1. ‘Preparing for Periodic Review’
In Scientia Opportunitas
Opportunity from Knowledge
Tony Turjansky
Director of Quality Assurance
Helen Duell
Academic Quality Officer
Academic Quality and Development Unit

2. National Context

3. The national context [UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8]
“The processes of monitoring and review provide a formal opportunity for higher education providers to reflect on their academic provision and consider how it may be changed to enhance the student learning experience. Programme monitoring refers to a regular, systematic process. It may take place annually or at shorter or longer intervals and provides a check on ongoing learning and teaching provision at an operational level. Programme review occurs less frequently, but periodically and to an agreed cycle. It has a broader remit and is informed by a view of trends over time. The review of a programme may be related to its re-approval, if the original approval was time limited; if the original approval was open ended, review is designed in a way which fulfils the function of re-approval.”

4. The national context  [UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8] contd.
Programme monitoring and programme review enable higher education providers to reflect on the learning opportunities students have experienced, the academic standards achieved, and their continuing currency and relevance
Monitoring and review provide a formal opportunity for higher education providers to reflect on their academic provision and consider how it may be changed to enhance the student learning experience
The monitoring and review of programmes also provide opportunities to ensure the student voice has been heard

5. The national context [HEFCE ‘Revised operating model for quality assessment’, March 2016]
Periodic review should be the key mechanism by which established providers improve academic outcomes and the student academic experience and :
Be informed by the institution’s context, provision and students
Identify issues or problems that need addressing
Be focused on improving student outcomes, identifying innovations and developments and evaluating their impact
Have sufficient strong externality (e.g. from academics, employers and alumni).
Will be used by Governors as evidence for completing their HEFCE Annual Accountability Return (AAR).

6. Periodic review at EHU: Process

7. Process and Documentation
Critical Review document
Authored by Head of Department and team of associated Programme Leaders
Phase One Meeting, including Student Focus Group (without staff) and Employer Focus Group
Review of evidence/ data
to agree ‘lines of enquiry’ and foci of pre-reading
Chair’s pre-meeting with departmental lead(s)
Main Review Event
VASC Standing Panel: Chair, Review Manager, two staff members, one trained student member (Students’ Union sabbatical officer) to bring a learner perspective
Two external academic experts (or one academic and one professional expert) nominated by the Department
Discussions with the Department team
Recommendations and affirmations to Department, Faculty and University
Identification of good practice for University-wide enhancement

8. Critical Review/ agenda headings
Strategy for development
Curriculum and Benchmarking
Student Recruitment
Student Retention & Progression
The Taught Degrees Framework:
Graduate attributes, Employability and Work-Related/Work-Based Learning
Induction and transition
Learning, Teaching and Assessment
Education for Personal Development and Enhancement
Global Citizenship
Staffing, Staff Development & Research
Learning Resources
Organisation & Management
Quality Assurance
Quality Enhancement
Assessment of Risk & Action Plan

9. ‘Quality enhancement’
The design of, and engagement with, innovative Learning, Teaching and Assessment practices
Mechanisms in place to evaluate their impact.

10. Phase One: First Panel Meeting
(no department attendance)
Identifies areas for consideration within the agenda of the main review event (Phase Two)
Reviews the supporting evidence (see next slide), identifies and assigns ‘lines of enquiry’
Holds a focus group meeting with student representatives
Holds a focus group meeting with employers, including alumni*
Identifies any further evidence to be supplied by the department/ area, Faculty or the AQDU before the Phase Two Event
(* Employer Focus Group meeting likely to be scheduled separately.)

11. Supporting evidence:
CVs of teaching staff, including associate tutors.
Minutes of Programme Boards and Student-Staff Consultative Fora from the most recent complete academic year.
A list of all awards in current approval, including collaborative provision, differentiated by:
Programmes for which the department/area is seeking continuing approval
Programmes with no current students and no planned recruitment being proposed for formal closure and removal from the University’s List of Named Awards
Programmes with current students for which the department/area is seeking phased closure (via AQEC).
Reports of all validations and major modifications undertaken since the previous review.
A list of all minor programme modifications undertaken since the previous periodic review.
A list of all modules re-validated since the previous periodic review.

12. Supporting evidence contd:
Programme specifications of all awards currently in validation.
The previous periodic review report for the department/area.
The department/area’s most recent Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) including the Head of Department’s Commentary.
The department/area’s most recent Spring Planning Statement.
Most recent external examiner reports and any relevant PSRB reports.
Student recruitment, achievement, retention, progression and award data from the most recent complete academic year for all programmes, including module first-time pass rates.
Most recent internal student survey and National Student Survey data for the department/area.
Most recent graduate employment data (Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey).
Student-Staff Ratio data (supplied by the Faculty).
A sample of programme and module handbooks.

13. A Two Phase Process: Phase One: First Panel Meeting
Phase Two: Main Review Event
Approximately one week before the Main Review Event the chair, secretary and head of department/area meet to:
Confirm the programme and attendance for the Main Review Event
Share the key issues identified at the First Panel Meeting together with the written comments received from the external panel members
Normally lasts one full working day
Begins with presentation on progress since last review, and examples of the impact of a selection of good practice citations from recent validations and AMR
Discussions are collegial, but rigorous
Culminates in judgements (endorsements), recommendations and affirmations (see next slides)
NB Although periodic review normally confers continuing approval, panels may refer any individual programme back to the host Faculty for modification or re-validation

14. Outcomes

15. Outcomes Confidence statement Endorsements (of standards and quality)
Recommendations
Affirmations (of actions already being taken)
Commendations (non-transferable)
Citations (of transferable good practice)
Continuing approval (of current provision) – with or without exceptions

16. Reporting

17. Review Manager produces draft report
‘Chair’s Approved Draft’ is circulated to the rest of the panel for verification and to the proposing team for confirmation of factual accuracy only
Confirmed report and department response to recommendations is signed off by the Review Chair and goes to the next available Academic Quality Enhancement Committee meeting for consideration and approval (signals continuing approval of existing programmes)
Report is filed and becomes available as evidence for Governors’ AAR (as per HEFCE’s new quality assurance framework).

18. Questions