Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit

CH

AP

TE

R

3

Annual Monitoring,Periodic Review

and Internal Audit

UpdatedOctober 2015

Edge Hill Quality Management Handbook University Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit

Edge Hill University Quality Management Handbook Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit Institutional contact: Kelly Hand, ext. 7885. Latest version: October 2015

2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION 3

1. ANNUAL MONITORING 3

Annual Monitoring of Modules and Programmes 5 Departmental Autumn Monitoring 5

Student Focus Groups 7

‘Departmental Planning and Monitoring Units’ (updated October 2015)

7

Annual Monitoring for PSRBs 9

Annual Monitoring of Collaborative Provision 9 University (Directorate) Annual Monitoring Report 10

2. PERIODIC REVIEW 11 ‘Edge Hill University Quinquennial Periodic Review Cycle’ (updated

October 2015) 12

3. INTERNAL AUDIT 13

Developmental Enquiry 13 Extraordinary Audit 13 Departmental Risk Assessment 14

Appendix: ‘Preparing for Periodic Review: A Guide for Panels and Departments’

15


3 Edge Hill University Quality Management Handbook Chapter 3 Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit Institutional contact: Kelly Hand, ext. 7885. Latest version: October 2015

INTRODUCTION

Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit are the principal mechanisms by which Edge Hill University ensures the continuing standards and quality of its academic provision. Annual Monitoring (section 1 of this chapter) considers comprehensive evidence on programme performance and the student learning experience and alerts the Academic Quality Enhancement Committee (AQEC)1 ‐ and through it, the Academic Board ‐ to any internal or external factors that could place programmes including collaborative provision2 at risk. It also enables the identification of good practice for wider dissemination within the University for the purpose of quality enhancement3. Outputs from departmental autumn monitoring inform the University’s spring planning process4. The purpose of Periodic Review (section 2) is to review and evaluate all taught provision within an academic department/area or other grouping of cognate programmes in the context of its performance, aims and aspirations and set against a broader University, national and regional backdrop. Each department/area undergoes Periodic Review once every five years. The purpose and process of Internal Audit (section 3) varies according to particular requirements and may be enhancement‐focused, e.g. Developmental Enquiry; or risk‐focused, e.g. Departmental Risk Assessment or Extraordinary Audit. This chapter of the Quality Management Handbook has been developed specifically to meet the Expectation of UK Quality Code for Higher Education Chapter B8 ‘Programme monitoring and review’ that “Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective, regular and systematic processes for monitoring and for review of programmes” 5.

1. ANNUAL MONITORING

Annual monitoring is at the centre of Edge Hill University’s approach to managing quality and standards and is based on the premise that:

Managers and staff at all levels of the Institution are responsible and accountable for maintaining standards and enhancing the quality of students’ learning opportunities;

Shared responsibility and accountability require frank and open exchanges between departments, Faculties, support services and the University (Directorate); and

1 For AQEC’s constitution and terms of reference see QMH Chapter 8. 2 See QMH Chapter 5. 3 See QMH Chapter 1. 4 See QMH Chapter 4. 5 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring‐standards‐and‐quality/the‐quality‐code/quality‐code‐part‐b.



The processes by which both opportunities and threats to standards and quality are defined, identified and assessed should draw fully on a range of expertise and experience from within and outwith the University’s executive and deliberative structures.

The key characteristics of Annual Monitoring are that it is:

Evidence‐based – this will include staff and student feedback e.g. module leader reports, module evaluation questionnaires and internal student surveys; reports of external examiners and Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs); statistical data on student recruitment, retention, progression6 and completion; Student‐Staff Ratios; and externally‐derived data, most notably the National Student Survey (NSS)7 and Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey of graduate employment8.

Evaluative (rather than ‘descriptive’)

Predictive (as well as ‘reflective’).

Risk‐focused9 ‐ Drawing upon the experience and expertise of staff and other stakeholders10 to identify and evaluate opportunities and threats. In helping AQEC to form a view about an area’s ability and capacity to manage risk, Annual Monitoring plays an important part in confirming confidence in the University’s managers and staff.

Action‐focused – Proposing actions to mitigate risk.

Enhancement‐focused11 – Enabling the identification and evaluation of good practice that is suitable for general dissemination within the University for the purpose of enhancing quality.

Key characteristics of Annual Monitoring

6 The Progression Rate is the % of students starting the year of study who ‘pass’ the year, and therefore are eligible at the end of the year to progress to the following year, or who have completed the programme (if they are finalists). Any students who do not have a result yet because they have interrupted, or are referred or deferred, are excluded from the calculation. The Retention Rate is the % of students registered on the programme who returned to the University the following academic year (however briefly), including those who are repeating the year, interrupting, or transferring to another programme. This measure is not meaningful for finalists so it is only calculated for non‐finalists (EHU Strategic Planning and Policy Unit). 7 http://www.thestudentsurvey.com/. 8 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/stats‐dlhe. 9 For a detailed description of the University’s approach to academic risk management see QMH Chapter 1. 10 Who may include: relevant academic and professional communities; external examiners; regulatory bodies; collaborative partners; employers; service users; and alumni. 11 For a detailed description of the University’s approach to academic quality enhancement see QMH Chapter 1.



While the Annual Monitoring process described in this chapter is focused principally on academic departments/areas, including collaborative partners, the engagement of Faculties and academic‐related support services (through panel participation and responses to departmental monitoring reports) enables full and holistic consideration of issues affecting academic standards and quality. Annual Monitoring discussions may also inform Directorate decisions on University strategy and resources. The minuted discussions of Faculty Boards (or their committees) and AQEC assure staff and students that issues raised by them during Annual Monitoring have received appropriate deliberative and executive consideration.

Although Annual Monitoring provides a clear focus for identifying and resolving risks, monitoring itself is a continuous activity and it is inevitable that some matters will require action outwith the normal Annual Monitoring cycle. On this basis all staff are made aware of their responsibility to alert managers to any issues affecting standards and quality that require the immediate attention of the Directorate, PVC Deans of Faculty, the Director of Quality Assurance, AQEC or other Academic Board committees.

Annual Monitoring of Modules and Programmes

Students complete module evaluation questionnaires12 which record their satisfaction with module content and delivery including course organisation, teaching and resources. Module assessment boards13 consider student achievement and note any implications for teaching and assessment. External examiners14 confirm that the standards set at validation meet or exceed national threshold standards15 and are comparable with similar provision of other UK higher education providers. Faculties have oversight of module and programme monitoring occurring within departments/areas16. As a minimum, this should consider: Module first‐time pass rates; Student module evaluation questionnaires; Retention, progression and completion by programme; External examiner reports and programme teams’ responses.

Departmental Autumn Monitoring

Departmental Autumn Monitoring Meetings are scheduled for each Planning and Monitoring Unit17 (see Table 1, below) where heads of department/area (HoDs) discuss with a panel of senior managers18 the achievements and challenges of the previous year. Discussions are informed by a

12 See QMH Chapter 6. 13 Ibid. 14 See QMH Chapter 2. 15 As defined in Part A of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education, specifically the ‘Frameworks for Higher Education Qualifications of UK Degree‐Awarding Bodies’ and Subject Benchmark Statements http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring‐standards‐and‐quality/the‐quality‐code/quality‐code‐part‐a. 16 See QMH Chapter 1. 17 An administrative unit based on a department/subject or other coherent provision. 18 Chaired by either the PVC (Student Experience) & University Secretary or the PVC (External Relations) with senior representation from Faculties and support services including the Academic Quality & Development Unit, Centre for Learning and Teaching and Learning Services.



narrative statement (‘Decanal commentary’) produced by the PVC Dean of Faculty which positions the department/area in the context of the Faculty’s aspirations and performance. HoDs produce their own evaluative commentary19 based on evidence from module‐ and programme‐level monitoring and the following centrally‐provided data20:

Student recruitment: applications, conversions and enrolments.

Student achievement and progression: module first‐time pass rates and programme completions including awards and classifications.

Student retention.

Student satisfaction: National Student Survey (NSS), Newly Qualified Teacher (NQT) survey; Internal Student Survey.

Graduate employment: Destination of Leavers from Higher Education (DLHE) survey.

External examiner reports and, where applicable, reports of Professional, Statutory and/or Regulatory bodies.

In addition to evaluating programme performance data HoDs will:

Review and update the Departmental Action Plan (from the previous Spring Planning Round)21.

Respond to any recommendations from previous validation22 activity that were designated for attention during annual monitoring.

Describe how programme content and teaching are made relevant to, and inclusive of, different student groups23.

Evaluate the staffing and resources that support current provision including staff research and scholarly activity and any development needs identified through teaching observation24 or performance review.

Provide early indication of any proposed additions or changes to the department/area’s academic portfolio to be taken forward into Spring Planning.

Highlight any examples of good practice in teaching, assessing and supporting students with potential for wider dissemination (for quality enhancement25).

Reflect on any emergent themes from informal or formal student complaints or cases of academic malpractice and consider their implications for teaching and assessment.

Identify any specific areas of risk and the action or support required to address them (through the Departmental Action Plan).

19 Using the template provided at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 20 Data are from the most recent complete academic cycle, normally the standard academic year from September to June. 21 The Departmental Action Plan is referenced to the main commentary and lists the issues that require action by the department/area, Faculty or University, prioritised in order of risk. For a description of the Spring Planning process see QMH Chapter 4. 22 Ibid. 23 Note: The April meeting of the Academic Planning Committee receives an institution‐level report that evaluates student recruitment, retention and progression against HEFCE Key Performance Indicators for student age, background (from low participation neighbourhoods) and declared disability (based on receipt of the Disabled Students’ Allowance). 24 See QMH Chapter 6. 25 See QMH Chapter 1.



In addition to the above, from time to time the University will select a specific enhancement‐focused theme for exploration during Annual Monitoring which will be notified to departments/areas at the start of the monitoring cycle. Student Focus Groups Student Focus Group meetings26 may be convened for selected department/areas, the notes of which will form part of the evidence for Departmental Autumn Monitoring. Meetings are chaired by the Director of Quality Assurance and include senior representation from Faculties, the Centre for Learning and Teaching and other support services. The selection of departments/areas for Student Focus Group meetings is by the chairs27 of the Departmental Autumn Monitoring Meetings and may be based upon:

Any presenting issues, identified (for example) through external examiner reports or the most recent National Student Survey28 or Internal Student Survey;

Evidence of student complaints received by Student Services or the Students’ Union; and/or

The period that has elapsed since any previous Student Focus Group Meeting29.

‘Departmental Planning and Monitoring Units’ (updated October 2015)

Faculty of Arts and Sciences

1. Biology 2. Business School 3. Computing 4. Edge Hill Language Centre30 5. English, History and Creative

Writing 6. Geography 7. Law and Criminology 8. Media 9. Performing Arts 10. Psychology 11. Social Sciences 12. Sport and Physical Activity

Faculty of Health and Social Care

1. Applied Health and Social Care2. Postgraduate Professional

Education 3. Pre‐registration Nursing 4. Pre‐registration Midwifery 5. Paramedic Education 6. Perioperative Studies 7. Social Work

Faculty of Education

1. Early Years Education2. Primary Education 3. Secondary Education 4. Further Education and Training 5. Professional Education31

26 Student focus group meetings are also scheduled for departments/areas undergoing periodic review (see 2, below). 27 PVC (Student Experience) & University Secretary and PVC (External Relations). 28 The ‘Proforma Agenda for Student Focus Groups’ mirrors the NSS headings and is available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 29 Which may have been as part of the department/area’s previous Periodic Review. 30 Current provision includes: University Foundation Certificate International Foundation Programme, Graduate Diploma Pre‐Masters Programme and Language Study modules. 31 Formerly ‘Professional Development’. To include the PGCert Teaching in Higher Education delivered out of the Centre

for Learning and Teaching.



Departmental Autumn Monitoring Meetings take the form of a structured interview between the panel and HoD32 and follow an agenda that mirrors the HoD’s written commentary. Discussions are conducted in the spirit of ‘appreciative inquiry’, identifying scope for improvement through the consideration of existing good practice. However this does not preclude an appropriate emphasis on risk which is achieved through the consideration of programme performance data and Departmental Action Plans. Notes of the meeting are approved by the chair and panel and verified for factual accuracy by the department/area. These include: 1. A record of the discussion; 2. Confirmation of the Departmental Action Plan and any adjustments to it that were agreed during

the meeting; and 3. Any issues identified by the panel that warrant escalation for attention by the Directorate and

University support services. A meeting of service heads is convened to consider the issues in (3) at which appropriate actions and institutional actors are assigned. The confirmed notes of the Departmental Autumn Monitoring Meeting, accompanied by the HoD’s commentary, constitute the Department Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). This is received for consideration by AQEC33 which:

Confirms that the AMR meets the University’s requirements for departmental annual monitoring as described in this chapter.

Endorses the preliminary response of the Directorate and services to any issues that were escalated for University‐level attention.

Assigns responsibility for ongoing monitoring of the Departmental Action Plan to the Faculty34. Department AMRs are made available to staff and students via Programme and/or Faculty Boards35.

Departments/areas undergoing periodic review during Semester One are exempted from that year’s Departmental Autumn Monitoring round.

32 Who may be accompanied by no more than 3 or 4 members of the department/area’s management team e.g. Assistant HoDs and/or Programme Leaders. 33 At its January/February meeting. 34 For review at the next Departmental Spring Planning Meeting – see QMH Chapter 4. 35 Or their delegated committees. See QMH Chapter 1 (‘Faculty Academic Quality Statement’).



Annual Monitoring for PSRBs Programmes that are regulated by external Professional, Statutory and/or Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) may be required to produce separate monitoring reports to meet their specific requirements. These will normally be considered for approval by Faculties but should be referred for additional consideration by AQEC where any issues requiring University‐level attention have been identified.

Annual Monitoring of Collaborative Provision36 The complete guide to the Annual Monitoring of Collaborative Provision is provided in Chapter 5 of the QMH, Appendix 3. Institution‐level – typically authored by the Vice‐Principal, HE Co‐ordinator or other senior

member of staff with responsibility for higher education and/or quality assurance, this section evaluates the operation and strategic development of the partnership at a management level. Partners comment on any organisational, communication or resource‐related issues that impact their working relationship with the University and critically evaluate any risks to the partnership or the provision contained within it. In addition to programme‐level reports (below) partners may reference additional evidence such as reports of recent Ofsted37 inspections and QAA Higher Education Reviews38. Partners also signal any proposed new institutional developments to be taken forward through discussions with the University.

Programme/module‐level – individual reports of each programme delivered (or modules in the case of franchised modules or jointly delivered programmes) within the partnership, jointly authored by programme leaders and University staff39. Authors evaluate the continuing currency of the provision, both academically and vocationally; respond to the comments of external examiners; comment critically on student recruitment, retention, progression and completion and National Student Survey data (where available); confirm the sufficiency and appropriateness of staffing40 and resources; and highlight examples of good practice in teaching, assessing and supporting students with potential for wider dissemination (for quality enhancement). Partners review their programme‐level Delivery Agreements41 and respond to any recommendations from previous validation activity that were designated for attention at the first available annual monitoring point. Reports are accompanied by action plans, referenced to the main narrative and prioritised according to risk.

Additional arrangements are in place for the annual monitoring of credit‐rated provision42 and articulation arrangements43 for which separate templates and guidance are provided. Annual

36 More detailed guidance on the annual monitoring of collaborative provision is provided in QMH Chapter 5 (Appendix 3). 37 http://www.ofsted.gov.uk. 38 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews‐and‐reports. 39 Including academic liaison tutors and internal verifiers – see QMH Chapter 5. 40 Proposed changes to teaching staff are communicated to the University for prior approval – see QMH Chapter 5. 41 Formerly ‘Collaborative Delivery Plan’. 42 Category ‘D’ collaborative provision ‐ see QMH Chapter 5. 43 Category ‘E’ collaborative provision ‐ see QMH Chapter 5.



monitoring of programmes delivered via outreach supported learning44 is included within the Departmental Autumn Monitoring process described above. Partner Programme AMRs undergo Faculty‐level scrutiny and approval45 prior to their receipt by AQEC46 which:

Assesses, on the basis of the evidence provided, the ability and capacity of the partner (working with the University) to identify and manage academic risk;

Provides feedback to the partner or, where necessary and appropriate, requests additional information from them and/or re‐drafting of the AMR;

Considers any additional scrutiny and/or support for a partner or host University department that may be indicated by its review of the AMR or other relevant evidence.

The Faculty produces a summary document which provides AQEC with an evaluation of the management and monitoring of the collaborative provision at Faculty level, and an overview of the discussion at Faculty level in relation to this important aspect of on‐going monitoring of Collaborative Partnerships. This will then help to form the basis of the discussions at AQEC and inform the Institutional AMR (below). The Collaborative Provision Manager produces an overarching Institutional Collaborative Provision AMR which alerts AQEC47 to any general or specific issues concerning quality and standards.

University (Directorate) Annual Monitoring Report The University (Directorate) Annual Monitoring Report, which is received by AQEC48 and approved by the Academic Board49, assesses and evaluates the key risks identified through the annual monitoring of departments and programmes, including collaborative provision. It is presented in the context of Faculty Academic Development Plans50 and the outcomes of annual budget‐setting in so far as these impact the delivery and quality of current and planned provision. Authored by the PVC (Student Experience) & University Secretary, the University (Directorate) AMR highlights issues for attention by the Academic Board, Faculties and services, giving particular emphasis to the longer‐term and strategic implications of its assessment of risk. The University (Directorate) AMR is a key mechanism in promoting a culture of mutual accountability for the maintenance of standards and enhancement of quality and in so doing should address the following audiences:

Academic departments/areas and collaborative partner organisations ‐ which will expect to see that the broad concerns raised by them through the Annual Monitoring process have been considered and, where appropriate, responded to;

44 Category ‘C’ collaborative provision ‐ see QMH Chapter 5. 45 With partner representatives in attendance by invitation. 46 At its January/February meeting. 47 At its April meeting. 48 At its June meeting. 49 At its July meeting. 50 Produced separately for the Academic Planning Committee (APC) ‐ see QMH Chapter 4.



AQEC and Academic Board ‐ which receive assurance of the Directorate’s effectiveness in discharging its ultimate responsibility for the standards and quality of the University’s academic provision.

2. PERIODIC REVIEW The purpose of periodic review is to review and evaluate all taught provision in a particular department or subject area. All programmes within a designated unit of periodic review51 are considered together which provides the opportunity to:

Address, in an holistic way, any issues concerning curricula, teaching, learning and assessment, student support, staffing and resources that apply to the department/area’s whole provision.

Consider how its academic strategy and direction align with University and Faculty priorities and national and regional agendas and how this is reflected in its current and planned developments.

Consider trends in student recruitment, retention, achievement and progression across the whole of the department/area’s portfolio from sub‐degree to Masters level.

Explore new areas for programme development or the re‐focusing or closure of existing provision52.

Periodic reviews are programmed on a five‐year cycle, the schedule and any changes to it being confirmed annually by AQEC. Judgements are made on the overall academic health of the department/area as well as the individual programmes delivered within it. Periodic review includes any collaborative provision of a department/area although programmes delivered under a franchise arrangement (Category ‘F’) will be reviewed individually as part of a separate delivery approval process every five years53. Periodic review normally confers continuing approval of all of the department/area’s current programmes54 although panels may refer any individual programme(s) about which they have concerns to the host Faculty for subsequent modification or re‐validation before the next student intake. Faculties may also request standalone re‐validation of any programme where significant curriculum changes are planned for which the University’s programme modifications process would be inappropriate. Where standalone re‐validation of a programme takes place in the same year as the department’s periodic review, the former is informed the latter with an optimum interval of no less than six months between periodic review and re‐validation. When viewing student coursework periodic review panels are bound by the same obligations concerning confidentiality as marking tutors and moderators in academic departments.

51 Typically an academic department/area or other grouping of cognate programmes (see next page). 52 Informing discussions that will take place during Departmental Spring Planning – see QMH Chapter 4. 53 For the approval and re‐approval of collaborative provision see QMH Chapter 5. 54 Continuing approval re‐sets the running total of programme modifications to zero enabling Faculties to resume making minor and major modifications up to the permitted credit threshold – see QMH Chapter 4.



‘Edge Hill University Quinquennial Periodic Review Cycle’ (updated October 2015) Year no. in cycle Academic Year Faculty Unit of periodic review

1 2015‐16 FAS BiologyFAS English, History and Creative Writing55

FAS GeographyFOE Primary Education56

FOHSC Postgraduate Professional Education57

Institution Undergraduate & Postgraduate Taught Degree 2 2016‐17 FAS Business School

FAS ComputingFOE Postgraduate Professional Education59

FOE Early Years Education60

3 2017‐18 FAS Law & CriminologyFAS MediaFOE Undergraduate Professional Education61

4 2018‐19 FAS Psychology

FAS Edge Hill Language Centre62 FOE Secondary Education

FOHSC Applied Health and Social Care FOHSC Paramedic EducationFOHSC Perioperative Studies

5 2019‐20 FAS Performing ArtsFAS Social SciencesFAS Sport and Physical Activity FOE Further Education and Training

FOHSC Nursing and Nursing & Social Work FOHSC Social WorkFOHSC Midwifery

55 Formerly ‘English and History’. 56 Periodic review of Primary Education in 2015‐16 to exclude the PGCE which was reviewed as part of its re‐validation in May 2015. Instead, periodic review will comprise Primary Undergraduate QTS awards only while the Primary PGCE undergoes separate autumn monitoring in 2015. The whole of Primary Education will next undergo periodic review in 2020‐21. 57 Periodic review in 2015‐16 will exclude Clinical Education programmes which were last reviewed in 2014‐15 as part of Further Education and Training (Education) and will instead undergo separate autumn monitoring in 2015. 58 Periodic review of the Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Degree Frameworks to be conducted using the University’s process for internal quality audit. 59 Formerly ‘Postgraduate Professional Development’. To include review of the PG Cert Teaching in Higher Education (previous standalone review of the PGCTHE was in 2014‐15). 60 Deferred from 2015‐16 and then every five years hereafter. 61 Formerly ‘Undergraduate Professional Development’. 62 Current provision includes: University Foundation Certificate International Foundation Programme, Graduate Diploma Pre‐Masters Programme and Language Study modules.



A full description of the periodic review process and associated documentation is contained in the Appendix ‘Preparing for Periodic Review: A Guide for Panels and Departments’63.

3. INTERNAL AUDIT

Internal audits are commissioned by AQEC or the Directorate and may be prompted by:

The University’s strategic imperatives;

Reports of external examiners, PSRBs, annual monitoring, validation or periodic review; or

The specific request of Academic Board committees, the Directorate Management Group, Faculties or services.

Internal audits are serviced by staff of the Academic Quality & Development Unit who convene panels, distribute documentation, minute meetings and produce final reports according to the timescales set by the commissioners. Whilst panels are normally constituted by members of the Validation and Audit Sub‐Committee Standing Panel64 additional specialist expertise may be co‐opted which can include external contributors. Developmental Enquiry Thematic by nature and enhancement‐focused, Developmental Enquiries investigate particular aspects of the learner experience. Previous Developmental Enquiries have focused on cross‐Faculty approaches to personal tutoring, personal development planning, the use of technology in learning and increasing graduate employability. Written and oral evidence is taken from key institutional stakeholders and the report, which is received by AQEC65, contains recommendations for development as well as highlighting good practice for wider dissemination. AQEC determines any action to be taken in response to the enquiry’s recommendations and progress is reported in the VASC Annual Report66. Extraordinary Audit An Extraordinary Audit may be convened at very short notice and enables a rapid response to a presenting issue, incident or set of circumstances, for example an adverse external examiner report. The panel considers written and oral evidence and a report is made available to AQEC and the Directorate within two to six weeks of commissioning.

63 Also available separately at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 64 See QMH Chapter 8, also http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/VASC_Standing_Panel/. 65 And by the Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) where aspects of the student learning experience are being considered. 66 Received by AQEC at its October meeting.



Departmental Risk Assessment This desk‐based process uses existing centrally‐held data including annual monitoring and external examiner reports to assess the risk environment within which a particular programme or department/area is operating and its capacity to manage that risk. An evaluation of net risk67 enables swift conclusions to be drawn, and any support needs identified. Departmental risk assessments are a useful tool for confirming the continuing academic health of a programme or department/area and may be used to support a request to AQEC to postpone68 a scheduled periodic review. The report, accompanied by a written response from the department/area or Faculty, is considered by AQEC at its next available meeting.

67 See also QMH Chapter 1. 68 For a maximum of one year.



Appendix:

‘Preparing for Periodic Review: A Guide for Panels and Departments’

Preparing for Periodic Review

A Guide for Panels and Departments Academic Quality and Development Unit

Updated October 2015

‘Preparing for Periodic Review: A Guide for Panels and Departments’ Institutional contact: Katherine Griffiths, ext. 4431 Latest version: October 2015

2

Table of Contents

Introduction to Periodic Review 3

The Periodic Review Panel 3

Information for External Panel Members

5

Periodic Review Documentation

5

First Panel Meeting including Student Focus Group 8

Pre‐Review Meeting

9

The Main Review Event 9

The Periodic Review Report

9

‘The Periodic Review Process’ 11

Appendices

1. ‘Proforma agenda for periodic review’ (PAR1)

12‐16

2. ‘Proforma agenda for student focus groups’ (PAS1)

17‐20

3. Fees and Expenses Claim Form for External Panel Members

21‐22

4. Map and directions to Edge Hill University Ormskirk Campus

23

This guide is designed for members of panels and academic departments/areas who participate in Edge Hill University’s periodic review process. It should be read in association with Chapter 3 of the Quality Management Handbook (QMH) and both documents are available for download from http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/.


3

Introduction to Periodic Review Operating alongside annual monitoring periodic review is one of the principal means by which Edge Hill University assures itself of the current and future health of its taught degree programmes, identifying and assessing actual and potential risks to their quality, standards and viability and highlighting areas for development as well as good practice with the potential for wider dissemination (for quality enhancement). Periodic review enables the institution to take an holistic and strategic view of an area’s complete portfolio of programmes with critical advice from a panel of internal peers and external subject experts. It is also the mechanism by which continuing approval of current provision is confirmed1. Periodic review considers and evaluates all taught programmes in a designated unit of periodic review (department or other cognate grouping of programmes). This provides the opportunity to:

Consider how the department/area’s academic strategy and direction align with University and Faculty priorities and national and regional agendas.

Identify any issues with curriculum content and standards and the quality of teaching, learning and assessment, student support, staffing and resources, and programme management including quality assurance.

Evaluate trends and issues in student recruitment, retention and progression across all awards from sub‐degree to Masters and including collaborative provision.

Explore the department/area’s plans for new programme development or the re‐focusing or closure of existing provision2.

Periodic reviews are programmed on a five‐yearly cycle, the schedule and any changes to it being confirmed annually by the Academic Quality Enhancement Committee (AQEC) of the Academic Board3. Judgements are made on the overall academic health of the department/area as well as the individual programmes delivered by it. Although periodic review normally confers continuing approval, panels may refer any individual programme back to the host Faculty for modification or re‐validation. The University’s periodic review process has been developed to meet the Expectation of UK Quality Code for Higher Education4 Chapter B8 ‘Programme monitoring and review’ that “Higher education providers, in discharging their responsibilities for setting and maintaining academic standards and assuring and enhancing the quality of learning opportunities, operate effective, regular and systematic processes for monitoring and for review of programmes”.

The Periodic Review Panel Responsibility for programme approval and review resides with AQEC, its Validation and Audit Sub‐Committee (VASC) and associated Standing Panel. The VASC Standing Panel is a

1 However, standalone re‐validation may be requested by Faculties to address specific professional body requirements or where widespread curriculum changes are proposed for which the University’s programme modification process would be inappropriate – see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4. 2 To inform more detailed discussions that will take place as part of Departmental Spring Planning – see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4. 3 Requests for postponement of a scheduled periodic review will normally be accompanied by completion of a Departmental Risk Assessment – see Quality Management Handbook Chapter 3. 4 http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring‐standards‐and‐quality/the‐quality‐code/quality‐code‐part‐b.


4

body of academic and senior support staff, suitably qualified and trained, from which all validation and periodic review panels are convened. Membership of the Standing Panel is by application5 to the Director of Quality Assurance (Chair of VASC) and additional criteria apply to the appointment of panel chairs. The Standing Panel is supported by staff of the Academic Quality & Development Unit (AQDU) who:

Schedule institution‐level validation and periodic review events

Provide support for departments preparing for validation and periodic review

Convene panels consisting of internal and external panel members (see below)

Process and distribute panel documentation

Organise and minute panel meetings

Produce reports for the timely consideration and approval of AQEC. Periodic review panels are normally constituted according to the following specification:

The chair, selected from the register of eligible Standing Panel chairs

Two Standing Panel staff members

One Standing Panel student member

Two external panel members

The secretary (Academic Quality Officer). Standing Panel members receive training and development6 and are generally assigned to periodic reviews on the basis of their interest and availability. However, in assembling panels the AQDU strives to ensure a balance between different areas (Faculties) and that there is no close association between any panel member and the department/area under review7. Standing Panel student members are sabbatical officers of the University’s Students’ Union who have received appropriate training for the role. Standing Panel student members are excluded from panels for reviews of their home departments/areas. External panel members are nominated8 by departments/areas and are normally senior academic subject experts of other higher education institutions although one of the two externals may represent employer or professional interests. Whilst contributing to the full review agenda, external panel members focus particularly on academic and (where applicable) professional standards. Departments/areas affirm that they have no direct association9 with nominees such that the latter’s independence and objectivity could be compromised.

5 An application form containing the criteria for Standing Panel membership is available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/VASC_Standing_Panel/. 6 Ibid. 7 This would also exclude the Pro Vice‐Chancellor Dean and Associate Deans of the hosting Faculty although they may attend panel meetings in an advisory capacity on request to the Chair of VASC. 8 Using Form ECN1, available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. Nominations are considered and approved by the review secretary acting on behalf of the Chair of VASC. 9 This includes full disclosure of any previous professional contact with the department/area or involvement with its provision, e.g. as a consultant or external examiner or a validation panel member within the previous five years.


5

Information for External Panel Members

External panel members receive a standard fee of £250 before tax which is deducted at standard rate. This fee covers:

Attendance at the First Panel Meeting (in person or via Skype)10;

Attendance at the Main Review Event11;

Reading of the documentation and advance submission of written comments12 by email to the review secretary no later than five working days before the Main Review Event.

Travel expenses are 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 rail ticket or VAT receipt. Externals should complete the form ‘Fees Claim for Visiting Lecturers and External Consultants’13 and return it to the review secretary as soon as possible after the Main Review Event. Periodic reviews are normally scheduled at the University’s Ormskirk campus14 and overnight local hotel accommodation can be arranged on request to the review secretary. External panel members are advised of the requirement to supply advance written comments of sufficient detail to make an informed contribution to agenda‐setting.

Periodic Review Documentation The review secretary produces a briefing paper which summarises the provision under review and the process, timeline and organisational arrangements accompanied by notes from the host Faculty’s scrutiny of the review documentation (see below). Departments/areas produce a self‐evaluation document – titled Critical Review ‐ which is submitted to the AQDU no later than five weeks before the Main Review Event and received by internal and external panel members approximately four weeks before the Main Review Event. The Critical Review consists of: 1) COVERSHEET & CONTENTS (Form ‘SDC2’)15 – This precedes the main narrative and

provides summary information including the name of the department/area under review, date of the Main Review Event, details of any professional body accreditation(s) and the qualifications and titles of all named target16 awards being considered for continuing approval.

10 Where an external panel member is unable to participate in the First Panel Meeting a reduced fee of £180 will be payable. 11 However, longer reviews will attract a larger payment which is notified in advance by the review secretary. 12 Using Form PAR1 – see Appendix 1, also available separately at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 13 See Appendix 3. 14 For a map and directions including details of travel by car and rail, see Appendix 4. 15 Available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 16 Named target awards are those for which students may enrol at the point of entry and are distinct from named alternative (exit) awards which are available for in‐programme transfer or for students who do not achieve sufficient credit for their target qualification – see also Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4.


6

2) CRITICAL REVIEW DOCUMENT (Form ‘CRD1’)17 comprising the following sections:

a) Executive Summary: A brief contextual introduction to the department/area and synopsis of the key issues that will be developed further within the Critical Review.

b) Strategy for development: Departments/areas set out and explain their vision and strategy for curriculum development in the context of University and Faculty strategies, national drivers and market environment.

c) Curriculum and benchmarking: Departments/areas describe how programme standards are maintained through engagement with the relevant academic benchmarks18 and professional standards (where applicable).

d) Assessment: Departments/areas use module and programme data to evaluate the effectiveness of their assessment strategy, taking into account feedback from external examiners, employers and professional bodies (where applicable), students and assessment boards.

e) Learning and teaching: Departments/areas use module and programme data to evaluate the effectiveness of their teaching and learning strategy, taking into account feedback from external examiners, employers and professional bodies (where applicable) and students.

f) Student recruitment, induction, support and guidance: In the context of student feedback, departments/areas evaluate data on applications and enrolments and their processes for recruiting, inducting and supporting students through their programmes.

g) Student retention and progression: Departments/areas evaluate programme‐level data on retention and progression against Faculty and institutional benchmarks and identify strategies for increasing them.

h) Staffing, staff development and research: In the context of student feedback, departments/areas evaluate the size and breadth of their staffing base. They describe how staff are appraised and developed for teaching and how their research and scholarly activity supports the design and delivery of programmes.

i) Other learning resources: In the context of student feedback, departments/areas evaluate the appropriateness and sufficiency of local and central resources for teaching and supporting students including the Virtual Learning Environment.

j) Organisation and management: In the context of student feedback, departments/areas describe and evaluate their arrangements for managing programmes, staff and students.

k) Quality assurance and enhancement: Department/areas describe and evaluate their arrangements for programme monitoring and review and the opportunities provided for students to influence the quality of their learning experience.

l) Assessment of risk and action plan: Departments/areas submit a departmental action plan19 summarising their strengths and areas for development and identify areas of potential risk for attention by themselves, the Faculty and University.

17 Available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 18 Principally the QAA’s Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the relevant subject benchmark statement(s) – see http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring‐standards‐and‐quality/the‐quality‐code/quality‐code‐part‐a. 19 This will be an updated version of the action plan considered during the previous Spring Planning round – see also Quality Management Handbook Chapter 4.


7

The following evidence is distributed20 to panel members with the Critical Review: Evidence supplied by the department/area:

CVs of teaching staff including associate tutors

A sample of programme and module handbooks provided electronically (sample negotiated with the review secretary)

Minutes of Programme Boards and Student‐Staff Consultative Fora from the most recent complete academic year.

Evidence supplied by the Faculty:

List of all minor programme modifications undertaken since the previous periodic review.

List of all modules re‐validated since the previous periodic review. Documentation provided by the Academic Quality & Development Unit (Review Secretary):

A list of all awards in current approval including collaborative provision, differentiated by: a) Programmes for which the department/area is seeking continuing approval; b) Programmes with no current students and no planned recruitment to be removed

from the University’s List of Named Awards21; c) Programmes with current students for which the department/area is seeking phased

closure22.

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

Programme specifications for all current validated provision.

The previous periodic review report for the department/area.

The department/area’s most recent Annual Monitoring Report (AMR)23 including the Head of Department’s Commentary.

Reports of all validations and major modifications undertaken since the previous review.

The department/area’s most recent Spring Planning Statement24.

The most recent external examiner reports for all programmes and any relevant reports of professional bodies.

Data supplied by the Strategic Planning & Policy Unit:

Student recruitment, achievement, retention, progression and award data for all programmes from the most recent complete academic year25, to include module first‐time pass rates.

20 Panel members receive a hard copy of the Critical Review document and a flash drive containing the Critical Review and supporting evidence. 21 Appendix 25 of the Academic Regulations, available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/governance/strategies‐policies/. 22 Via the University’s programme closure procedure ‐ see Chapter 4 of the Quality Management Handbook, available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/validation/. 23 See Chapter 3 of the Quality Management Handbook, available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 24 See Chapter 4 of the Quality Management Handbook, available at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/validation/.


8

Most recent internal student survey and National Student Survey for the department/area (and Newly Qualified Teachers Survey for initial teacher training programmes).

Most recent graduate employment data for the department/area (Destinations of Leavers from Higher Education survey).

Department Student‐Staff Ratio. Where departments/areas wish to reference additional evidence in their Critical Review, this should be by including hyperlinks in the document or providing separate files for electronic distribution to the panel by the review secretary. External panel members can access the University’s online prospectus at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/study/courses.

First Panel Meeting including Student Focus Group Three weeks before the Main Review Event the panel meets and, from their preliminary reading of the Critical Review document: Identifies areas for consideration within the Main Review Event agenda. Reviews the supporting evidence26 and agrees and assigns ‘lines of enquiry’ to individual

members for detailed reading and note‐taking27 in advance of the Main Review Event. Holds a focus group meeting with student representatives (see below). Identifies any further evidence to be supplied by the department/area, Faculty or the

AQDU before the Main Review Event. The student focus group meeting is convened as a working lunch between the panel and course representatives28. The size and constitution of the student group is negotiated between the review secretary and the department/area under review and takes into account the breadth and complexity of its provision and the available modes of delivery. Students receive advance notification of the meeting’s purpose and agenda29 and notes are taken by the review secretary (see below). The following additional evidence will be available for consideration at the First Panel Meeting:

Samples of written coursework from the programmes under review (sample size and range to be agreed with the review secretary). These will have been marked and internally moderated and include written feedback and marking criteria.

Access to those areas of the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment that support the department/area’s teaching.

25 Usually September to August except for programmes with non‐standard intake points for which data from the most recent complete cycle are required. 26 Distributed on flash drive in advance of the First Panel Meeting. Members are requested to bring their own electronic devices to the meeting or to book a University device (e.g. laptop) via the staff GO portal at https://go.edgehill.ac.uk/display/ls/Loaning+equipment (EHU login required). 27 Using the ‘Proforma Agenda for Periodic Review’ (Form PAR1), see Appendix 1 and also available as a separate document at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/. 28 Members of the department/area under review are excluded from this meeting. 29 The standard agenda for student focus group meetings (Form PAS1) is provided in Appendix 2 and is available as a separate document at http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring‐and‐review/.


9

Pre‐Review Meeting Approximately one week (five working days) before the Main Review Event a meeting is held between the panel chair, secretary and head of the department/area under review, the purpose of which is to:

Confirm the programme and attendance for the Main Review Event ‐ in addition to teaching and support staff, department/area representation may also include employers and service users and (for integrated programmes) staff of other Edge Hill departments. For departments/areas with significant local facilities and resources a tour will be scheduled for the external panel members.

Share with the head of department/area the key issues that were identified at the First Panel Meeting together with the written comments of the external panel members (also circulated to the rest of the panel for information).

The Main Review Event The main periodic review event is normally conducted over one full working day30 beginning with a private panel meeting to confirm the agenda, followed by discussions with members of the department/area under review. Panel chairs and secretaries have particular responsibility for managing these discussions, ensuring that the agenda is explored fully and that all participants have had the opportunity to contribute. Discussions are conducted in the spirit of academic peer review and are collegial, but rigorous. Towards the conclusion of the event the panel goes into private session to agree its judgements (endorsements), recommendations and affirmations, at the end of which the department/area receives oral summary feedback in advance of the full written report (see below).

The Periodic Review Report The formal outcome of periodic review is a report to the Academic Quality Enhancement Committee that: a) Expresses the panel’s confidence in the department/area’s ability and capacity to

maintain the delivery of its current provision and to develop new provision in a strategic and planned way.

b) Summarises the key evidence that has influenced the panel’s conclusions about academic standards and the quality of student learning opportunities.

c) On the basis of these conclusions, recommends continuing approval of the department/area’s current programmes, with or without exceptions, through the following Endorsements: “On the on the basis of the evidence presented and the panel’s consideration of it, the awards being proposed for continuing approval:

Align with the relevant national qualifications level descriptors and subject benchmark statement/s (and, where applicable, with professional standards) (UK Quality Code for Higher Education Part A).

30 However a longer event may be scheduled for departments/areas with large academic provision at the discretion of the Chair of VASC.


10

Contain appropriate assessment opportunities for students to show they have achieved the intended learning outcomes for the award/s (UKQCHE Chapter B6).

Should enable students to develop as independent learners, to study their chosen subject(s) in depth and enhance their capacity for analytical, critical and creative thinking (UKQCHE Chapter B3).

Have in place support arrangements and resources to enable students to develop their academic, personal and professional potential (UKQCHE Chapter B4).”

d) Highlights any programmes that the department/area has identified for withdrawal or

closure. e) Makes any recommendations for consideration by the department/area or the wider

Institution (Faculty or University). f) Affirms any action already being taken by the department/area to address identified

areas for development (affirmation). g) Highlights any good practice that may merit wider dissemination for the purpose of

enhancing quality across the University. The Secretary’s Draft report is produced within fifteen working days of the Main Review Event. A Chair’s Approved Draft is circulated to the rest of the panel for verification and to the department/area which is invited to comment on factual accuracy. The department/area provides a written response to the panel’s recommendations which is appended to the review report. Once finalised, the report is received by the next available meeting of AQEC which: Confirms continuing approval of the department/area’s current programmes, with or

without exceptions; (Where applicable) Receives any associated programme closure proposals from the

Faculty; Considers any Institutional (University or Faculty) recommendations from the periodic

review panel, assigning action and responsible actors where appropriate. An update on action taken in response to Institutional recommendations is provided to AQEC at the start of the next academic session31.

31 In the VASC Annual Report, received by AQEC at its October meeting.


11

‘The Periodic Review Process’

October of each year: Periodic review schedule is confirmed by the Academic Quality Enhancement Committee (AQEC)

5 weeks before the Main Review Event: (Following Faculty scrutiny) The department/area’s Critical Review is received by the AQDU

4 weeks before the Main Review Event: Panel members receive the Critical Review and supporting evidence

3 weeks before the Main Review Event: First Panel Meeting including Student Focus Group meeting. Considers the Critical Review and supporting evidence and assigns ‘lines of enquiry’.

1 week before the Main Review Event (approx): Panel chair, secretary and Head of Department/Area meet to confirm the programme for

the Main Review Event and identify areas of likely focus informed by feedback from the First Panel Meeting and the comments of external panel members

MAIN REVIEW EVENT

Within 15 working days of the Main Review Event:

Panel secretary produces a report and circulates the Chair’s Approved Draft to the panel and department/area; department/area provides a written response

to the review recommendations by a deadline notified by the secretary

Next available meeting of AQEC: Members receive the confirmed report accompanied by any associated programme closure proposals and the department/area’s response to the panel’s recommendations. AQEC

confirms continuing approval of the current provision with or without exceptions.


12

APPENDIX 1: ‘Proforma agenda for periodic review’ (PAR1)

Validation and Audit Sub‐Committee Standing Panel PROFORMA AGENDA FOR PERIODIC REVIEW

This template has been designed to facilitate the agenda-setting phase of the periodic review event and should be used by panel members to record observations from their reading of the Critical Review document and supporting evidence. External panel members should also use the form to prepare written comments for submission in advance of the Main Review Event. An electronic version of this template is available for download from http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/aqdu/monitoring-and-review/.

Strategy for development - Evidence of department vision and development strategy; analysis of market demand (student recruitment data); impact of national policy, legislation or regulation; analysis of regional competitor activity; strategy for graduate employability; opportunities for internal and external collaborations; departmental engagement with University processes for academic planning and annual budget-setting. (Evidence: Critical Review s2; Spring Planning Statement; Annual Monitoring Reports.) Curriculum and benchmarking – Evaluation of current portfolio including new programmes and/or modifications since the previous periodic review; engagement with Edge Hill curriculum design frameworks and UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Setting and Maintaining Academic Standards’ (and professional standards where applicable); evaluation of student achievement (e.g. final degree classifications), employability and graduate destinations. (Evidence: Critical Review s3(a); Annual Monitoring Reports.)


13

Assessment - Evaluation of department assessment strategy including response to student feedback and external examiner reports, internal student survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Assessment and Feedback’; engagement with Edge Hill curriculum design frameworks and the UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Assessment and recognition of prior learning’; how inclusion and protected characteristics influence assessment design; evidence-based examples of innovation 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 strategy including response to student feedback and external examiner reports, internal student survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Teaching’; engagement with Edge Hill curriculum design frameworks and UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Learning and Teaching’; how inclusion and protected characteristics influence the design of learning activities; evidence-based examples of innovation or other good practice in learning and teaching. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(a); External examiner reports and departmental responses; Annual Monitoring Reports; Programme Board and SSCF minutes; internal student survey and NSS.)


14

Student recruitment, induction, support and guidance – Evaluation of processes for recruitment, admission, pre-enrolment communication and support, induction, student support, learning support and careers guidance; personal tutor system and personal development planning (PDP); evaluation of internal student survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Academic Support and Personal development’; engagement with Edge Hill frameworks and policies and UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Enabling Student Development and Achievement’; how student support accommodates inclusion and protected characteristics and the needs of on-campus international students; evidence-based examples of innovation or other good practice in student support. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(b); internal student survey and NSS.) Student retention and progression – Departmental strategy for student retention and progression; department’s engagement with Faculty and University support systems for retention; evaluation of departmental strategy’s effectiveness through analysis 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 for staff development, research and scholarly activity; links to staff Teaching Review and Performance Review. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(d); Annual Monitoring Reports; Spring Planning Statement; Student-Staff Ratio; Staff CVs.)


15

Other learning resources - Appropriateness and sufficiency of generic and course-specific resources for current and planned programmes; evaluation of internal student survey and National Student Survey data on ‘Learning resources’; engagement with UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘Enabling Student Development and Achievement’; engagement with Edge Hill’s planning and budget-setting processes for resource planning. (Evidence: Critical Review s4(e); Annual Monitoring Reports; Spring Planning Statement; internal student survey and NSS.) Organisation and management - Department and programme management structures 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 Monitoring Reports; internal student survey and NSS.) Quality assurance and enhancement - Student consultation and engagement in programme design, monitoring and review; use of external examiner and PSRB reports to confirm standards; systems for exposing and sharing good practice (for quality 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.)


16

Additional comments


17

APPENDIX 2: ‘Proforma agenda for student focus groups’ (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/monitoring-and-review/. The question grid below is for guidance only, to inform and stimulate discussion during 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 as required. The central enquiry should be framed as a request for students to describe their experience in their subject area, the NSS questions acting as prompts to elaborate on this. It may be helpful also to explore: Students’ sense of belonging in their subject area and what planned steps are

taken to impact upon this; How they learn of changes that are made as a result of them being listened to (the

operation of ‘you said, we did’); Advice and guidance they may offer so that the University can improve their

experience, particularly induction into the first year and support and preparation for assessment.

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

Have staff made the subject interesting?

Are staff enthusiastic about what they are teaching?

Is the course intellectually stimulating?

Additional Panel questions on Teaching

Responses


18

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

been made clear in advance?

Are assessment arrangements and marking fair?

Has feedback on your work been prompt (and what form does feedback take)?

Have you received detailed comments on your work?

Did feedback on your work help clarify things you did not understand?

Additional Panel questions on Assessment and Feedback

Responses

How have you been helped to understand the purposes and processes of assessment?

Academic Support From the National Student Survey Responses Have you received sufficient advice

and support with your studies?

Have you been able to contact staff when you needed to?

Was good advice available when you needed to make study choices?


19

Additional Panel questions on Academic Support

Responses

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 or teaching been communicated effectively?

Is the course well organised and running smoothly?

Additional Panel questions on Organisation and Management

Responses

Learning Resources From the National Student Survey Responses Are the library resources and

services appropriate and sufficient for your needs?

Have you been able to access general IT resources when you needed to?

Have you been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when you needed to?


20

Additional Panel questions on Learning Resources

Responses

Personal Development From the National Student Survey Responses Has the course helped you to

present yourself with confidence?

Have your communication skills improved?

As a result of the course, do you feel confident in tackling unfamiliar problems?

Additional Panel questions on Personal Development

Responses

Overall Satisfaction Panel questions Responses

Round-up Questions: If there was one thing about your course that you would change, what would it

be 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?


21

APPENDIX 3: FEES AND EXPENSES CLAIM FORM FOR EXTERNAL PANEL MEMBERS

External Consultant’s Claim Form: Guidance Notes for Completion (reviewed October 2015)

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

External Consultant’s Fee Travel expenses (in the case of an overnight stay) Evening meal.

The following guidance notes have been produced in association with the University’s Finance Department and will help us to process your claim speedily and in full. External Consultant’s Fee The form ‘Fees Claim For Visiting Lecturers and External Consultants’ must be completed by all claimants (please note that information on ethnicity and disability is for HESA monitoring and will be treated confidentially). Fees will be paid with tax deducted at the standard rate. Travel by car External consultants may submit unreceipted claims calculated at the rate of 40 pence per mile. Responsibility for informing the Inland Revenue of such claims resides with the claimant. Travel by rail, air and taxi Claims should be accompanied by a Standard Class return rail ticket or VAT receipt which 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 card receipt only. In exceptional circumstances air travel may also be claimed but this should be notified to the Panel Secretary in advance of the engagement. Taxi fares to/from the rail station (and between hotel and University) will also be reimbursed on submission of receipts. Overnight accommodation and evening meal Where we have arranged overnight accommodation with breakfast, this is paid by the University. However, evening meals are not available on campus and a list of local restaurants has been supplied. Claims for restaurant meals must be submitted using the attached claim form, accompanied by an itemised VAT receipt (not credit card receipt). Under current University policy we may only accept claims for non-alcoholic drinks taken with meals.

Academic Quality and Development Unit


22

QUN


23

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

By road Via the M6, off at junction 26, then on to the M58, off at junction 3, taking the A570 towards Southport and Ormskirk. The campus can also be reached from Preston or Liverpool via the A59. For sat nav you can use the postcode L39 4QP but please check that the route provided arrives via the main entrance in St Helens Road. Alternatively, enter lat/long co-ordinates 53.558622,-2.875178. By rail From Liverpool Central to Ormskirk station on Merseyrail's Northern Line. Alternatively, travellers on the West Coast Main Line may alight at Wigan North Western station and take a taxi to Edge Hill (approx. 25 minutes by taxi and fare around £20). Edgelink Bus service EL1 runs at 20 minute intervals from Ormskirk bus station to Edge Hill and back throughout the day, 8:05 to 20:45 Monday to Friday and until 17:45 on Saturdays.

Documents

Annual Monitoring, Periodic Review and Internal Audit