1. Periodic Developmental Reviews (PDR)
Siân Conner
Quality Office
University of Leicester
September 2014

2. What is a PDR?
PDRs are an important means by which the University satisfies itself that departments, schools and collaborative partners are fulfilling the requirements for the maintenance of academic standards and teaching quality.
Reviews happen on a cyclical basis (normally every 6 years)
In line with QAA Quality Code, Chapter B8: Programme Monitoring and Review
University’s Code of Practice – currently under review
PDRs are a dialogue between the Departments and the wider university.
They are a way in which the University assures itself that the Departments are meeting key expectations, as set out in the QAA’s Quality Code, particularly the quality of learning opportunities and up-to-date public information.
PDRs fall under chapter B8: Programme Monitoring and Review of the Quality Code.
The University’s CoP is currently being updated to reflect some enhancements to the process made over the summer.

3. What is a PDR (cont.)?
PDRs are normally day-long events (can be longer for schools/departments with large or complex provision)
During the day, a Panel will conduct interviews with the Head of School/Department and a range of staff and students from the School/Department
A report follows the review, with key findings. These are often in the form of commendations, recommendations and requirements for action
A number of activities happen prior to the review day, for example selected panel members are invited to observe a teaching session (normally the Panel member with the Learning and Teaching remit) and the Secretary will attend an SSC (to which the Students’ Union are welcome to attend).
The day is split up into sections, so that the interviews with students can inform the interviews with staff members [SAMPLE AGENDA]
Following the day, the Secretary drafts a report that is circulated to all panel members for comment prior to approval and disclosure to the School. There can be both recommendation and requirements for the School AND the University, as the Panel deem fit [SAMPLE REPORT].
The report goes to APC and the School follows up with actions.

4. The Panel All PDRs are conducted by a panel made up of:
A Pro-Vice Chancellor (Chair)
An External Assessor(s)
Academic Director
Member of Academic Policy Committee
Lay member of Council
Member of the SU Sabbatical Team
Member of Quality Office (Secretary)
The Panel acts on behalf of APC
Note – Panel members are always from different colleges to the ones being reviewed.
External assessors – may have additional externals based on provision (if there is an accrediting body, for example)

5. Timescales: 6 months 2 months 6 weeks Memo from Quality Office to HoD
Meeting with HoD and relevant Department figures
List of documents and PDR Guide sent to Department
2 months
SSC Meeting to be observed by Secretary
Teaching session to be observed by Panel Member
Schedule and date of the event to be confirmed
Questionnaires sent out to DL students
6 weeks
Deadline for documentation
Nominate staff and students for interview
6 months to go:
Confirm date with HoD
Meeting to discuss PDR process and expectations with Secretary/Member of Quality Office
Nominations for External Advisers to be sent to Quality Office
2 months:
List of student names sent to Secretary

6. Timescales (cont.): 5 weeks 4 weeks 2 weeks
Quality Office reviews documentation
Additional documentation requests to Department
4 weeks
Panel Members sent hard copy folder of documentation
Panel Members given access to Blackboard site
2 weeks
Secretary briefs the Chair
Students’ Union brief the student representatives

7. After the Event: Conclusions sent to Department
1 week
Conclusions sent to Department
3 weeks
Report sent to Department
TBA
Response to CAC and APC

8. What to expect…
The School/Department, working with the Quality Office, creates a dossier of key monitoring information, including:
Self-evaluation document (SED)
Student FTE profile
Recent NSS results
Minutes from various departmental committees
Recent External Examiner reports
Recent Annual Developmental Reports
You will receive a folder of key information in hard copy [SAMPLE FOLDER]
You will also have access to a Blackboard site including further information that will inform your questioning (for example, a good place to start is the SSC minutes – what are the students raising? Have these queries been addressed satisfactorily? Does it highlight any underlying issues that that the School or University needs to address?)

9. Documentation: Department’s responsibility to create Blackboard site
‘Department X PDR’
Design of Bb site – up to Department
Give access to Secretary
Department needs to give access to the Panel members
Secretary will indicate the information that is to be uploaded by Department and Quality Office in pre- meeting

10. Self-Evaluation Document (SED)
Purpose:
Reflect upon provision
Helps set the agenda for the event
Forms the basis of a dialogue
Not a detailed description of what you do – background information is useful but SED needs to be reflective and evaluative (e.g. how effective/successful is the Department?)
It also needs to identify key areas for development and improvement

11. Self-Evaluation Document (SED) cont.
No formal requirement of length
Six sections:
Strategic and Department Overview
Curriculum and Award Standards
Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Student Support, Development and Employability
Research
Issues for discussion
Ownership of document is Departmental, therefore it isn’t down to one individual to draft. Should go through departmental learning and teaching committees for departmental approval.

12. SED 1: Strategic and Departmental Overview
Overview of provision and organisational structure
Quality Enhancement and Assurance
Strategies
Overview of approach to curriculum development and eLearning
Overview of Collaborative Provision
Management of Learning Resources
Aims and Context
Sections should include:
Strategic summary
Overview of the provision
Departmental Organisational structure
Maintenance of Standards and Enhancement of Quality
External examiner reports
PSRB reports
NSS Data
Departmental Committee Minutes
ADR process within the Department
Strategies (L&T, Admissions, etc)
Overview of approaches to curriculum development and eLearning
Overview of collaborative provision
Management of learning resources
Aims and Context
Strategic aim of the department within the context of the Uni Strategy
National/International requirements
Widening Participation, etc

13. SED 2: Curriculum and Award Standards
Reflect on structure and content of programmes
Progression and completion rates
Employability and graduate destination statistics
Curriculum Awards and Standards
Reflect on structure and content of programmes, designed and developed appropriately, referring to:
Opportunities to achieve ILOs
Academic and intellectual progression
Good practice
Feedback from EE
Subject Benchmark Statements
Progression and completion rates
Employability and graduate destination statistics

14. SED 3: Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Learning and Teaching
Range of teaching methods
Opportunities for innovation
Assessment
Effectiveness in promoting student learning
Feedback
Mechanisms in place
Student representation
Teaching, Learning and Assessment
Learning and teaching
Range and appropriateness of teaching methods
Variety in ways in which student participation is encouraged and achieved
Opportunities for innovation
Effectiveness of team teaching
Assessment
Effectiveness in promoting student learning
Range and variety of assessment methods used (and their effectiveness)
Feedback
Feedback mechanisms in place
Student representation
Student engagement with curriculum planning

15. SED 4: Student Support, Development and Employability
Recruitment and Induction
Student Support
Student Experience
Learning Resources
Learning and Study Skills
Employability
Work Placements
International Study (Year Abroad, etc)
Student Support, Development and Employability
Recruitment and induction of students
Student support
How do you know whether support for students is effective?
Identification of Learning Needs
Written Guidance
Academic advising
Tutorial Support
Feedback to students on their progress
Overall academic guidance and supervision
Student experience
Sense of belonging
Do students understand their responsibilities
Learning Resources
Availability of equipment
Learning and teaching accommodation
Accessibility of library resources
Effectiveness of technical and administrative support
Learning and Study Skills
Articulate how learning and study skills are identified
Development of study skills working with the University central services
Opportunities for further development.
Employability
Identification of employability skills
How employability is developed through curriculum
How does Department assess the effectiveness of employability
Work Placements
International Study

16. SED 5: Research Recruitment Studentships and awards
Supervision and special arrangements
Research training course
Resources
Student progress
Submission and completion rates
Graduate assistants
Research
Recruitment
Studentships and Awards
Supervision arrangements
Special arrangements
Research Training Courses
Resources
Student progress
Submission and completion rates
Graduate assistants

17. SED 6: Issues for discussion
The Panel or the PDR process cannot always answer every question raised, however the process is designed to be a dialogue and should therefore be reflected as such.
Issues for discussion
Can’t always provide answers to questions but should provide an opportunity for discussion.

18. After the Event Conclusions sent to the Department within one week
Report published within 3 weeks of the event
Initial response to the report to be sent to APC, normally within 2 months of the report publication
Full response to be sent to APC within one year of the report publication

19. Useful documents:
QAA Quality Code, Chapter B8: Programme Monitoring and Review
Code of Practice for Annual and Periodic Developmental Review [currently under review]

20. Any Questions