Procedures for the Review of Master s (MSc, MRes 1, MEd, MPH, MBA) and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) Programmes.

Transcription

1 Procedures for the Review of Master s (MSc, MRes 1, MEd, MPH, MBA) and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) Programmes. 1. Introduction: Quality Assurance at Imperial College 1.1 The Senate of Imperial College has established a number of principal Committees whose terms of reference include quality assurance matters: for example the Engineering Studies Committee, the Medical Studies Committee, the Science Studies Committee, the Graduate School of Engineering and Physical Sciences (GSEPS) Postgraduate Quality Committee, the Graduate School of Life Sciences and Medicine (GSLSM) Postgraduate Quality Committee and the Quality Assurance Advisory Committee (QAAC). 1.2 Procedures have been established whereby new and existing programmes are subject to regular and periodic review by the appropriate Committee of the Senate. The Studies Committees review undergraduate provision and the Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committees review postgraduate taught and research programmes. 1.3 Account has been taken of the quality assessment methods employed by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), in particular the various precepts of the QAA Code of practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education, Section 7: programme design, approval, monitoring and review (September 2006). 1.4 It is appropriate to record here the College's mission and strategic intent:- Our Mission Imperial College London embodies and delivers world class scholarship, education and research in science, engineering and medicine, with particular regard to their application in industry, commerce and healthcare. We foster interdisciplinary working internally and collaborate widely externally. Our Strategic Intent To remain amongst the top tier of scientific, engineering and medical research and teaching institutions in the world. To develop our range of academic activities to meet the changing needs of society, industry and healthcare. To continue to attract and develop the most able students and staff 1 The procedure for the periodic review of MRes programmes can be found in the Procedure for Periodic Review of Research Degree Training including MRes Programmes. MRes programmes do not form part of the procedure for periodic (normally sexennial ) review of taught Master s degrees, although they are subject to approval and regular internal review by the Graduate Schools procedures which can be found in Sections 2, 3 and 4 of this document. 1

2 worldwide. To harness the quality and breadth of our research capability, across multiple disciplines, to address major challenges. To communicate widely the significance of science in general and the purpose and ultimate benefits of our activities in particular. 1.5 The following is taken from the Charter of Imperial College:- The objects of the University shall be to provide the highest specialised instruction and the most advanced training, education, research and scholarship in science, technology and medicine, especially in their application to industry; and in pursuit of these objects to act in co-operation with other bodies. 1.6 It is also pertinent to indicate that while quality assurance is undertaken by the College Senate through the principal committees mentioned above, the responsibility for quality control and enhancement lies with individual academic departments and with Faculties. 1.7 The College s Committee structure for quality assurance is set out in Appendix 1 of this document. Contact details for Secretaries of the key quality assurance Committees are set out in Appendix Review of Existing Master s (MSc, MRes, MEd, MPH, MBA) and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) Programmes. Introduction to Internal Review of Individual Programmes 2.1 The Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committees hold regular reviews of existing Master s (MSc, MRes, MEd, MPH, MBA) and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) programmes. The regular internal review of individual courses contributes to the College s periodic (normally sexennial) review of taught postgraduate courses. Regular internal reviews focus on the detail of individual programmes, whereas periodic review of taught Master s degrees focus on more overarching themes linked to Faculty and College strategies for teaching and learning. Internal reviews of MRes programmes contribute to the periodic review of departmental research degree training (please see the Procedure for Periodic Review of Research Degree Training including MRes Programmes) because a large project forms part of the principle assessment method of the programme. Regular Internal Review of Individual Programmes. 2.2 The aspects of the programme which the Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committees will wish to scrutinise, as part of the individual course review, are as follows: General (a) Aims of the Programme (i.e. the broad purpose in presenting the 2

3 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j) (k) (l) programme); Objectives of the Programme (i.e. the intended student learning experience, including progression, and student achievements that demonstrate successful completion of the programme); The use of external benchmarking and other comparators (as listed in section 2.2 (iv) of this document); Mechanisms for ensuring that the programme aims and objectives are understood by students and are achieved; Management structure of the programme Student numbers e.g. ratio of Home/EU to overseas; student funding; application numbers Marketing/recruitment strategy, methods for selecting students and entry qualifications, including special case data; Mechanisms for supporting student welfare, including personal tutors Mechanisms for including the promotion of equality and diversity; Provision of career advice and support for professional development A statement providing details of any changes that have been made to enhance and develop learning and teaching within the course; An update from the Course Organiser apropos any queries, relating specifically to their own course that were raised during the last periodic review. Teaching and Resources (m) (n) (o) (p) (q) Methods of teaching: their range and relevance - including opportunities for experience in, for example, industry and innovative teaching methods; Staff (academic and technical) involved in teaching the programme; evidence of teaching assessment; Non-staff teaching resources; Academic and pastoral support arrangements available to students; Arrangements for the departmental educational/teaching Committee; Programme Information (r) (s) (t) (u) Material provided for students; Programme specification; ECTS assignment; Accreditation and links with professional bodies. Academic Assessment of Students (v) (w) (x) Methods of assessment and details of marking scheme; External Examiners reports, comments on main themes and actions taken; Examination results, including comments on progress of students who entered the programme as special cases; Feedback from Students (y) Collection and consideration of feedback from students, including those students at collaborative partner institutions, changes made in response to feedback in order to enhance provision, mechanisms for transmitting this information to students, including those at partner institutions; details of feedback on current year and any action taken in response; 3

4 (z) Role of staff/student Committees. Results (zi) Pattern of examination results over prior years including comments on progress of students who entered the programme as special cases; First Destination information (zii) Subsequent student employment. Conduct of Regular Internal Review of Masters (MSc, MRes, MEd, MPH, MBA) and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS) Programmes 2.3 It is emphasised that regular internal review of individual courses contributes to the College s procedures for the periodic review of taught postgraduate courses. The internal review of individual programmes is started in the Autumn term. The cohort under review is that which finished in the previous year; for example, during the academic session the cohort completing in cohort is reviewed. The process is completed in the late Spring or Summer. The conduct of the internal course review will normally be as follows: (i) The Course Organiser completes a course evaluation form. Current course evaluation forms can be downloaded from the following link: nts (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) A member or nominee of the relevant Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committee will review and rate the material, consulting the course organiser where appropriate, and recommend a grading, either good, satisfactory or poor. The internal reviewer s report will be sent back to the department for a response and the completed review, together with the departmental response, will then be considered by the relevant Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee. The Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee consider the review, confirm the final rating ( Good, Satisfactory or Poor ) and set the date of the next internal review, after which feedback is provided to the Head of Department. The Postgraduate Quality Committee can also ask for follow up action(s) and/or seek further clarification on any issue prior to finalising the rating. Courses that are rated Good will normally be reviewed again in three years. Courses that are Rated Satisfactory will normally be reviewed again in two years. Immediate action is taken when a course is rated as Poor; the Committee also decides when these courses will be next reviewed. If an internal course review coincides with a periodic review of a department(s) then whatever information is available at the time of the departmental submission will be provided to the Review Panel. As far 4

5 as possible the regular internal reviews, periodic external reviews and any accreditation reviews are aligned to ease the burden on departments. 2.4 The outcomes of this process are reported to the Senate. 3. Changes to Existing Programmes 3.1 Departments wishing to make substantial changes to a course, should discuss these with the Secretary of the relevant Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee in the first instance to establish which procedure to follow. There are different procedures for minor and major course changes. For major restructuring of programmes the new course approval procedures are followed. 3.2 Changes to existing programmes are considered routinely by the Departmental Teaching Committees and the Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committees as appropriate. Further guidance as to the demarcation of responsibilities of the Departmental Teaching Committees, Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committees and the Senate can be found at Appendix The modifications to programme of study form can be downloaded from the following link: 4. Periodic (normally sexennial) Review of Master s (MSc, MEd, MPH, MBA and Certificate of Advanced Study) Programmes. 4.1 From this point on, the term taught Master s degree will include the following programmes: MSc, MEd, MPH, MBA and Certificate of Advanced Study (CAS). The periodic review of MRes programmes, for which a large research project comprises the principle assessment method, is covered within the Procedure for the Periodic Review of Research Degree Training including MRes Programmes. The Purpose of Periodic Review 4.2 Periodic review of taught Master s degrees normally is conducted every six years. Departments may be reviewed out of turn in response to information that would suggest that an earlier review would be desirable. 4.3 Whilst internal reviews of taught Master s programmes by the Graduate Schools examine the detail of individual courses, periodic reviews are intended to focus on more general overarching themes, for example; strategies for teaching, including the learning and support provided for students and quality assurance and enhancement processes that assure the standards of the College s awards. 4.4 In summary, the purpose of the periodic review of taught Master s degrees is to ensure that: Each department s strategy for the development of its taught postgraduate provision supports the strategy for learning and teaching developed by its 5

6 Faculty and the College and promotes interdisciplinary collaboration within and between departments; Opportunity is taken to consider future goals for taught Master s degrees in the short, medium and long term; The structure, content, academic coherence and assessment procedures for taught Master s degrees are well-defined, made explicit to students and achieve academic standards appropriate to the award; External reference points, for example the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and National Benchmarks, have been taken into consideration during programme design (further information can be found at the following links: Through regular and systematic processes of curriculum review and feedback from students, developmental action is taken to introduce improvements to taught Master s degrees, building on existing strengths and correcting identified weaknesses; Taught Master s degrees are exposed to external scrutiny to ensure transparency of processes, to confirm standards and to ensure programmes remain current and valid; Good practice in teaching, learning and assessment is identified and widely disseminated throughout the College. 4.5 Departments have been grouped together to form clusters usually where there are programmes with similar subject matter. In some cases, it is appropriate to group courses together due to their location (e.g. Silwood Park campus). This means that one periodic review may involve several departments. 5. Periodic Review Panel: 5.1 The periodic review panel will comprise an internal Chairman, normally from a different Faculty to the one that the department(s) being reviewed is from plus three expert external assessors: typically these will be academic staff from other higher education institutions in the UK, experts from the industrial or business field and sometimes educationalists, or staff from appropriate overseas universities. The Chairman should be someone of standing who has knowledge of quality assurance procedures as applied to teaching, for example the Director of the Graduate School not being reviewed or a Faculty Dean. 5.2 The Registry will advise the Head of Department(s) that a periodic review, involving their department is due. Where several departments are involved in a single periodic review, the Faculty Principal will be asked to provide the names and contact details of possible external assessors to approach. Where only one department is being reviewed, the Head of Department will be asked to provide this information. The Faculty Principal may also be consulted. 6

7 5.3 The Pro-Rector (Education) will make the final decision as to which of the suggested externals should be asked to act as panel members and will also select a Chairman. 6. Periodic Review Documentation: 6.1 Each Head of Department(s) is asked to coordinate all the documentation for their own department(s) and ensure that the data relating to the most recent academic year are available. The Head of Department should submit the package of documentation to the Registry 3 weeks prior to the Review (7 hard copies plus an electronic version as a pdf). Each department s submission should include the following: a) Copies of previous course evaluation forms, including the reviewers and course organisers responses; (b) extracts from the minutes of the Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee, where these were discussed for the previous 6 years; and (c) any completed documentation for courses currently under review. b) A statement detailing the future direction of postgraduate teaching: two brief statements are desirable - one covering the short/medium term future of the department (i.e. the likely position in 5-6 years' time), the second projecting the long term directions that the department (s) expects to take (i.e. 10 years' hence) with a clear statement of the overall aim of the programme or cluster of programmes; these will reflect the mission of the College and might place study of the discipline in contexts such as meeting international or national needs, or preparing students for employment or for further study; c) Details of joint programmes offered with other departments (and collaborative programmes between institutions) including liaison arrangements showing how joint programme students are integrated into each department including information about shared modules; industrial contacts and participation in programmes; employers views on graduates. d) Specific comments on collaborative partnerships within the department and in particular, how feedback is obtained from the students, the assessment process and overall student experience. e) A statement of evaluation of the effectiveness of procedures for maintaining and enhancing the quality of provision and academic standards. f) Evaluation of the appropriateness of the learning outcomes in relation to the overall aims of the provision, making clear their relation to subject benchmark statements and to the programme s positioning on the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ); the Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA); the appropriateness of the content in supporting the achievement of the learning outcomes; the effectiveness of the teaching and learning in providing good learning opportunities to support the achievement of the learning outcomes and academic standards; g) Arrangements for induction; h) the identification of and action on any special learning needs; 7

8 i) how feedback is given to students; j) The latest set of examination papers (examples of project reports to be made available if assessors so request); k) Availability of resources (including space, equipment and other non-staff costs, and library and computing provision); evaluation of the effectiveness of the deployment of human and material resources in supporting the learning of students and the effectiveness of their linkage to learning outcomes; l) Academic staff activities, development and appraisal; staff feedback on the course; prizes for teaching excellence; departmental statistics and statement on the overall distribution of award grades (merit and distinctions);and student progression and failure rates in each year, with a comparison of grades from year to year (if available); m) Departmental statistics for the current academic year: application numbers, student numbers by fee status, entry qualifications and student funding; n) The latest departmental statistics on first destination of completed students; o) Student opinion (e.g. a report from the Departmental Student Representative(s) outlining the current concerns of the student body and encompassing comments on the resources for teaching including IT Provision and on assessment arrangements); p) The results of any recent accreditation reports; q) Examples of good practice in research-led and innovative teaching. 6.2 The student departmental representative(s) should be asked to include the information requested under (o) with the main departmental submission. 7. Review Procedure 7.1 The material is sent to the Chairman and external assessors appointed for the review who are free to request additional information or clarification. 7.2 Arrangements are made for the assessors to visit the department(s) together, normally over one day, for discussions with staff and student representatives; the opportunity is provided for the assessors to see appropriate departmental facilities. 7.3 A suggested template agenda for the periodic review can be found at Appendix 4 of this document. Depending on how many departments are being reviewed, timings may vary but will be discussed with departments before being confirmed. 7.4 The Head of Department(s) is asked to make a response to the Periodic Review Panel s reports (see Sections 10 & 11). The Head of Department(s) s response, together with the Review Panel s Reports, are then considered by the relevant Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee. The outcome of the periodic review is reported to Senate and any instances of good practice highlighted. 8

9 8 Periodic Review Panel Reports 8.1 Each member of the periodic review panel will be asked to submit an individual report, based on their impressions gained from the documentation and the discussions during the visit, with any recommendations thought appropriate, normally within one month of their visit to the department. External assessors are invited to formulate their reports in the light of the following questions:- Are the educational objectives of the department appropriate and are they achieved? Do the educational objectives match the departmental strategy for teaching and learning and are they achieved? What are the strengths and weaknesses within the department(s)? Are the students adequately supported by the learning outcomes, study skills help, etc? What are the strengths and weaknesses? Are the students given adequate high quality and timely feedback on their work and progress Are the procedures for maintaining and enhancing the quality of provision and the academic standards effective? What are the strengths and weaknesses? Is there adequate support for student welfare, including the provision of personal tutors? Comment on the student experience, and where appropriate make reference to collaborative provision. With reference to any collaborative provision, are there adequate mechanisms for student feedback? How does the department inform students of any actions that are taken as a result of feedback? Comment on how well the department(s) prepares students for industry / relevant professions and the career advice they receive. If applicable, comment on any specific items of focus highlighted within the departmental accreditation reports. If applicable, comment on any courses currently undergoing internal review. 8.2 Panel members are encouraged to highlight examples of good practice, particularly with regard to innovative teaching and assessment strategies; research-led teaching; and any aspect of the departments procedures which might be considered worthy of dissemination throughout the College. 9. Consideration of Review Reports 9.1 The Periodic Review Panel reports are made available to each Head of Department(s) for consideration within their department(s). Copies of the Periodic Review Panel reports are also given to the Rector. In some cases the Periodic Review Panel reports will cover aspects of more than one department s taught postgraduate provision. In such cases, each Head of Department will be asked to prepare a response to the Periodic Review Panel reports. Where more than one department is, the Heads of Departments may decide to submit a collective response. 9.2 The periodic review panel reports and departmental response will be submitted to the Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee, to which the Head of Department and his/her chosen senior colleagues (e.g. Director of Postgraduate Studies) are invited, together with the Departmental Student Representative(s). 9

10 9.3 Thereafter the relevant Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committees will submit a report, and any recommendations, to the Senate. 9.4 As part of the periodic review procedure, departments will be required to provide a report, outlining action taken to address any recommendations highlighted by the external assessors, to the relevant Graduate School Postgraduate Quality Committee mid-cycle, unless the findings of the periodic review indicate that earlier follow-up is required. 9.5 Any comments from the Review Panel regarding individual programmes under review will be raised during the Graduate Schools Postgraduate Quality Committee when the individual programme is reviewed. Senate February

11 Appendix 1: Quality Assurance Committee Structure Senate Report from SEC on strategy Undergraduate Admissions Committee GSEPS/GSLSM Postgraduate Quality Committees Science/ Engineering/ Medical Studies Committees Quality Assurance Advisory Committee Graduate School Management Committees Annual Report and periodic reporting of PG admissions statistics Careers Advisers Committee Annual report Committee for Professional Development [under review] Departmental Teaching Committees Humanities Academic Review Committee Student Welfare Committee Annual Report Armstrong Medal and Prize Selection Committee - Annual Report [under review] Beit Fellowship Committee Annual Report [under review] Annual reports from the Library; ICT 11

12 Appendix 2: Secretaries of Quality Assurance Committees All Secretaries are based at South Kensington Senate Nigel Wheatley or Rebecca Penny Quality Assurance Advisory Committee Science Studies Committee Engineering Studies Committee Medical Studies Committee Laura McConnell Laura McConnell Dean Surtees Dean Surtees Graduate School of Engineering and Sophie White Physical Sciences Postgraduate Quality Committee (GSEPS) Graduate School of Life Sciences and Sally Baker Medicine Postgraduate Quality Committee (GSLSM)

13 Appendix 3: Demarcation of responsibilities of Departmental Teaching Committees, Studies Committees/Graduate PQCs and Senate Decisions made by Departmental Teaching Committees Approval of minor changes in the curriculum and examination structure Approval of arrangements for course work Specific details of entrance requirements Determination of departmental postgraduate student numbers Approval of research degree registration and progression Authority of Studies Committees and Graduate PQCs Detailed review of annual monitoring reports The detailed review of external examiners reports and follow up with Departments on action points. Detailed consideration of external course reviews and follow-up on actions with Departments. Approval of external examiners, internal examiners and exam board chairs (nominations from Departments). Approval of new modules for existing degree programmes. Approval of changes in module titles. Approval of cross-departmental core teaching programmes. Approval of major changes in exam structure, e.g. introduction or removal of exam papers, change in the percentage allocation to course work. Approval of programme specifications and exchange programmes. Monitoring degree results and appeals at Faculty level. Authority of Senate Approval of changes to the regulations governing degree programmes and other courses (e.g. CASLAT), including joint degree programmes and arrangements for collaborative provision Consideration of changes in disciplinary procedures (makes recommendations to Council) Approval of new degree programmes and other courses (e.g. diplomas, CASLAT) Approval of major changes (>30%) in the course content of existing degree programmes Approval of changes to degree titles Standardisation of marking schemes (with respect to pass/fail boundaries and class boundaries) and Bologna compatibility Recognition of entrance qualifications (e.g. diplomas; pre-u s, English language proficiency) and the thresholds for entry to the College. Approval of QA processes- recommendations received from QAAC Monitoring student applications, offers, acceptances Monitoring e-learning provision Monitoring degree results and appeals Monitoring graduate career progression Monitoring the student welfare system 13

14 Appendix 4: Template Agenda for Periodic Review Review of the following programmes: (LIST) DATE Programme Welcome, Briefing and Coffee Pro-Rector (Education) Senior Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance and Data Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance) College Tutor Introduction to the Department(s) Head of Department(s) Directors of Postgraduate Studies Meeting with the Directors of Postgraduate Studies and Postgraduate Tutors Meeting with Selected Staff Directors of Postgraduate (should include senior Studies and Postgraduate Members of staff as well as new Tutors starters). A member of the course management committee Course Organisers Departmental Careers Advisor Lunch To be held within the Department Meeting with Selected Students One student from each To include: Overseas students A mixture of part time / full time (where appropriate) In addition the Departmental Student Rep should attend Tour of Facilities Each Department to organise a brief tour of their own area Private meeting of the assessors Closing Session Pro-Rector (Education) (inc. points any points for clarification) Senior Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance and Data Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance) Heads of Department and Director of Postgraduate Studies. College Tutor Close 14