1. Self Evaluation Document and Programme Specifications (SED) Planning and preparation meeting(s) Use of reference points (Benchmark Statements/Code of Practice) Variation of intensity of scrutiny Introduction

2. QAA New Method Teams of reviewers at the subject/programme level will comprise subject specialists and a co-ordinating reviewer The number of reviewers and days allocated will be based on the quality profile of the institution and subject, as well as the size of the provision Reviewers combine desk-based review of documentation, including student work, with meetings and discussions No “snapshot” visit or judgements, documentation may be provided over a more extended period Review of teaching will be based mainly on internal peer review and student evaluations, but may include direct observation

3. Main Changes from the Current System Outcomes specified in terms of shared reference points Outcomes monitored as well as process Greater explicitness and public clarity Shift in emphasis from special, external to usual, internal, mechanisms

4. The SED At both subject and institutional levels there will be a Self-evaluation document. Reviewers will seek to test and verify the conclusions reached in the self-evaluations.

5. SED: Preparation Annex C / additional guidance paper : structure Annex E : to inform What makes a good SED? What? How? Why? What are ARs looking for? Agenda-setting Strengths & weaknesses

6. Programme Specifications Template form or free text Must make explicit learning outcomes in terms of: -Knowledge -Skills and other attributes Clear articulation of: -Teaching and learning methods -Assessment methods -Relationship of programme with qualifications framework

7. Uses for Programme Specifications 1.Institution 2.Students 3.Reviewers 4.Employers

8. From the Handbook: Guidance on Programme Specification “Academic reviewers will wish to understand how any relevant subject benchmark statements have been used to inform the specification of programmes. However, outcomes for a programme should be determined through a deliberate process by the institution, they should not be simply copied from a subject benchmark statement. Rather the benchmark statement should act as a point of reference against which the insitution’s own outcomes and processes can be reviewed and justified.”

9. Review Activities Planning & preparation meeting(s) Milestone/end date Evidence > Activity Timescale Renegotiation/information on progress Work room for review team

10. Reference Points Judgements against reference points - likelihood of negative judgement limited Not check-lists Links to institutional review

11. Extracts from the Handbook for Academic Review “For some programmes, more than one benchmark statement may be relevant, whilst in some specialist, innovative or inter- disciplinary fields there may not be any statement that is of direct relevance….. In all cases the institution remains responsible for identifying and assuring the standards for its awards and for ensuring they reflect appropriate external indicators”

12. Intensity of Review will be Determined by Four Factors: The initial institutional profile The performance of the subject provider in the previous quality assessment/subject review(s) The self evaluation and its analysis by reviewers The review process

13. Variation in Number of Days Weak SED Possibility of a judgement of no confidence in standards or a failing judgement Further work to identify weaknesses or strengths (exemplary features) required Reduction in number of days also possible Continuing negotiation

14. QAA New Method Report on standards and quality Report on standards focuses on intended learning outcomes, curricula, assessment and achievement Judgements on standards are not graded, but identify the level of confidence reviewers have in the academic standard of the provision (may differentiate level of confidence in the standards of particular subjects/levels/programmes) Report on quality focuses on teaching and learning, student progression, learning resources Judgements on quality grade the provision as commendable/approved/failing, may identify exemplary features and where necessary differentiate between subjects/levels/programmes

15. Standards…. Is the curriculum content appropriate to each stage of the programme and to the level of the award? Is assessment designed appropriately to measure achievement of the intended outcomes? Does student achievement match the intended outcomes and the level of the award?

16. The Judgements to be made: Standards Are there clear learning outcomes for the programme(s) which reflect appropriately applicable subject benchmarks and the level of the award? Is the content and design of the curriculum effective in achieving the intended programme outcomes?