 1 P a g e

2 Annual Monitoring 2014/15 Guidance Academic Quality Services July 2015

3 Annual Monitoring 2014/15 This AMR Guidance is intended to provide guidance to LJMU and partner staff on the process of Annual Monitoring and describes how to produce an Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) for the academic session 2014/15. It is part of a series produced by Academic Quality Services (AQS), which are available on the website at: and are linked to the Academic Framework documentation. Access to the Web Hub AMR facility is available at: AMR deadlines in 2015/16 (reporting on activity for 2014/15) Programme AMR: 20 th November 2015 Internal: This is the deadline for submission to the School Director and Quality Enhancement Officer (QEO), following approval by Board of Study. Please note: School scrutiny of draft programme AMRs should take place prior to submission to the BoS for approval. Arrangements for this will be made by the School Director. Collaborative: This is the deadline for submission to the LJMU School Director and Quality Support Officer (QSO). Please note: Programme AMR should be subject to LJMU School-level scrutiny prior to submission to the Board of Study. Arrangements for this will be made by the LJMU School Director in liaison with the Link Tutor. School Director report: 18 th December 2015 Reports should be sent to QEO to ensure availability for January 2016 meeting of Faculty Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (FQAEC). Faculty report: 3 rd February 2016 Reports should be sent to the Quality Assurance and Enhancement Committee (QAEC) Secretary Please see section 8 for information about the reporting cycle for programmes with non-traditional delivery patterns

4 CONTENTS Page No. Section 1. Scope and Purpose 1 Section 2. Process 2 Section 3. Programme-level AMR reports 4 Section 4. School Director report 8 Section 5. Academic Quality Services (AQS) review report 10 Section 6. Reports to QAEC/CQSP 11 Section 7. Guidance for teaching-out programmes 12 Section 8. Programmes with non-traditional delivery patterns 13 APPENDICES available for download from Appendix 1. Contacts for advice on the annual monitoring process 14 Appendix 2. Template for School Director report 15 Appendix 3. Template for AQS review report 17 Appendix 4. Template for Faculty report to QAEC 20

5 SECTION 1: SCOPE AND PURPOSE The QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education, which underpins and informs LJMU s model for programme design, approval, monitoring and review, emphasises the importance of annual programme monitoring in enabling institutions to reflect on the learning opportunities students have experienced, the academic standards achieved, and their continuing currency and relevance. The Code also highlights the role of annual monitoring as an opportunity to reflect on the academic provision and consider changes to enhance the student learning experience. In evaluating the performance of the programmes, academic teams should draw on a range of evidence, including student progression data, external examiners reports, student feedback, and reports from PSRBs and other relevant external bodies. The Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) process covers all taught undergraduate and postgraduate provision delivered at LJMU and partner institutions. It is designed to enable programme teams, School Directors and Faculties to: evaluate achievement against institutional expectations for academic standards (in particular student attainment, retention and completion); identify any problems which need to be resolved; promote the identification and sharing of good practice; reflect on feedback obtained from students. In addition the process provides a mechanism by which the Collaborative Quality Standards Panel (CQSP) can maintain an oversight of collaborative provision delivered in association with partner institutions. The AMR is based on a series of reports on performance against institutional indicators, using data derived from student performance at module and programme level. The data reports are downloaded from the Web Hub facility and are intended to support academic staff and managers in their consideration of the provision in their area. The AMRs are intended to provide an evaluation of performance, identification of good practice and action being taken to address those areas where there is scope for enhancement in approaches to learning, teaching and assessment. It is recognised that programme monitoring is a continuous activity that takes place throughout the year, managed by Boards of Study. The purpose of the annual reports at programme, School and Faculty level is to ensure there is institutional oversight of the continuing quality of the University s academic awards, and to assure the University that appropriate action is being taken at all levels to enhance the quality of the learning experience. The focus of the AMR process is on academic quality and standards. However comments about central professional services may be raised by staff and students during the year and any issues regarding the quality of central professional service provision should be included in the AMR. 1 P a g e

6 SECTION 2: PROCESS This section outlines the process and identifies those involved in the consideration of AMRs at each level of reporting. An important feature of the reporting process is the way in which it focuses on responsibility for action at each level and promotes discussion between: Programme teams and student representatives Programme leaders and programme team members Partner institutions and LJMU (via the Link Tutor) School Directors and Programme Leaders Faculty Management Team (FMT), FQAEC and Directors QAEC, FQAEC and CQSP September Report templates, records and data will be available via the Web Hub AMR facility. September/October Using the Web Hub AMR facility programme teams should analyse and evaluate the information and prepare a report based on this analysis. The programme data is uploaded from the Web Hub AMR site to the appropriate report template and the AMR completed. For collaborative provision: the Link Tutor works with the partner programme team to prepare the AMR. This will include facilitating the downloading of Web Hub data into the report template and sharing this with the collaborative partner programme team. October The programme AMR is considered by the LJMU School Director and submitted for approval at a Board of Study at which student representatives are present. Approval at the Board of Study must be recorded in the minutes and the programme AMR coversheet should be updated by the Programme Leader to confirm this has happened. November The Programme Leader submits an electronic copy of the AMR to the LJMU School Director and the appropriate member of Academic Quality Services (AQS). November - December The Director prepares and submits a School report to the Dean, the Chair of FQAEC and relevant member of AQS, drawing on programme-level AMR (internal and collaborative) and available Web Hub data. The Director reports back to Programme Leaders on action to be taken at School or Faculty level to address issues identified in programme AMR. 2 P a g e

7 November January AQS review reports are prepared and shared with the relevant Programme Leader and LJMU School Director. January March Internal provision: The QEO prepares a report to the Faculty on compliance and engagement to be submitted to FQAEC January The Associate Dean (Quality) (ADQ) prepares a Faculty report for consideration by FQAEC and FMT, identifying action required at Faculty and University level to safeguard the academic standards and quality of the programmes. The combined report is submitted to FQAEC January Action to be taken at Faculty level should be agreed with, and monitored by, FMT. Collaborative provision: overview reports are prepared by AQS for consideration by the CQSP at the January and March meetings. February Faculty reports submitted to QAEC for consideration. QAEC agrees recommendations, identifies actions and refers relevant issues, for further action, to Academic Board and/or SMT. The electronic copy of the programme AMR and the AQS review report will be uploaded by the AQS to the relevant programme folder on the institution-wide shared computer drive at \\jt2\qus-docs. This drive is restricted and enables read-only access for use by LJMU staff; it is not visible to external users. March/April The Annual Academic Quality Report prepared for Academic Board by AQS to summarise issues and any further action required at institutional level. May/June FQAECs receive reports from School Directors to provide an update on the use of AQS review reports within the School and a description of how the School AMR action plan has been managed. 3 P a g e

8 SECTION 3: PROGRAMME-LEVEL AMR Introduction Templates for programme-level AMR reports will be populated with the relevant data via the Web Hub facility. The completed documents should be factual and concise with a focus on evaluation of the learning experience of the students against agreed strategic targets and key performance thresholds. The evaluation of evidence provided about performance at programme and module levels should include a reflection on action taken previously to support enhancement. Where data fall outside the range of expected values, or responses, the narrative accompanying the data reports should evaluate the evidence provided, reflect on performance and evaluate the impact of initiatives and action taken previously to enhance the provision. This is equally important where the performance exceeds expected values and in such instances the narrative should provide a positive critical evaluation. In addition the commentary should include reference to the wider context of the provision, and any emerging trends within the discipline. It should be noted that each of the reports produced from Web Hub are self-contained and should not be compared against each other as the data are reported differently to fulfill particular purposes. The Web Hub AMR interface is designed to allow interrogation of the data to clarify apparent anomalies and inaccuracies. The interactive nature of Web Hub is lost once the reports are downloaded and exported into the AMR templates and therefore programme teams are encouraged to consider, interrogate and evaluate the data before exporting the final reports. For collaborative provision the Link Tutor should work with the partner to ensure that the information available via Web Hub is considered appropriately. Further guidance is available from AQS. Guidance for completing the Programme AMR: Features of good practice For AMR 2014/15 programme teams are asked to identify features of good practice in approaches to personal tutoring and teaching. These should be features that are having a positive impact on the learning experience and/or achievement of students and which the team considers should be shared with the School and the Faculty. Progression and award reports Reports will be populated from Web Hub, which is sourced by SIS data. Successful completion of intended programme of study: this report will provide numbers completing the award; completing in time; completing with target award; discontinued and continuing. The AMR performance threshold for completion in time is for 80% of full-time students on undergraduate and postgraduate (taught) programmes to be completing their degree within the expected time period. This is calculated using the student start date and expected length of programme plus a leeway for administrative purposes. This is currently set at 60 days for undergraduate programmes and 90 days for postgraduate taught programmes. 4 P a g e

9 Retention: this report will provide data relating to the number of students who, having started a programme, withdraw and/or dropout from the programme. It will not present information about progression between years. In this way the data will be relevant to all programmes regardless of length or pattern of delivery. The AMR performance threshold is that the retention rate within 13 months should be at least 90%. This calculation is based on those students who have left the University, not those who transfer to another programme. Final awards (undergraduate only): this report will provide data relating to the attainment of students who complete the award. The AMR performance indicator for undergraduate provision is that 70% of students studying a first degree to be achieving a First or 2:1. The report uses information of numbers awarded at the most recent assessment board, regardless of individual student start dates. The Web Hub facility uses a flexible model to enable the capture of data for all types of programmes. The Web Hub reports are dynamic in nature and can be used to capture information at crucial points during the year. For each report the data will be linked to the student information system and can be expanded in each category to provide more detail. This should enable programme teams to check and rectify apparent anomalies and resolve queries. Users can determine the breakdown of tables by year, by month or other period of time (eg intake period). Data can be checked throughout the year. Unit reports on module performance The report will be populated from Web Hub, the majority of which is sourced by SIS data. The student satisfaction information is based on the outcomes of module evaluation surveys managed by the Teaching and Learning Academy. Further details about the module evaluation outcomes are available via Web Hub Dashboard: The module performance report provides data relating to the performance of students on modules related to the programmes being monitored. This is unique to AMR and provides a particular perspective on module performance within programmes. The narrative accompanying the data reports should evaluate the evidence provided, reflect on performance and evaluate the impact of initiatives and action taken previously to enhance performance. The evaluation should identify any action that is being undertaken to address emerging issues. The number of marked attempts and the percentage pass rate for the module are also shown in this report, in order to enable the programme/module leader to gain a better overview of student performance and therefore to inform any action to be taken. The reporting threshold for the module pass rate is set at 80%. The range of marks is also shown on the report. External Examiner/s report External Examiners provide external verification of academic standards on the programme, and are asked to provide yes/no responses to a series of key questions. It is expected that external examiner reports will provide a positive response to the following questions about the academic standards of the programme: Are the standards set for the awards in accordance with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications [FHEQ] and applicable Subject Benchmark Statements? Are the academic standards comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions with which you are familiar? 5 P a g e

10 Are the achievements of students comparable with those in other UK higher education institutions with which you are familiar? Does the assessment process measure student achievement rigorously and fairly against the intended outcomes of the programme and is it conducted in line with the University policies and regulations? Where an examiner has answered no to any of the key questions a brief account of how the issue has arisen and what action has been taken to remedy the situation should be provided. This is in addition to the formal process managed by the QEO for ensuring that any concerns about academic standards are explored immediately following receipt of the examiner s report. Evaluation of feedback from students This section should contain a brief evaluation of feedback obtained from students about the quality of their learning experience, in particular the quality of the teaching and their experience of assessment of the programme of study. The evaluation should identify themes that have emerged from consultation with students, including both programme and national level surveys, and any action taken by the programme team to address identified issues. The evaluation should include consideration of how the outcomes compare with national and/or subject area expectations and benchmarks, positioning performance in the wider context. Outcomes from NSS and module evaluation are available via Web Hub but are not downloaded into the AMR report template. Programme teams and AMR authors should therefore access this information separately to inform this section of the AMR. Module evaluation survey outcomes are available via Web Hub at: NSS outcomes are available via Web Hub at: Programme teams should use their own knowledge and experience of the subject area/discipline in which the programme is operating. Suggested alternative sources of information, to support the evaluation, are: PSRB reports/outcomes/benchmarks; subject/discipline-specific survey outcomes; staff knowledge gained from external examiner appointments at other institutions. Additional information is required from partners regarding the means of gathering feedback, number of student complaints, appeals and cases of academic misconduct. Professional Service Quality This section should identify positive feedback or outstanding issues regarding professional service team performance that underpin teaching and learning activity. There is an expectation that individual complaints about, for example, heating and catering will have been referred directly to the relevant service. The purpose of this section is to provide opportunity to report on emerging themes of both good practice and areas for enhancement. Where further action is required matters will be referred, via Faculty AMR reports and QAEC, to the appropriate service team Director for consideration and response. Report on action arising from review/validation recommendations 6 P a g e

11 This section should provide information about progress against actions identified through programme review and validation, identifying where action is outstanding and how this is to be addressed. Evaluation of implementation of Faculty/School LTA Strategy Programme teams, Schools and Faculties have developed LTA strategies and action plans to ensure the achievement of University strategic aims and to response to student feedback. In this section programme teams are asked to consider these strategies, evaluate the implementation at programme-level, identify areas of success and any outstanding issues that are to be addressed. To support the evaluation a series of prompts are provided for consideration by the programme team. Summary of programme and module amendments completed during year 2014/15 Programme teams are required to summarise amendments, to provide a record of incremental changes, and reflect on their impact. FOR COLLABORATIVE PROVISION ONLY Monitoring of the recognition agreement It is important that the partner programme being recognised is monitored by the School contact person to provide an assurance of the standards and the continuing comparability between the partner programme and the LJMU programme. This should include information on any changes to the partner s curriculum or teaching staff of the recognised programme. 7 P a g e

12 SECTION 4: THE SCHOOL DIRECTOR REPORT The purpose of the Director s report is: to enable Directors to become more strategically enabled, in particular by providing a mechanism to inform the target-setting/academic planning processes within the Faculties; to assure FQAEC, the Faculty Management Team and the University that Directors are aware of the issues facing the quality and standards of all provision for which they are responsible and that appropriate action is being taken at programme and subject group level to assure and enhance the learning experience of their students; to provide a mechanism for reporting back to programme leaders on action taken at School or Faculty level to address issues identified in programme AMRs; to identify, for consideration by FMT, action required by the Faculty to address any risks to the quality and standards of the provision managed by the School; to identify, for inclusion in the Faculty-level AMR, action required by the Institution to address any risks to the quality and standards of the provision managed by the School; to identify features of good teaching, learning support and/or assessment practice within the reporting unit that are worthy of sharing across the Faculty and University; to assure the Faculty and the University that the annual monitoring process has been completed, or, if not, that action is being taken to ensure that reports are produced for all programmes managed by the School within an appropriate timescale. The overview reporting format is set out in appendix 5. A template for the School Director report, downloaded from the Web Hub AMR facility, will be populated with data relating to NSS results and other management information. The report can be accessed at: The report must provide an analysis - against targets - of the quality and standards of the academic provision managed by School (including collaborative provision, innovative approaches to teaching and learning, and the use of external reference points such as PSRB reports, the FHEQ and subject benchmark statements), and identify any action required to exploit opportunities and minimise risks facing the subject group from both internal and external factors. The report should draw on evidence from the programme AMR for all provision managed by the School, and should also be informed by the Director s knowledge of developments within the relevant discipline/s across the sector. The Director must also refer to the Strategic Plan and the LTA Strategy goals and measures of success. They should identify priorities for action by School - making recommendations also to the Faculty and University - based on the environment within which they are operating, to ensure that the provision for which they are responsible continues to meet institutional performance thresholds. The Web Hub Dashboard facility provides statistical information - at institution, Faculty, School or programme level - to inform the School Director report. The facility can be accessed at: Additional information, to support the production of the report, is available via Web Hub using the following links: Equality and Diversity: NSS and DLHE outcomes 8 P a g e

13 For AMR 2014/15 the deadline for submission of School Director reports to FMT will be December The reports will be considered at FQAECs in January 2016, with an update provided the following May/June. 9 P a g e

14 SECTION 5: AQS REVIEW REPORT The purpose of the report is: to inform the summary review of programme AMRs for discussion at Faculty-level quality committee; to provide feedback, to the Programme Leader and LJMU School Director, about the completeness of each AMR; to note any issues about quality and standards in the External Examiner report. The template for the AQS review report is set out in appendix 3 and can be downloaded from AQS web pages at: The report, based on the evidence provided in programme AMR, will provide feedback on the level of compliance with the agreed processes. 10 P a g e

15 SECTION 6: REPORTS TO QAEC/CQSP Faculty report to QAEC The purpose of the Faculty report to QAEC is: to assure the University that the annual monitoring process has been properly conducted and completed for the internal provision within the Faculty, or that appropriate action is being taken where reports are missing; to identify issues that require action at Faculty and University level in order to safeguard the academic standards and quality of the Faculty s provision; to highlight good practice in teaching and learning within the Faculty that is worthy of further dissemination at institutional level; to provide an evaluation of the annual monitoring process for internal provision and its operation within the Faculty, and offer suggestions for improvement. The template for the Faculty report to QAEC is set out in appendix 4, which can be downloaded from the AQS web pages at The Faculty report will be informed by the AQS review reports on internal programme AMR compliance and the Directors AMRs from within the Faculty. QAEC will consider the Faculty reports, together with a brief summary prepared by AQS, drawing together any overarching themes and issues requiring institutional action in order to address potential risks to the quality and standards of the University s academic provision. Where QAEC members agree that action is needed, the committee will make recommendations for action to Academic Board and/or the Senior Management Group. Feedback on action taken or planned at institutional level will be provided to the Faculties via the Annual Academic Quality Report prepared by AQS. The Faculty report should be sent by the Chair of FQAEC to the Secretary of QAEC in time for the February meeting of the Committee. For AMR 2014/15, the deadline for submission to the QAEC Secretary is 17 th February AQS Summary reports to CQSP (collaborative provision) The Quality Support Officers - Collaborative Provision, will prepare a report for submission to CQSP in January. The purpose of the report to CQSP is: to assure the University that the annual monitoring process has been properly conducted and completed, or that appropriate action is being taken where reports are missing; to identify where any further action is required to complete the AMR process; to provide a cross-institutional perspective of collaborative provision programme AMR; to provide an evaluation of the annual monitoring process, and offer suggestions for improvement. The overview report will be informed by the QSO reports on programme AMR compliance. CQSP will consider the report and agree any action to be taken. Follow up reports will be submitted to CQSP, to summarise completion of the programme level actions required, and submission of any AMRs reported as outstanding in January. 11 P a g e

16 SECTION 7: GUIDANCE FOR TEACHING-OUT PROGRAMMES AMR are required for programmes that are closed to recruitment and are teaching-out. The reports should generate information that confirms the maintenance of standards and quality of the learning opportunities for remaining cohorts. However it is recognised that in some instances the focus on evaluation and action planning for future iterations of the provision may not always be appropriate. It is not possible to develop a specific format for reporting on programmes that are teachingout as each will be at a different stage of closure. The focus, therefore, is on how the AMR for such programmes are managed. Requirements may vary and programme teams are advised to liaise with the relevant QEO throughout the process. The following suggestions are made to support programme teams in developing the AMR and also AQS staff, School Directors and members of University committees as they consider and report on the process. Eligible programmes should be identified on the front page of the AMR, with an indication of the cohorts (by level) remaining; All sections of the AMR should be completed as fully as possible; The AQS Review report will record the status of the programme as teaching-out and will reflect this in the feedback provided. 12 P a g e

17 SECTION 8: PROGRAMMES WITH NON-TRADITIONAL DELIVERY PATTERNS Programmes with alternative delivery patterns, eg Masters, Summer Schools, have often been unable to meet the usual timescales for submission of AMR. The late submission of these reports has potential to fragment the process and reduce opportunities for gaining a good institutional oversight of academic quality and standards. Where possible, adjustments to schedules for moderation and award boards should be made to accommodate the timeframe for submission of AMR. However in some instances there remain problems with ensuring the inclusion of EE reports and programme team responses and the challenges of making the report available to students via Boards of Study. A process has therefore been agreed within which those programmes, with non-traditional delivery patterns, are able to submit reports outside the usual schedule for AMR activity. This must be discussed with the relevant QEO/QSO to confirm a timetable for submission of the report. It is expected that AMR are submitted in a timely manner following the final award board. To support the production of accurate data reports the Web Hub facility will, after 31 st October, access live student information data. Reports submitted too late to be considered as part of the School Director AMR for the current year will be considered in the subsequent cycle of AMR, ensuring the reports can be used to inform School, Faculty and University consideration of these processes. Any issues arising from EE reports will be managed through the established processes for consideration of EE reports (see Guidelines for External Examiners). 13 P a g e

18 Appendix 1 AMR Guidance Contacts Faculty of Arts and Professional Studies Associate Dean (Quality) Tony Hall Quality Enhancement Officer Janet Flexney Quality Support Assistant Denise Williams Faculty of Education, Health and Community Associate Dean (Quality) Nick Medforth Quality Enhancement Officer Lucy McKenzie Quality Support Assistant Ruth Hindley Faculty of Science Associate Dean (Quality) Quality Enhancement Officer Quality Support Assistant Dr Ian Bradshaw Helen Summers Cathy McMahon Faculty of Technology and Environment Associate Dean (Quality) Dr Rebecca Bartlett Quality Enhancement Officer Jenny Moran Quality Support Assistant Jan Sullivan Quality Support Officer Quality Support Officer Collaborative Provision Kris Barrow Vicky Jones 14 P a g e

19 Appendix 2 AMR Guidance School Director report to Faculty Please refer to the guidance in the AMR when completing this report (the guidance can be downloaded from School: Author of report: Date of FMT consideration: Date of FQAEC consideration: 1. Scope of report Please attach an appendix listing all the programme-level AMRs expected from within the School or subject group covered by this report. Where reports are missing, please outline below the reasons for nonsubmission and the action being taken to remedy the situation. 2. Academic standards Using evidence available from external examiner reports, PSRB reports and student surveys provide a brief overview of the maintenance of academic standards. Identify any factors that may adversely affect standards in the future. 3. Teaching and learning Provide an evaluation of the quality of learning opportunities within the School. This should include analysis of: the School performance against LTA Strategy goals staff development requirements in respect of teaching, learning and assessment, National Student Survey results, including comparison nationally and with discipline/sector information is provided from Web Hub LJMU Student Survey 2014 results, including reflection on impact of action plan Where areas of innovative approaches to teaching and learning have been identified indicate methods for ensuring wider dissemination. Evaluation of the quality of the learning opportunities within the School 4. Management information The following data reports are generated by Web Hub please refer to them when analysing performance against targets. Further information can be accessed through the Web Hub Dashboards at 15 P a g e

20 An analysis of the School s performance against the objectives in the Strategic Plan. 4.1 Application and entry statistics 4.2 Yr 1-2 retention (full-time undergraduate only) 4.3 Undergraduate exit cohort statistics 4.4 DLHE Survey results percentage of students 4.5 Equality and diversity 6. Summary of service quality feedback or issues Please provide a brief evaluation of areas of best practice and identify any outstanding issues that need to be referred to Heads of professional services teams. 7. Evaluation of risk/priorities for action Please outline the way in which any risks to academic quality and standards are being managed, and indicate how issues raised by programme teams and partner organisations in AMRs are being responded to at School/Directorate level. Please also identify any opportunities for development of the provision within the reporting unit, and any action required to exploit these opportunities, eg plans for PSRB Accreditation 7.1 Summary action plan A summary action plan should be inserted below, indicating action to be taken by the School and/or partner organisations to address priorities/exploit opportunities. The action plan should be approved and monitored by the Faculty Management Team. An update describing how the action plan has been managed will be provided to FQAEC May/June Recommendations for action at Faculty level 7.3 Recommendations for action at institutional level - for discussion at FQAEC and inclusion in the Faculty summary report to QAEC. Appendix 1 List of programme-level AMRs from within subject group covered by this report indicating date of receipt to be provided by AQS 16 P a g e

21 APPENDIX 3 AMR Guidance AQS Review Report: Annual Monitoring 2014/15 Faculty and School Programme award, title and code Programme Leader Date of receipt of AMR by AQS Summary Academic Quality Services has reviewed the completed AMR as described in the at: The following is provided as feedback on the level of compliance with the process of programme AMR. The feedback should be used by Programme Leaders, programme teams and School Directors to inform discussions within the School and/or subject area, addressing issues raised and acknowledging areas of good practice. School Directors will be asked to provide an update to FQAEC on the use of review reports within the School. 17 P a g e

22 The following questions and criteria are used to report on programme AMR: Was the AMR submitted by the deadline? AMR received by Board of Study or equivalent Section 1 Features of Good Practice Process Is the section completed? Was the AMR considered by BoS before submission? Are areas of good practice identified in approaches to Personal Tutoring and Teaching Section 2 Progression and awards reports Completion (FT UG only) Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address emerging themes? Section 2 Progression and awards reports - Retention Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address emerging themes? Section 2 Progression and awards reports - Final awards (UG only) Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address any emerging themes? Section 3 Unit reports on module performance Module mean mark Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address emerging themes? Section 3 Unit reports on module performance - Mean score from student feedback Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address emerging themes? Section 3 Unit reports on module performance Module pass rate Has evaluation of the data been included? Does it include evaluation of impact of initiatives undertaken/identify action to address emerging themes? 18 P a g e

23 Section 4 External Examiner(s) Report Section 5 Evaluation of feedback from students Has the external examiner(s) provided a positive response to the standards questions? Is Information about any action taken included? Is there evidence of evaluation of the outcomes of student satisfaction? Has use been made of external benchmarks? Section 6 Professional Service Quality Have issues been identified? Part 8 Evaluation of implementation of Faculty and/or School LTA strategy Comments included yes/no Is there evidence of evaluation? Additional sections for collaborative programmes Monitoring the Recognition Agreement Has information been appropriately completed? Have any issues been identified? 19 P a g e

24 Appendix 4 AMR Guidance Faculty Report to QAEC: AMR2014/15 Please refer to the AMR guidance when completing this report (the guidance can be downloaded from Faculty: Authors of report: Date of FQAEC consideration: Date of FMT consideration Section A: QEO Section B: ADQ Purpose: To assure FQAEC, FMT and the University that the annual monitoring process has been completed by all relevant programmes, and to highlight reports yet to be received. To identify issues that will require action at Faculty and/or University level to safeguard the academic performance and quality of its programmes. Recommendations: For Faculty to consider: For QAEC to consider: Background information Academic Quality Services reviewed each programme AMR and provided feedback to Programme Leaders and School Directors on compliance and engagement with the process as described in the AMR Guidance at: A summary report relating to AMR for programmes that operate a collaborative contract in partnership with the Faculty is considered by the Collaborative Quality and Standards Panel. Section A of the report refers to internal provision. The report provides a summary of the programme AMR received and an evaluation of the process and its operation within the Faculty. This section is written by the relevant QEO. Section B of the report provides a Faculty report to QAEC and includes identification of issues for consideration by the Faculty and/or the institution. This section is written by the ADQ. 20 P a g e

25 Section A internal provision Summary of number of reports received Total number of programme AMR due by November deadline: Total number of programme AMR submitted by November deadline: Total number of programmes to be submitted after November deadline: Reasons for deferred submission: Action being taken to address missing programme AMR Evaluation of AMR process and its operation within the Faculty (including identification of issues for Faculty/School consideration and any features of good practice in the management of the process) Section B Faculty report to QAEC Please comment briefly on any issues arising from consideration of School AMR that require action at Faculty and/or institutional level to enhance the quality of students learning opportunities and maintain academic quality and standards of provision. Include reference to any areas of good practice 21 P a g e