Periodic Programme Review

Transcription

1 Periodic Programme Review Purpose of Periodic Programme Review 1 Programme and Thematic reviews are central to the University s systems for assuring the quality and standards of its International Programmes provision. They are the principal mechanisms that enable the University, as the awarding body, to review provision and, in conjunction with its collaborative partners, to monitor the standard of the award and quality of the provision. 2 The aim of Periodic Programme Review is to ensure that all major aspects of International Programmes provision are reviewed over a four to six-year period, and a centralised monitoring and reporting tool captures and keeps track of such activity. This document describes current practice with regards to the implementation of periodic review within a collaborative arrangement, the rationale and how responsibilities are discharged. 3 Periodic Programme Review is a shared responsibility between the International Academy and the Lead College. In general, International Programmes should be reviewed by the Lead College alongside corresponding cognate College based programmes, as part of the regular cycle of programme review already established by the College. This is in keeping with the principle that Lead Colleges are responsible for the academic direction of International Programmes. The College s existing review mechanisms should be used, with the necessary adaptations made to ensure that International Programmes are properly considered. One of these adaptations is the participation of the International Academy in the review process due to the collaborative nature of the provision. 4 However, where it is not possible or appropriate for a Lead College to conduct its own review (including in the case of a Consortium), a centrally administered one will operate, conducted by the International Academy s Corporate Performance and Quality (CPQ) directorate. The review will take place by agreement with and participation of the relevant Lead College or Consortium, and similar principles apply as with College-centred reviews. A review procedure has been developed for conducting CPQ-centred Periodic Programme Reviews which can be tailored as necessary, to meet the requirements of the provision under review and reflect the requirements of the Lead College / Consortium. 5 The principles described above have been endorsed through the ESAC 1 3 Minutes ( ) where members agreed that Periodic Review remains the responsibility of the Lead College as far as possible and that CPQ should monitor Periodic Review activity in the Lead Colleges on behalf of EISA 2. Furthermore, ESAC 3 Minute 180 states: That the Periodic Review process will need to ensure that External System 3 requirements and objectives are fulfilled. 1 The External System Academic Committee (ESAC) is now known as the University of London International Academy Academic Committee (ULIAAC). 2 The External and Internal Student Administration (EISA) is now known as the International Academy. 3 The External System is now known as the University of London International Programmes. Page 1 of 9

2 Method and Schedule of Reviews 6 Due to the collaborative nature of the International Programmes, Periodic Programme Review is conducted using one of three review methods. These are described as follows: College-based programme review where an International Programme is reviewed in isolation or alongside its internal counterpart. College-based departmental/faculty review where an International Programme is reviewed alongside all internal cognate provision within a department or faculty. CPQ centrally administered review where an International Programme, or portfolio of programmes, is reviewed in isolation. This third mechanism normally applies to programmes where there is no single Lead College, where there has been a long gap since the last review, or where a bespoke review is required. 7 The following table illustrates the distribution of Lead Colleges / Consortia and review methods. College-based programme review College-based departmental/faculty review CPQ centrally administered review Goldsmiths College Heythrop Institute of Education London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Royal Veterinary College Birkbeck Goldsmiths College Royal Holloway School of Oriental and African Studies London School of Economics and Political Science Undergraduate Laws Programmes Postgraduate Laws Programmes University College London 8 An integral element in the quality assurance framework mechanism is the efficient tracking, monitoring and timely reporting on review activity. The International Academy, centrally, is responsible for producing and monitoring an overall strategy and schedule for review, informed by Lead Colleges existing review timetables and plans to review International Programmes. 9 A centralised monitoring and reporting tool captures and keeps track of such activity, capturing current information on periodic review activity and acting as a central information resource on future periodic review activity. Periodic review activity is reported through International Academy governance in the Autumn Term of each academic year to ensure the effective and efficient consideration of review reports and planning of future review activity. Partnership Liaison 10 It is the Lead College s responsibility to keep the CPQ Quality Manager informed of the Lead Colleges timetable for reviewing International Programmes and to consult the CPQ Quality Manager when a review date is being finalised. Depending on the size of the provision and review method, the International Academy requires a three to six month notification period from the Lead Colleges, and in turn CPQ-centred reviews provide stakeholders with three to six months notice. 11 The CPQ Quality Manager monitors the status of Lead Colleges review timetables and liaises with Lead Colleges to ensure that International Academy governance, staff and Lead Colleges are kept informed and up-to-date on the scheduling of reviews of International Programmes. Page 2 of 9

3 12 The International Programmes holds a schedule of proposed periodic review activity, by academic year, which is updated regularly. Periodic Review Panel 13 Review panel membership is determined by the review format and Lead College / CPQ review procedures. However, in keeping with the principle of collaborative provision, the International Academy strongly endorses the inclusion of International Academy representation on the review panel. 14 The inclusion of an International Academy representative on the review panel is particularly applicable to College-based programme reviews where the focus of the review is on International Programmes provision. It is acknowledged however that this can be problematic in the case of College-based departmental/faculty reviews where the focus of the review is on all provision within a department. The International Academy representative should be nominated by the University of London International Academy Academic Committee (ULIAAC). 15 In the case of College-based reviews, the secretary to the panel will normally be a member of staff in the Lead College operating with assistance from the CPQ Quality Manager and Programme Manager. The Lead College is responsible for establishing contact with the CPQ Quality Manager for liaison purposes regarding the constitution and membership of the panel. 16 In the case of CPQ-centred reviews, the secretary to the panel will normally be a member of the CPQ directorate operating with assistance from appropriate staff in the Lead College / Consortia. The secretary is responsible for establishing contact, reporting the constitution and agreeing the membership of the panel with the Lead College / Consortium. The constitution of the panel is formally approved by the ULIAAC. 17 It should be noted that the CPQ-centred review procedures include an International Programmes student or alumnus in the membership of the panel to provide a student experience perspective to the review process. Panel membership also includes academic representatives from the Lead College / Consortia and an International Academy representative. 18 All review procedures applied to International Programmes, whether College-based or CPQcentred, include external academic and/or professional membership on review panels. Documentation and Review Event 19 The extent of the documentation required for a periodic review is determined by the review format and Lead College / CPQ review procedures. At the very least, the documentation consists of a self-evaluation document (SED) or briefing document prepared by the Programme Team and/or Department with supporting appendices. 20 However, in keeping with the principle of collaborative provision, the International Academy strongly endorses the inclusion of an International Academy Supplement to the SED (or briefing document), whose preparation is co-ordinated by the CPQ Quality Manager. The International Academy supplement will contain information related specifically to its role in providing the business management, administrative infrastructure, quality assurance mechanisms and development resource for the International Programme under review. Page 3 of 9

4 21 The persons (both Lead College or CPQ) responsible for the preparation and organisational aspects of the periodic review event should liaise with members of the panel and all stakeholders to ensure that the necessary documentation, review event format, staff/student interviews and/or on-site visit is available for the panel to discharge their duties effectively. Crucial to this is the setting and communication of deadlines, and allocation of responsibilities for preparatory work. 22 In order to ensure the accuracy of information in the SED (or briefing document) it is helpful for the CPQ Quality Manager to receive a draft copy of the document or relevant sections. A CPQ member of staff is best placed for ensuring the factual accuracy and that the correct terminology with respect to the International Academy has been used in the documentation. 23 The supporting documentation for the review of International Programmes can be supplied by the CPQ Quality Manager and/or the Programme Team and should normally include the following: Programme Specification(s) and Programme Regulations; External Examiner s Reports; Annual Programme and Planning Review (APPR) Reports; A selection of learning resources, including the student handbook; a sample of subject guides; Examiner Commentaries; access to online library resources; VLE access; Prospectuses; Student feedback; Module / Course / Unit outlines; Staff profiles; 24 In the case of College-based reviews, both the CPQ Quality Manager and relevant Programme Manager should be invited to attend the review event, and should receive a copy of the key documentation relevant to the International Programmes provision under review. The Lead College may invite other divisional staff or senior managers from the International Academy as necessary. 25 In the case of CPQ-centred reviews all Lead College staff attending the review event should receive a copy of the SED. The secretary should consult with the Lead College / Consortium as to the involvement of relevant Lead College staff in the review event. Reporting and Monitoring 26 The periodic review report is normally compiled by a secretary and presented to the Chair of the panel in the first instance, and then the remaining members of the panel as a whole. If, in the case of College-based reviews, the report is presented to the staff (or students) interviewed on the review day for factual accuracy then this should also include the relevant CPQ member(s) of staff attending the event. A CPQ member of staff is best placed for ensuring the factual accuracy and that the correct terminology with respect to the International Academy has been used in the final report. 27 In the case of CPQ-centred reviews, the report is presented to the staff (or students) interviewed on the review day for factual accuracy and to the appropriate Lead College staff. 28 Once the final report has been considered by a committee at the first stage of formal Lead College governance, the Lead College staff responsible for the review should ensure that the final report is submitted to the CPQ Quality Manager. This is to safeguard the timeliness of the consideration of periodic review reports. The CPQ Quality Manager should monitor the status of the Page 4 of 9

5 final report within the Lead College and ensure that the final report is reported to the International Academy s Quality Assurance and Student Lifecycle (QASL) sub-committee for their consideration. 29 In the case of CPQ-centred reviews, the final report is made available to the relevant Lead College staff for reporting through Lead College governance at the same time as the final report is submitted to the QASL sub-committee. In this review method the CPQ Quality Manager releases the report to all collaborative partners and there is no delay in the availability of the report for formal governance consideration. 30 The Lead College staff responsible for the review should submit a response and action plan with reference to the panel s findings and recommendations within one calendar year of the review event to the CPQ Quality Manager. The CPQ Quality Manager should monitor the status of the response and action plan within the Lead College to ensure that the response and action plan is reported to the QASL sub-committee for their consideration. 31 In the case of CPQ-centred reviews, the response and action plan is made available to the relevant Lead College staff at the same time as its submission to the QASL sub-committee. 32 On receipt of periodic review reports, responses and actions plans, the QASL sub-committee is responsible for: a) the inclusion of any issues, actions or recommendations required at institutional level into the committee s action sheet to be taken forward and monitored; b) the reporting of any issues, actions or recommendations required at institutional level onwards to members of the ULIAAC for wider consideration; c) the referral of any programme specific ac issues, actions or recommendations to CPQ, to be taken forward, recorded and monitored as part of the Annual Programme Planning and Review (APPR) process. 33 A chart is provided in Appendix B summarising the dual monitoring and reporting interface that exists between the Lead College and the International Academy. APPR process (annual monitoring) 34 The CPQ Quality Manager is responsible for submitting the final report, response and action plan to the relevant Programme Manager for inclusion in the APPR process. The Programme Manager is responsible for the reporting and onward monitoring of programme-level periodic review actions and will ensure that the relevant actions are incorporated into the APPR action sheet. 35 It should be noted that the periodic review event does not in anyway replace the purpose of the APPR process and does not waive the requirement to conduct the APPR exercise in the same academic year. However, in the instances where an International Programme has been given notice to close, it may be appropriate to conduct an enhanced APPR exercise in place of a scheduled periodic review. 36 As part of the APPR process, Programme Directors will provide annual updates on any remaining periodic review actions. It should be noted that the relevant Lead College committees receive copies of APPR reports and are able to monitor progress in this way. Key Outcomes 37 The Quality Assurance Agency s (QAA) Institutional audit of the International Programmes in November 2005 made the following comment in respect of periodic review: The External System Page 5 of 9

6 may wish to identify key outcomes that it requires from whichever periodic review process is adopted to enable it to make comparisons across the System and to identify common themes A set of key outcomes for periodic review (see Appendix A) has been revised and trialled for the academic year 2009/2010. It is intended that a spreadsheet should be used to enter information under each key outcome in order to enable the QASL sub-committee to compare performance and identify institutional trends on an annual basis. Corporate Performance and Quality Directorate Version 3.0, December Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, Institutional Audit Report, University of London External System, November 2005, p11. Page 6 of 9

7 Appendix A Key Outcomes In order to enable comparisons to be made across all International Programmes undergoing Periodic Programme Review, key outcomes have been developed for institutional-wide monitoring purposes. The key outcomes of Periodic Programme Review are to have: a) Reviewed how individual units of study and progression pathways relate to a programme s overall aims and learning outcomes; b) Assessed the currency and overall effectiveness of the learning materials, resources and guidance in relation to the programme specification, in the light of: current research and practice in the relevant discipline; developments in pedagogical methods for effective distance-learning; technological developments for enhancing the distance-learning experience; c) Evaluated the appropriateness of the assessment methods for examining student attainment of intended learning outcomes; d) Considered student achievement and progression; e) Considered the use of the QAA s Academic Infrastructure (the Code of Practice, Framework for Higher Education Qualifications, subject benchmarks and programme specifications) and any requirements of professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRB); f) Evaluated the extent to which minimum expectations for the academic guidance and personal support of International Programmes students are met; g) Ensured that the University of London s Academic Regulations and quality assurance mechanisms of the International Academy and Lead College are implemented effectively, and that any variations in practice are addressed; h) Reviewed the interface between the International Academy and the Lead Colleges in the management and enhancement of the quality of the programme. Page 7 of 9

8 Appendix B INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMMES PERIODIC PROGRAMME REVIEW (PPR) Annually: Autumn Term PPR Schedule reviewed and reported annually to International Academy committees (QASL / ULIAAC) - Annual schedule - Outstanding reports CPQ to brief stakeholders on PPR activity 3-6 months before event Lead College to confirm the date and scope of review process Lead College Review process CPQ representative assists Lead College and Review Panel with SED/briefing paper documentation and International Programmes student feedback Review Event (CPQ representative to attend) Review report (produced by Review Panel and Lead College) CPQ representative to complete key outcomes documentation Programme Team or Department prepare action plan / response Report / action plan / response to be considered by Lead College Academic committee structure Report / action plan / response / key outcomes to be considered by QASL sub-committee Review report (or summary) to be published on International Programmes website Action plan to be monitored through APPR process Page 8 of 9

9 Page 9 of 9 Version 3.0