preparing for periodic review oct13 - edge hill university · ‘preparing for periodic review’...

Preparing for Periodic ReviewA Guide for Panels and Course Teams

Academic Quality and Development UnitValidation and Audit Standing Panel

Updated October, 2013

‘Preparing for Periodic Review’Updated October 2013

1

Table of Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 The Validation and Audit Standing Panel 2

3 The Academic Quality and Development Unit 3

4 Aims of Periodic Review

Fig. 1 : ‘The Periodic Review Cycle’

4

5

5 The Periodic Review Panel 6

6

7

Information for External Panel Members

Preliminary Panel Meeting

6

7

8 Student Focus Group Meetings 7

9 Periodic Review Documentation (‘Critical Review’) 8

10 Periodic Review: The Main Event 12

11 The Periodic Review Report

Fig 2: ‘The Periodic Review Process’

13

14

Appendices

1 ‘Proforma agenda for periodic review’ (PAR1) 15-19

2

3

‘Proforma agenda for student focus groups’ (PAS1)

External Consultant’s Expense Claim Form

20-23

24-25

4 Map and directions to Edge Hill University Ormskirk Campus 26


2

1. Introduction

Operating alongside annual monitoring, five-yearly Periodic Review is one of the means bywhich Edge Hill University assures itself of the current and future health of its academicportfolio, identifying and assessing actual and potential risks to the quality, standards andviability of provision and highlighting areas for development as well as good practice withthe potential for wider dissemination (quality enhancement). Periodic Review enables theUniversity to take a longer, more holistic and strategic view of its academic provision bydiscipline or other cognate grouping of programmes, with the benefit of critical advice froma panel of academic peers from within and outwith the institution. Periodic review alsoprovides the means for confirming the continuing validation1 of a department/area’s currentprovision.

This guide is intended for VASP members, external panel members and representativesof academic departments/areas who are preparing for periodic review at Edge HillUniversity. The information is designed to be read in close association with Chapter 32

of the Quality Management Handbook (QMH).

2. The Validation and Audit Standing Panel

Responsibility for approving, monitoring and reviewing the University’s academic provisionresides with the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC)3 which has established theValidation and Audit Standing Panel (VASP)4 to ensure the consistency and rigour of itsprocesses for validation5, periodic review and internal quality audit. Chaired by the Head ofAcademic Quality with officer support from the Academic Quality and Development Unit(AQDU)6, VASP’s terms of reference are to:

1. Conduct validations, periodic reviews and internal audits on behalf of LTC;2. Through the Chair of VASP, recruit and develop members and chairs from among

academic and academic-related support staff within and outwith7 the University,according to specific criteria;

3. Recommend to LTC the final approval (or otherwise) of proposals for academic provisionand collaborative partnerships through the minuted discussions of validation, partner anddelivery approval and periodic review meetings;

1 With the exception of all collaborative programmes and some PSRB-accredited provision for which five-yearlystandalone re-validation is retained. Separate re-validation may also be requested by Faculties where widespreadchanges to curriculum are proposed for which the University’s programme modification process is inappropriate.2 Available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.3 For LTC’s terms of reference and membership, see QMH Chapter 8 at:http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/academic-board-committees/.4 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/VASP.htm.5 The term ‘validation’ encompasses the approval of new programmes and modifications to existing programmes.While re-validation of current provision is normally confirmed through the Periodic Review process, someprogrammes may undergo standalone re-validation e.g. all collaborative programmes and some PSRB-accreditedprovision. For more details, see QMH Chapter 4 at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/Validation.htm.6 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/.7 Typically from the University’s collaborative partner organisations.


3

4. Conduct the abovementioned activities in accordance with the Quality AssuranceAgency’s UK Quality Code for Higher Education (UKQCHE)8 and ensure that therequirements of Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) are met wherethese are applicable.

Membership of VASP is through self-nomination9 and staff of Edge Hill University and itspartner institutions are eligible to serve, subject to submitting a personal statement whichdemonstrates their experience in relation to the following criteria:

(i) For academic members, experience (at the University or elsewhere) of:

Curriculum development and programme management/design, and

Curriculum or teaching-related research and consultancy, and/or

Reviewing and enhancing the student learning experience, and/or

Operating quality assurance processes for taught academic provision.

(ii) For representatives of service areas/academic-related support staff, experience (at theUniversity or elsewhere) of:

Relevant management responsibility, and

Reviewing and enhancing the student learning experience, and/or

Operating quality assurance processes for taught academic provision.

Chairs for validation, periodic review and internal audit panels are appointed by individualapplication from within the current VASP membership on the additional demonstration of:

Experience of academic quality assurance outwith the University, typically gained byvalidation and review experience in another Higher Education Institution, appointment asa QAA Reviewer, engagements with or on behalf of PSRBs, or experience of externalexamining or Ofsted inspection.

Applications are considered by the Chair of VASP and appropriate training and developmentis provided for new panel members and chairs. Membership is for four years in the firstinstance, following which the term of appointment may be reviewed.

3. The Academic Quality and Development Unit

The Academic Quality and Development Unit (AQDU) provides administrative and officersupport to VASP’s processes and offers advice, guidance and training on all aspects of theUniversity’s quality assurance systems. Academic Quality Officers (AQOs) manage theseprocesses by:

Confirming dates for validation and periodic review events with Faculties and academicdepartments in accordance with the University’s annual validation and review scheduleas approved by the Academic Planning Committee (APC) and LTC.

8 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/default.aspx. .9 Online application for VASP membership is available to staff of Edge Hill University staff and its partnerorganisations, at: http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/documents/VASPApplicationForm.pdf.


4

Liaising with Faculty Associate Deans (Quality) and Faculty Quality Officers, and directlywith academic departments/areas and programme development teams.

Convening VASP panels to consider submissions for validation and periodic review,including approval of external panel member nominations10.

Preparing briefing papers for panels.

Convening preliminary panel meetings as appropriate to the processes of validation andperiodic review (and internal audit).

Writing reports of the validation or periodic review (or internal audit) including anyconditions of approval and/or recommendations.

Making arrangements for the final approval of confirmed reports and (for validation)confirmed programme specifications by LTC.

For validation, the AQDU works with Faculties and programme teams throughout theprocess and supports them in preparing Applications for Development Consent11 forconsideration by APC, and validation submission documents for consideration by Facultypre-validation scrutiny committees and, ultimately, by a VASP panel. It also maintains anelectronic library of programme and module specifications12 and is responsible formaintaining a record of all approved modifications to them.

4. Aims of Periodic Review

The purpose of periodic review is routinely to review and evaluate all taught provision in aparticular department or subject area in the context of its own aims and aspirations, Facultyand University-level strategy and the broader national and regional environment. Allprogrammes within a designated unit of periodic review13 are considered together, whichprovides the opportunity to:

Address, in an holistic way, any issues concerning curricula, teaching, learning andassessment, student support, staffing and resources that apply across adepartment/area’s whole provision.

Consider how the department’s academic strategy and direction align with University andFaculty priorities and external agendas and how this is reflected in its current andplanned developments.

Consider trends in student recruitment, retention, achievement and progression acrossthe whole of the department’s portfolio from (sub-)degree to Masters level.

Periodic reviews are programmed on a five-yearly cycle, the schedule and any changes to itbeing confirmed annually by LTC14. Judgements are made on the overall academic health ofthe department/area as well as the individual programmes delivered within it. PeriodicReview normally15 confers continuing approval of all programmes within the departmentalthough panels may refer back to the host Faculty any individual programme(s) about which

10 On behalf of, and with delegated authority from, the Chair of VASP.11 See http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/academic-planning/.12 Programme specifications for all current awards are available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/foi/progspecs.Current module specifications may be accessed by EHU staff via the University’s E-VAL system (Edge Hill stafflogin required). Other archived course documentation is available to EHU staff on request to the AcademicQuality & Development Unit at [email protected] Typically an academic department/area or other grouping of cognate programmes - see Appendix.14 Usually at its October meeting.15 However, most PSRB-accredited programmes and all collaborative programmes will undergo standalonereview and re-validation – see also QMH Chapters 4 & 5.


5

they have concerns for modification or standalone re-validation. The periodic review cycle,as currently confirmed by LTC, is shown below:

Fig.1 : ‘The Periodic Review Cycle’

Year incycle

AcademicYear

Faculty Unit of periodic review

1 2013/14 FAS Performing Arts

FAS Media16

FAS Psychology

FAS Social Sciences

FAS International Foundation Programme (UniversityFoundation Certificate) and the Graduate DiplomaPre-Masters Programme17

FOE Secondary Education

FOHSC Applied Health and Social Care

FOHSC Paramedic

FOHSC Operating Department Practice

2 2014/15 FAS Biology

FAS Geography

FAS Sport and Physical Activity

FOE Post-Compulsory Education and Training

FOHSC Nursing & Nursing and Social Work

FOHSC Social Work

FOHSC Midwifery

GS Graduate School Taught Programmes

3 2015/16 FAS English and History

FOE Primary and Early Years Education

FOHSC Continuing Professional Development

University Undergraduate & Postgraduate Taught DegreeFrameworks18

4 2016/17 FAS Business School

FAS Computing

FOE Postgraduate Professional Development

5 2017/18 FAS Law & Criminology

FOE Undergraduate Professional Development

16 Deferred for second year by approval of LTC (Minute 010/LTC/12).17 Hosted by the Centre for International Education (International Office).18 The process for the periodic review of curriculum frameworks is based on the University’s internal auditprocess and will be confirmed through discussion at Academic Managers Group (AMG) and LTC.


6

5. The Periodic Review Panel

Periodic Review panels are convened from the membership of VASP and also includeexternal representation in accordance UK Quality Code for Higher Education guidelines forprogramme monitoring and review19. Panels are normally constituted according to thefollowing criteria:

A VASP panel chair who will normally also be a member of the University’s AcademicManagers Group (AMG).

Two VASP members20 (where neither is associated either directly or indirectly with thedepartment/area to be reviewed)21.

Two external panel members who will normally be employed within a designatedhigher education institution. External members should have expertise that is relevant tothe subject area and be able to offer an expert and objective opinion on the periodicreview submission. There may be occasions on which it is appropriate to engage oneexternal from outwith the HE sector, e.g. from further education or to represent theinterests of employers or industry such as Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies(PSRBs). Externals are subject to the general criteria for panel selection which includesfull disclosure of any previous contact with members of the department/area underreview or contribution to the development of its provision22.

One student VASP member23.

An Academic Quality Officer (panel secretary).

6. Information for External Panel Members

External panel members for periodic review currently receive a standard fee of £180.00(before tax). This fee covers their attendance at the periodic review event and thesubmission of advance written comments on the critical review document24, by email to thepanel secretary, approximately 5 working days before the validation event. Travel expensesare reimbursed separately on submission of a claim for (i) car travel – return journey,claimed at the rate of 40p per mile; or (ii) standard class rail fare on production of a valid railticket or receipt. Externals should complete the form ‘Fees Claim for Visiting Lecturers andExternal Consultants’25 and return it to the panel secretary as soon as possible following the

19 See http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B8.aspx.20 The panel’s constitution may be increased or reduced by the Chair of VASP according to the size and

complexity of the area under review. VASP members of academic-related support services or partnerinstitutions should normally constitute no more than half of a periodic review panel’s membership.

21 While representatives of other departments/areas of the same Faculty may sit on a review panel, seniorFaculty academic managers such as the PVC Dean and Associate Deans are excluded. However, they mayattend periodic review panel meetings in an advisory capacity.

22 External panel members are nominated by the department/area to be reviewed using Form ECN1 ‘ExternalConsultant Nomination Form’ , available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.

23 Usually sabbatical officers of the University’s Students’ Union who will have received appropriate training toundertake the role. Student panel members are excluded from reviews of their own departments/areas butmay participate in reviews of other departments/areas within their home Faculties.

24 Using Template form PAR1– see Appendix 1, also available for download from:http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.25 See Appendix 3.


7

validation event. Most validations are scheduled at the Ormskirk campus26 and theUniversity will provide overnight hotel accommodation on request27.

Full details of the University’s current academic prospectus may be accessed by externals viathe Edge Hill website28.

7. Preliminary Panel Meeting

Internal panel members meet approximately four weeks before the periodic review event toreceive a briefing paper and supporting evidence compiled by the panel secretary (AcademicQuality Officer) and to agree lines of enquiry and any additional activity to be completedahead of the main event. The standard supporting evidence29 (data) for periodic review is asfollows (supplied by the AQDU except where otherwise stated):

Programme specifications of all awards currently in validation.

A list of all major programme modifications undertaken since the previous periodicreview.

The last three Annual Monitoring Reports (AMRs)30 for the department/area includingthe head of department’s commentaries and associated 3-year data on studentrecruitment, achievement, retention and progression and graduate destinations.

Most recent Spring Planning Statement for the department/area.

Most recent external examiner reports and any relevant PSRB reports.

(Where applicable) Most recent collaborative programme AMRs and associated internalverifier reports.

Programme Board/Student-Staff Consultative Fora minutes and staff meeting minutesfrom the most recent complete academic year (supplied by the department/area).

Student-Staff Ratio data (supplied by the Faculty).

Most recent internal student survey and National Student Survey data for thedepartment/area.

The ‘front-loading’ of reading and other preparation by panel members enables them tofocus their discussions during the main review event and so make best use of the timeavailable.

8. Student Focus Group Meetings

A private meeting31 with representative students is held approximately three weeks beforethe main periodic review event. The precise constitution of the student group is negotiatedbetween the AQDU and the department/area under review, taking into account the latter’s

26 For a map and directions including details of travel by car and rail, see Appendix 4.27 Externals may request this from the panel secretary when agreeing their participation.28 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/study/courses.29 However, additional evidence may also be requested by the panel following consideration of the initialevidence.30 That is, the AMR from the most recent complete annual monitoring cycle.31 These meetings may occasionally be chaired by the DVC (Academic) although the periodic review panel chair,secretary and/or other members of the periodic review panel are likely to be in attendance. In the interests ofstudent confidentiality, staff of the department/area under review are excluded from these meetings.


8

size and complexity. Students are informed of the focus group’s purpose and agenda32 andnotes of the meeting are circulated to all panel members in advance of the main reviewevent.

9. Periodic Review Documentation (‘Critical Review’)

Drawing on and evaluating the evidence listed in 7 above, departments/areas produce theirown self-evaluative document known as a Critical Review which is distributed to the panelapproximately two weeks before the main periodic review event. This document consists of:

1) COVERSHEET & CONTENTS (Form ‘SDC2’)33 – This immediately precedes the mainCritical Review and provides summary information including identification of theawarding body/institution (normally Edge Hill University), unit of periodic review, dateof periodic review, details of professional body accreditation (where applicable) and thenames and titles of all target34 awards to be considered for re-approval within thereview.

2) CRITICAL REVIEW DOCUMENT (Form ‘CRD1’)35 comprising the following sections:

Executive Summary: A brief contextual introduction to the department/area andsynopsis of the key issues which will be developed further within the Critical Reviewdocument.

Strategy for development: This section sets out and explains the department/area’svision and strategy for development, locating both current and planned provision withinthe current and projected environment for student demand, commissioning36, graduateemployment and competition from other HE providers and identifying the impact ofany significant national policy, legislative or regulatory changes. Departments/areasshould comment evaluatively on their recruitment data, identifying and evaluatingsignificant highs, lows or trends and indicating any actions taken as a result.Opportunities for external collaboration and internal cross-department or cross-Facultydevelopments may be discussed here. Engagement with the University’s processes foracademic planning (APC) and annual budget-setting (Faculty & Directorate) may also beevaluated.

Curriculum and benchmarking: In this section departments/areas should discuss themechanisms by which the standards of their programmes are set and maintained. Theyshould evaluate the appropriateness of current curricula, summarising any newdevelopments or modifications to existing programmes since the previous periodicreview and/or those planned for the future. When reviewing their curricula,departments are expected to demonstrate engagement with the Design Requirements

32 See Appendix 2, also available separately as Form PAS1 ‘Proforma agenda for student focus groups’ at fromhttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.33 Downloadable from http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.34 Target awards are those for which students may enrol at the point of entry. They are therefore distinct fromAlternative (Exit) awards which are used for in-programme transfer or for students who do not achieve sufficientcredit for their target qualification – see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4.35 Downloadable from http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.36 For example, for the training of teachers and health professionals.


9

section of the University’s Undergraduate37 and Postgraduate Taught38 DegreeFrameworks and Part A of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Setting andmaintaining academic standards’39 which includes the Framework for Higher EducationQualifications and subject benchmark statements. Departments should also include ananalysis of their other benchmarking activities, e.g. against relevant professional (PSRB)standards, with an accompanying evaluation of student achievement (e.g. final degreeclassifications), employability and graduate destinations.

Assessment: Departments/areas should evaluate the effectiveness of their assessmentstrategy and discuss any significant action taken in response to issues raised by externalexaminers, internal moderation panels, student module evaluations, ProgrammeBoards and Student-Staff Consultative Fora (SSCFs) or other feedback. When reviewingtheir approaches to assessment, departments are expected to demonstrateengagement with the Student Learning Experience: High Order Questions andChallenges section of the University’s Undergraduate40 and Postgraduate Taught41

Degree Frameworks, with Edge Hill’s policies on Assessment42 and Marking &Moderating Assessed Work43 and with Chapter B6 of the UK Quality Code for HigherEducation on Assessment and Recognition of Prior Learning44. Consideration should alsobe given to how ‘protected characteristics’ are taken into account in the design andimplementation of inclusive assessment strategies. Departments/areas shouldcomment evaluatively on their internal student survey and National Student Surveydata on ‘Assessment and feedback’ and where there are evidence-based examples ofinnovation or other good practice in assessment, these should be identified and theirpotential for wider dissemination evaluated (for quality enhancement). Whereprogrammes are delivered in collaboration with a partner organisation(s), any issuesrelating to the conduct of assessment should be clearly identified by individual deliverycentre or cohort.

Learning and teaching: Departments/areas should evaluate the effectiveness of theirlearning and teaching strategy and discuss any significant action taken in response toissues raised by external examiners, student module evaluations, Programme Boardsand Student-Staff Consultative Fora (SSCFs) or other feedback. Forprofessional/vocational programmes and all foundation degrees, this should includeconsideration of the arrangements for the management, delivery and support ofpractice-based learning and Work-Based Learning (WBL). Where the department/area’sprovision include flexible (distance or blended) learning, this should also be evaluated.Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), and its role in teaching and supporting learnersshould be evaluated including the use of the Learning Edge (Blackboard) VirtualLearning Environment. When reviewing teaching and learning, departments areexpected to demonstrate engagement with the Student Learning Experience: HighOrder Questions and Challenges section of the University’s Undergraduate45 andPostgraduate Taught46 Degree Frameworks, with Edge Hill’s Learning and Teaching

37 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/section-1-design-requirements/.38 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/ptdf-design-requirements/.39 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/AssuringStandardsAndQuality/quality-code/Pages/UK-Quality-Code-Part-A.aspx.40 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/StudentLearningExperience.htm.41 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/PTDFStudentLearningExperience.htm.42 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/Assessment-Policy.pdf.43 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2013/01/MarkingModeratingAssessedWork.pdf.44 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B6.aspx.45 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/StudentLearningExperience.htm.46 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/PTDFStudentLearningExperience.htm.


10

Policy47 and Learning and Teaching Strategy48 and with Chapter B3 of the UK QualityCode for Higher Education on Learning and Teaching49. Any local strategy for teachingand learning should be referenced, and the department’s internal student survey andNational Student Survey data on ‘Teaching’ evaluated. Consideration should also begiven to how ‘protected characteristics’ are taken into account in the design andimplementation of inclusive learning activities. Where supported by evidence, specificexamples of innovation or other good practice in teaching and learning may also beidentified, and their enhancement potential evaluated. Where programmes aredelivered in collaboration with a partner organisation(s), any teaching-related issuesshould be clearly identified by individual delivery centre or cohort.

Student recruitment, induction, support and guidance: In this sectiondepartments/areas should describe and evaluate how their students are recruited,admitted, inducted and supported once on programme. This should includeconsideration of how University, Faculty and departmental mechanisms for managingrecruitment, admission, pre-enrolment communication, induction and student support(including transitions between years of study) are co-ordinated with specific referenceto the operation of personal tutoring, personal development planning (PDP), learningsupport and careers guidance within programmes. Departments are expected todemonstrate engagement with the Student Learning Experience: High Order Questionsand Challenges section of the University’s Undergraduate50 and Postgraduate Taught51

Degree Frameworks, Edge Hill’s policies and guidance on Effective Academic Induction52,Personal Tutoring53, Personal Development Planning54 and the Assessment of AcademicReferencing55 and Chapter B4 of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education on EnablingStudent Development and Achievement 56. The department’s internal student surveyand National Student Survey data on ‘Academic support and Personal development’should be evaluated, and any local strategies for student induction and supportreferenced. Consideration should also be given to how ‘protected characteristics’, andthe specific needs of on-campus international students are taken into account in thedesign and implementation of inclusive learning support. Where supported byevidence, specific examples of innovation or other good practice in student supportshould be highlighted for the purpose of quality enhancement. Where programmes aredelivered in collaboration with a partner organisation(s) an evaluation of sharedresponsibilities and arrangements for recruiting and supporting students should also beincluded.

Student retention and progression: This section should consider how departmental,Faculty and University support systems are used to manage student retention andprogression and their impact on student success. Departments/areas should commentevaluatively on the effectiveness of their student retention strategy through theanalysis of progression data, identifying significant highs, lows or trends and any actions

47 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/Teaching-and-Learning-Policy-Updated-Oct-2012.pdf48 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/Learning-and-Teaching-Strategy-2012-Definitive.pdf49 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B3.aspx.50 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/StudentLearningExperience.htm.51 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/PTDFStudentLearningExperience.htm.52

https://go.edgehill.ac.uk/wiki/download/attachments/18321822/Guide+to+Effective+Academic+Induction+June2013.docx?version=1&modificationDate=1378811866000 (EHU staff login required).53 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/The-Personal-Tutor-System-at-EHU-Mar-11.pdf.54 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/Final-PDP-Element-of-Prog-Files.pdf.55 http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/files/2012/02/Assessment-of-referencing-policy-FINAL-17Oct12.pdf.56 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B4.aspx.


11

that have been taken as a result. Any local strategy for managing retention should bereferenced. For foundation degrees, guidance and preparation for students’ progressionto Honours degree study at Edge Hill should also be considered.

Staffing, staff development and research: This section will provide evidence of themanagement, maintenance and effective deployment of staff resources to support thedelivery of current and planned programmes. Departments/areas should evaluate stafftrends and turnover for a period of not less than the previous three years, indicatinghow staff changes have been/are being planned for and managed and in particular, anyshortages in specific subject areas that pose a risk to the student learning experience.Departments should demonstrate how the professional development needs of staffinvolved in teaching and supporting students are managed, making reference to anylocal staff development strategy and how this links with the University’s systems forTeaching Review and Performance Review & Development57. They should alsodemonstrate how taught provision is underpinned by academic research and scholarlyactivity, especially at Levels 6 and 7. Any local research strategy should be referencedand consideration given to how staff research aligns with the University’s agenda forgreater internationalisation. Where programmes are delivered in collaboration with apartner organisation(s), discussion of how the department/area establishes thecontinuing appropriateness of staff qualifications, experience and scholarlyactivity/professional skills updating for teaching between Levels 4 & 7 should also beincluded.

Other learning resources: This section should evaluate the management, maintenanceand effective deployment of resources other than staffing to support the delivery ofcurrent and planned programmes, both central (e.g. general teaching accommodationand shared Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) including the LearningEdge Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment) and department-specific, e.g. localspecialist resources for the delivery of programmes. Departments/areas shouldevaluate the appropriateness and sufficiency of their resource base and discuss anyresource-related issues that have affected, or may affect, the quality of student learningopportunities. Departments should demonstrate their engagement with Chapter B4 ofthe UK Quality Code for Higher Education on Enabling Student Development andAchievement58 and how departmental resource planning aligns with the University’sprocesses for academic planning59 and annual budget-setting (Faculty/Directorate). Thedepartment’s internal student survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Learningresources’ should be evaluated. Where programmes are delivered in collaboration witha partner organisation(s), discussion of how the department establishes the continuingappropriateness of partners’ resources for supporting learning should also be included.

Organisation and management: Departments/areas should summarise and discuss theeffectiveness of arrangements for organising and managing their programmes. This willinclude a description and evaluation of departmental and programme managementstructures and roles and their relationship with the host Faculty and central supportservices and, where programmes are delivered jointly, with other Faculties. Internalstudent survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Organisation and management’

57 See Quality Management Handbook Chapter 6 (October 2013) pp. 4-5, available fromhttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/homepage/about/strategies-and-policies/.58 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B4.aspx.59 See the Academic Planning Handbook (October 2013), at:http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/files/2013/10/Academic_Planning_Handbook_2013-14.pdf.


12

should also be evaluated with any areas for attention highlighted, indicating clearlywhere there are potential resource-related implications. An organisational chart for thedepartment/area should be supplied as an appendix.

Quality assurance and enhancement: This section should describe departmentalstrategies and processes for assuring and enhancing the quality of student learningopportunities. These will typically include Programme Boards and Student-StaffConsultative Fora, student evaluations (module questionnaires, and the internal studentsurvey and National Student Survey) and reports of external examiners and, foraccredited programmes, professional bodies. Student consultative processes should beevaluated with reference to the Expectations of Chapter B5 of the UK Quality Code forHigher Education on Student Engagement60 with particular attention to the engagementof part-time and distance learning students in course evaluation; and to UK QualityCode Chapters B161 and B862 in relation to student involvement in course design,approval and monitoring processes. Any mechanisms for promoting the identificationand dissemination of good practice within the department and outwards to the Facultyand wider University should also be described, e.g. participation in staff developmentactivities or the University Learning and Teaching Fellowship and SOLSTICE Fellowship63,and local strategies for quality assurance and enhancement referenced. Forprogrammes delivered with collaborative organisations, departments should evaluatethe shared responsibilities and arrangements for quality assurance including the roles ofUniversity internal verifiers and liaison tutors64.

Assessment of risk and action plan: In this final section, departments/areas shouldsummarise the strengths and areas for development identified in the Critical Review togenerate a SWOT-type analysis accompanied by a risk management plan with actionsand timescales clearly prioritised. Where it is proposed to modify existing provision as aresult of this review, this must be clearly stated in order that University and Facultyprocesses for programme modification or re-validation65 may be initiated.

10. Periodic Review: The Main Event

Approximately one week before the review event, a meeting is convened between the panelchair, secretary and head of the department being reviewed, the purpose of which is to:

Confirm the programme for the review event.

Share with the department the key issues that have emerged from the chair’s reading ofthe Critical Review and supporting evidence including the advance written comments ofthe external panel members.

Advise the department of any additional work that it should complete ahead of theevent.

60 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B5.aspx.61 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B1.aspx.62 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Pages/quality-code-B8.aspx.63 See Chapter 6 of the Quality Management Handbook (October 2013) pp. 5-7, available athttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/clt/homepage/about/strategies-and-policies/.64 See Chapter 5 of the Quality Management Handbook (October 2013) pp. 34-36, available athttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/collaborativeprovision/.65 See Chapter 4 of the Quality Management Handbook (October 2013) pp.13-19, available athttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/validation/.


13

Ensure that the department fields appropriate members of staff at the event – this mayalso include relevant external stakeholders such as representatives of employers andservice user groups.

The main periodic review event is normally conducted over one full working day66 beginningwith a private panel meeting to confirm the agenda67, followed by a plenary discussion withrepresentatives of the department. VASP chairs and secretaries have particular responsibilityfor managing the panel’s plenary discussion with the department/area under review,ensuring that the Critical Review document and associated evidence are fully and properlyexplored and that all participants, including and especially external subject experts, areafforded the opportunity to contribute. Discussions are conducted in the spirit of academicpeer review and are collegial but at the same time rigorous. Towards the conclusion of theevent the panel once again goes into private session to agree its judgements andrecommendations, following which the department/area under review is given summaryoral feedback in advance of receiving a formal written report (see below).

The principal outcome of the periodic review process is a report to LTC that:

11. The Periodic Review Report

The principal outcome of the periodic review process is a report to LTC that:

a) Expresses confidence (or otherwise) in the department/area’s ability and capacity tomaintain the delivery of its current provision and to develop new provision in a strategicand planned way.

b) Summarises the key evidence that has influenced the panel’s conclusions aboutacademic standards and quality based on alignment with the UK Quality Code for HigherEducation68 and any professional body requirements.

c) On the basis of these conclusions, formally endorses continuing approval69 of the currentprovision – however, the panel may refer back any programme(s) about which it hasconcerns to the host Faculty for modification or re-validation in advance of the nextstudent intake.

d) Makes any other recommendations for consideration by the department/area, Facultyor University.

e) Highlights any features of good practice that may be suitable for wider disseminationwithin the University for the purpose of quality enhancement.

Once the Chair has approved the Secretary’s Draft report it is circulated to the rest of thepanel for verification and to the presenting team for confirmation of factual accuracy. Thefinal report is then submitted for approval by LTC at the next available opportunity.

66 However, a longer event may be scheduled for departments/areas with larger academic provision at thediscretion of the Chair of VASP.67 See Appendix 1 Form PAR1 ‘Proforma Agenda for Periodic Review’, also available for download athttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.68 Comprising the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and subject benchmark statements (Part ‘A’),guidance on managing the quality of students’ learning opportunities (Part ‘B’) and information about highereducation provision (Part ‘C’) – see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ASSURINGSTANDARDSANDQUALITY/QUALITY-CODE/Pages/default.aspx.69 However, some professional programmes and all collaborative programmes must undergo separate standalonereview/re-validation every five years – see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4.


14

Fig. 2: The Periodic Review Process

October (of each year): Periodic review schedule confirmed by LTC

4 weeks before event (approx): Internal panel members receive briefingmaterial and supporting evidence and agree ‘lines of enquiry’

3 weeks before event (approx): Focus group meeting with student representatives

2 weeks before event (approx): Department/area’s ‘Critical Review’ self-evaluationdocument submitted via host Faculty and distributed to panel members

1 week before event (approx): Panel chair, secretary and Head ofDepartment/Area meet to discuss possible agenda and receive

written comments of external panel members

PERIODIC REVIEW EVENT

Next available meeting of LTC: Receives the Periodic Review report including panelrecommendations and formally grants continuing approval of thedepartment/area’s current provision (with or without exceptions).


15

APPENDIX 1: ‘Proforma agenda for periodic review’

Validation and Audit Standing Panel

PROFORMA AGENDA FOR PERIODIC REVIEW

This template has been designed to facilitate the agenda-setting phase of the periodic reviewevent and should be used by panel members to record observations from their reading of theCritical Review document and supporting evidence. External panel members should also usethe form to prepare written comments for submission in advance of the main review event. Anelectronic version of this template is available for download fromhttp://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.

Strategy for development - Evidence of department vision and developmentstrategy; analysis of market demand (student recruitment data); impact of nationalpolicy, legislation or regulation; analysis of regional competitor activity; strategy forgraduate employability; opportunities for internal and external collaborations;departmental engagement with University processes for academic planning andannual budget-setting. (Evidence: Critical Review s2; Spring Planning Statement; AnnualMonitoring Reports.)

Curriculum and benchmarking – Evaluation of current portfolio including newprogrammes and/or modifications since the previous periodic review; engagementwith Edge Hill curriculum design frameworks and UK Quality Code for HigherEducation on ‘Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards’ (and professionalstandards where applicable); evaluation of student achievement (e.g. final degreeclassifications), employability and graduate destinations. (Evidence: Critical Reviews3(a); Annual Monitoring Reports.)


16

Assessment - Evaluation of department assessment strategy including response tostudent feedback and external examiner reports, internal student survey andNational Student Survey data on ‘Assessment and Feedback’; engagement withEdge Hill curriculum design frameworks and the UK Quality Code for HigherEducation on ‘Assessment and recognition of prior learning’; how inclusion andprotected characteristics influence assessment design; evidence-based examples ofinnovation or other good practice in assessment. (Evidence: Critical Review s3(b);External examiner reports and departmental responses; Annual Monitoring Reports;Programme Board and SSCF minutes; internal student survey and NSS.)

Learning and teaching - Evaluation of department teaching and learning strategyincluding response to student feedback and external examiner reports, internalstudent survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Teaching’; engagement withEdge Hill curriculum design frameworks and UK Quality Code for Higher Educationon ‘Learning and Teaching’; how inclusion and protected characteristics influence thedesign of learning activities; evidence-based examples of innovation or other goodpractice in learning and teaching. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(a); External examinerreports and departmental responses; Annual Monitoring Reports; Programme Board andSSCF minutes; internal student survey and NSS.)


17

Student recruitment, induction, support and guidance – Evaluation of processesfor recruitment, admission, pre-enrolment communication and support, induction,student support, learning support and careers guidance; personal tutor system andpersonal development planning (PDP); evaluation of internal student survey andNational Student Survey data on ‘Academic Support and Personal development’;engagement with Edge Hill frameworks and policies and UK Quality Code for HigherEducation on ‘Enabling Student Development and Achievement’; how studentsupport accommodates inclusion and protected characteristics and the needs of on-campus international students; evidence-based examples of innovation or other goodpractice in student support. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(b); internal student survey andNSS.)

Student retention and progression – Departmental strategy for student retentionand progression; department’s engagement with Faculty and University supportsystems for retention; evaluation of departmental strategy’s effectiveness throughanalysis of progression data. (Evidence: Critical review s4(c); Annual Monitoring Reports.)

Staffing, staff development and research - Evaluation of staffing capacity,qualifications and experience to support current and planned teaching; support forstaff development, research and scholarly activity; links to staff Teaching Review andPerformance Review. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(d); Annual Monitoring Reports; SpringPlanning Statement; Student-Staff Ratio; Staff CVs.)


18

Other learning resources - Appropriateness and sufficiency of generic and course-specific resources for current and planned programmes; evaluation of internalstudent survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Learning resources’;engagement with UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Enabling StudentDevelopment and Achievement’; engagement with Edge Hill’s planning and budget-setting processes for resource planning. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(e); AnnualMonitoring Reports; Spring Planning Statement; internal student survey and NSS.)

Organisation and management - Department and programme managementstructures and roles; relationship with Faculty and central support services;evaluation of internal student survey and National Student Survey data on‘Organisation and management’. (Evidence: Critical review s5(a); Annual MonitoringReports; internal student survey and NSS.)

Quality assurance and enhancement - Student consultation and engagement inprogramme design, monitoring and review; use of external examiner and PSRBreports to confirm standards; systems for exposing and sharing good practice (forquality enhancement). (Evidence: Critical review s5(b).)

Assessment of risk and Action plan - SWOT analysis and risk management plan;prioritisation of actions and timescales (Evidence: Critical review s6.)


19

Additional comments


20

Appendix 2: Form PAS1

Periodic review: Proforma agenda for student focus groups

Please note that this form is also available for download from:http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/periodic-review/.

The question grid below is for guidance only, to inform and stimulate discussionduring focus group meetings with students as part of the periodic review process.The list is by no means exhaustive and additional questions may be added asrequired. The central enquiry should be framed as a request for students to describetheir experience in their subject area, the NSS questions acting as prompts toelaborate on this. It may be helpful also to explore:

Students’ sense of belonging in their subject area and what planned steps aretaken to impact upon this;

How they learn of changes that are made as a result of them being listened to (theoperation of ‘you said, we did’);

Advice and guidance they may offer so that the University can improve theirexperience, particularly induction into the first year and support and preparationfor assessment.

TeachingFrom the National Student Survey Responses Are staff good at explaining things?

Have staff made the subjectinteresting?

Are staff enthusiastic about whatthey are teaching?

Is the course intellectuallystimulating?

Additional Panel questions onTeaching

Responses


21

Assessment and FeedbackFrom the National Student Survey Responses Have the criteria used in marking

been made clear in advance?

Are assessment arrangements andmarking fair?

Has feedback on your work beenprompt?

Have you received detailedcomments on your work?

Did feedback on your work helpclarify things you did not understand?

Additional Panel questions onAssessment and Feedback

Responses

Academic SupportFrom the National Student Survey Responses Have you received sufficient advice

and support with your studies?

Have you been able to contact staffwhen you needed to?

Was good advice available when youneeded to make study choices?

Additional Panel questions onAcademic Support

Responses


22

Organisation and ManagementFrom the National Student Survey Responses Does the timetable work efficiently as

far as your activities are concerned?

Have any changes in the course orteaching been communicatedeffectively?

Is the course well organised andrunning smoothly?

Additional Panel questions onOrganisation and Management

Responses

Learning ResourcesFrom the National Student Survey Responses Are the library resources and

services appropriate and sufficientfor your needs?

Have you been able to accessgeneral IT resources when youneeded to?

Have you been able to accessspecialised equipment, facilities orrooms when you needed to?

Additional Panel questions onLearning Resources

Responses


23

Personal DevelopmentFrom the National Student Survey Responses Has the course helped you to

present yourself with confidence?

Have your communication skillsimproved?

As a result of the course, do you feelconfident in tackling unfamiliarproblems?

Additional Panel questions onPersonal Development

Responses

Overall SatisfactionPanel questions Responses

Round-up Questions:

If there was one thing about your course that you would change, what would itbe and why?

Are there any excellent teachers/tutors we should know about? Is there any poor-quality teaching we should know about? Are there any other things you would like to tell us (positive or negative)? Do you have any questions or concerns that you wish to share with us?


24

APPENDIX 3: EXTERNAL CONSULTANT’S CLAIM FORM

External Consultant’s Claim Form: Guidance Notes for Completion(Updated October, 2013)

The following page should be completed, detached and submitted in order to claimfor:

External Consultant’s Fee (as agreed in advance with the PanelSecretary)

Travel expenses (in the case of an overnight stay) Evening meal.

The following guidance notes have been produced in association with theUniversity’s Finance Department and will help us to process your claim speedily andin full.

External Consultant’s FeeThe form ‘Fees Claim For Visiting Lecturers and External Consultants’ must becompleted by all claimants (please note that information on ethnicity and disability isfor HESA monitoring and will be treated confidentially).

Travel by carExternal consultants may submit unreceipted claims calculated at the rate of 40pence per mile. Responsibility for informing the Inland Revenue of such claimsresides with the claimant.

Travel by rail, air and taxiClaims should be accompanied by a Standard Class return rail ticket or VAT receiptwhich will be supplied on request by the train operator at the point of purchase.Please note that we are unable to accept claims that are supported by credit cardreceipt only. In exceptional circumstances air travel may also be claimed but thisshould be notified to the Panel Secretary in advance of the engagement. Taxi faresto/from the rail station (and between hotel and University) will also be reimbursed onsubmission of receipts.

Overnight accommodation and evening mealWhere we have arranged overnight accommodation with breakfast, this is paid by theUniversity. However, evening meals are not available on campus and a list of localrestaurants has been supplied. Claims for restaurant meals must be submitted usingthe attached claim form, accompanied by an itemised VAT receipt (not credit cardreceipt). Under current University policy we may only accept claims for non-alcoholicdrinks taken with meals.

Academic Quality and Development Unit


25

QUN


26

APPENDIX 4: Map and directions to Edge Hill University Ormskirk Campus

By road Via the M6, off at junction 26, thenon to the M58, off at junction 3, taking theA570 towards Southport and Ormskirk. Thecampus can also be reached from Preston orLiverpool via the A59. For sat nav you canuse the postcode L39 4QP but please checkthat the route provided arrives via the mainentrance in St Helens Road. Alternatively,enter lat/long co-ordinates 53.558622,-2.875178.

By rail From Liverpool Central to Ormskirkstation on Merseyrail's Northern Line.Alternatively, travellers on the West CoastMain Line may alight at Wigan North Westernstation and take a taxi to Edge Hill (approx.25 minutes by taxi and fare around £20).

Edgelink A bus service runs at 20 minuteintervals from Ormskirk bus station to EdgeHill and back throughout the day.

preparing for periodic review oct13 - edge hill university · ‘preparing for periodic review’...

Documents