Guidelines For Periodic Review 2011-12

1.0  Introduction

Periodic Review is the means by which the University obtains an overview of the whole of the learning and teaching activity of a department.  It is the principal method by which the University assures itself of the effectiveness and robustness of the department’s procedures for quality management and for maintaining and enhancing the quality of the student experience.  In accordance with the QAA Code of Practice, one important function of Periodic Review is ‘to review the continuing validity and relevance of programme aims and their intended learning outcomes’.  Periodic review is a developmental process.  Each department is reviewed on a six-year cycle.  Periodic Review does not include observation of teaching, but it does include a discussion of the department’s practices in relation to peer observation of teaching and to departmental processes for Performance and Development Review.

1.   At least three weeks before the date of the Review the Department is asked to provide

 

  1. a statement on how it engages with the University’s  Learning and Teaching Strategy and Employability Strategy (500 words).  Departments may wish to append their own Learning and Teaching Strategy and Employability Statement.

    2.   a statement of actions taken to address issues raised in the last Departmental Review and details of the way in which the
          Department has addressed the effectiveness of those actions (up to 1,000 words);

    3.  a summary statement (max 1500 words) on the department’s learning and teaching activities addressing the following
         issues:

  • an evaluation of the Department’s effectiveness in providing students with appropriate learning opportunities and enhancing these learning opportunities;
  • an evaluation of the appropriateness of the learning resources (staff, space, facilities) supporting students’ learning;
  • a statement on how the Department supports and monitors student progression through its programmes;
  • the means by which the Department takes account of the views of students, staff, alumni and external stakeholders in  programme development;
  • an evaluation of the measures taken to maintain and enhance the quality and standards of its learning and teaching provision;
  • a statement on the use of technology to enhance the learning experience;
  • a statement on the way it manages staff work load and how it uses staff workload data internally in planning its learning and teaching activities and structuring the curriculum.

    4.  Self-Evaluation Reports (max 1,000 words) on each programme or group of programmes for which the Department is
         responsible.  SERs will include:

  • a list of all taught programmes each covers;
  • a statement on the overall aims of the programme(s) and their relationship to the aims of the department and the University;
  • a statement on the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s) and their articulation with the relevant QAA Subject Benchmark statements, the FHEQ and any relevant professional body requirements;
  • a statement explaining how both the content and assessment methods of the programme(s) support the intended learning outcomes and meet the requirements for the academic level of the award to which the programme leads;
  • a statement on the key features of progression and award data during the period between reviews;
  • a summary of conclusions arising from annual monitoring of the programmes since the last periodic review, including changes made to the programme(s) and the key recommendations of external examiners and actions taken in response to them;
  • where the programmes are delivered under franchise or collaborative arrangements, the Department should provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of the arrangements between the partner institutions and outline any specific monitoring procedures in place.

 

   5.   To minimise the burden on departments and reviewers the Department should  provide additional information only 
         where this is readily available.  To keep the process as manageable as possible it would be helpful if departments provided 
         reviewers with lists of additional information which they thought might be useful and which would be available on request.

ALM/mes
June 2011