“By creating we think, by living we learn” Patrick Geddes

Search

Main University menu

• university »
• home
• colleges & services
• courses
• research
• contacts
• a-z
• help

 

Programme Review: Outline of Process

The following institutional processes for Programme Review have been designed to conform with QAA Code of Practice for the Assurance of Academic Quality and Standards in Higher Education (2006), especially relevant parts of Section 7, Programme Design, Approval, Monitoring and Review and with the Scottish Funding Council's Council Guidance to Higher Education Institutions on Quality (2008). An interactive mapping table for relevant precepts of the QAA Code of Practice is provided here.

Applicability and Timing

Programme review applies to all taught programmes leading to an academic award of the University including access, undergraduate, postgraduate (taught) and collaborative awards. The review should consider the programme and all constituent modules.

Programmes that are cognate may be aggregated for review as a group, with a single review board, subject to the School Board and Dean approving the proposed grouping in consultation with the College Head of Quality Assurance or equivalent. The aim should to support coherence in the process but avoid the review becoming unwieldy or unable to examine fine detail.

School boards and deans may also elect to combine Professional or Statutory Body (PSB) accreditation reviews with programme reviews where the methodologies and outcomes are broadly similar (see Programme review in the context of accreditation by Professional or Statutory Bodies).

Where programmes are taught jointly by schools or involve contributions from more than one school, special care should be taken to involve relevant staff and students from all the relevant schools in the Programme Review process (see the University's Policy on the Quality Assurance for Joint Degrees and Jointly Taught Programmes and Modules).

Programmes should normally be reviewed at 5-yearly intervals (see also Accreditation of Programmes by Professional or Statutory Bodies). The timescales for review of individual programmes is determined by colleges and schools who should consult and inform the Director of Quality Assurance regarding their plans. Timetables and details of past reviews can be found in the Programme Review Archive. Any deviation from the 5-yearly cycle of review must be discussed with and formally approved by the Vice Principal (Educational Development) in consultation with the Director of Quality Assurance and the relevant College Head of Quality Assurance.

The Process

The process of Programme Review involves three main stages (Figure 1):

1. evaluation, consultation and planning
2. a formal review board
3. implementation and review of planned changes.

Detailed guidenotes for the conduct of each of these stages can be found at Programme review - Guidenotes and Forms

Programme Approval in the Context of Programme Review

Where Schools plan to introduce far-reaching changes to programmes (that would be judged to require new programme approval) but also are due to undertake programme review on a similar timescale, the programme review process should be adopted in place of the School's normal approval process. The Programme Evaluation Summary document should review the operation of the previous programme and explain why the proposed change is thought to be necessary. The Programme Development Plan should include a section that acts as the new programme rationale.

Ahead of the review, standard programme approval consultations and procedures must still be used, and any relevant documents (e.g. module or programme rationale and specifications) may be included as appendices to the programme review documentation.

In such cases, review boards may wish to consider a path of action in respect of module and programme approval. Depending on the level of information available to the Review Board at the time of the review, it may opt to:

• Approve the module and programme documentation as it stands (see New Programme and Module Approval - Guidenotes and Templates) or with recommended or conditional changes (in essence acting as an Approval Board, where such is normally convened as part of College or School policy, or as the mandatory 'external' element of approval where a special approval board is not normally used)
• State a path of action in respect of approval by the School and College, including, if deemed appropriate, a 'signing off' at a later date by the Convenor acting on behalf of the Review Board or by some or all Review Board members (the latter possibly conducted 'at a distance').

The consideration of outcomes of the review at School Board should result in a minuted agreement to approve the new programme and must subsequently be ratified at College Board and Senate. The new programme posting procedure should also be used in due course.

The Director of Quality Assurance should be consulted if there are any queries regarding appropriate documentation or procedures.

Responsibilities within the Programme Review Process

College boards have overall responsibility for conduct of reviews, including delegation of operational responsibilities for reviews within the college. The college Head of Learning and Teaching, or the Head of Quality Assurance, or similar nominee(s) of the College Vice Principal, should oversee reviews within the college, including:

• scheduling of reviews
• grouping of programmes to be included in any review
• deciding on the membership of the review boards
• facilitating the reporting and monitoring role(s) of school and college boards
• considering possible approaches to cross-college programmes or issues.

The pool of college and/or school secretaries and other designated staff are responsible for supporting reviews, as requested by the College Secretary. The School Secretary for the programme should normally take in programme review as a member of certain panels as detailed below.

The primary responsibility for organising the evaluation and planning process lies with the dean and school secretary, while the duty to reflect fully on the programme rests with the academic staff who teach it (the Programme Team or Programme Board). They are best-placed to:

• evaluate the effectiveness to-date
• judge how it should be improved
• drive the implementation of future changes.

Students, former students and graduates have opportunities to engage in the process, by:

• informing the evaluation and consultation stage with feedback and suggestions for improvement
• participating in the review board event, for example, by meeting with the review board
• acting as members of the review board

They should be included in the evaluation process in ways that:

• are systematic and rigorous, but are appropriate and sensitive to the nature of the student body
• positively encourage students and graduates to contribute their views on the effectiveness of the programme and to make suggestions on how it could be improved.

Scope of programme review

Programme Review should address both standards and quality, considering the following aspects:

• The students
• The curriculum
• Teaching
• Assessment
• Student support and guidance
• Resources
• Communication, management and enhancement

The University policy statement Considerations of Good Practice in Learning and Teaching amplifies the potential scope of each of these aspects.

Evaluation, consultation, reflection and creation of a development plan

Evaluation and reflection by staff who teach the programme should include consideration of evidence and information obtained by:

• looking back over the past period (since last review or during the 5 years since a programme's introduction) - reflecting on results, reports and feedback
• looking at relevant reference points of internal and external policies
• looking outwards at developments and reported good practice - in the subject and in generic teaching practice
• consultation with students
• consultation within the school, college and with the student and academic support services of the University
• looking forwards - anticipating the needs of, and opportunities for future students and graduates, and the likely future University and local contexts and capabilities

Programme Review should evaluate trends in relevant data about the student body including recruitment, retention, progression and achievement. It should also include systematic evaluation of: trends in destinations of graduates from the programme and the nature and needs of employment opportunities for future graduates.-

The primary documentation submitted to the Review Board is:

• a Programme Evaluation Summary
• a Programme Development Plan.

These inputs, together with supporting materials, should inform planning of proposed changes to improve the programme for the future.

For further details, see Evaluation, Consultation and Planning within Programme Review and Documentation submitted to Programme Review Boards

Externality

Programme Review should involve external references, perspectives and inputs at all stages.

• evaluation by the staff who teach the programme should include systematic reference to relevant external reference points and exemplars of good practice.
• Programme review boards should not include staff associated with the programme and should include external representation (see Composition of Review Boards)

Conduct of Programme Review Boards

The Review Board includes University academic staff members external to the school and college, a student representative, support service staff and an external expert or experts. Its discussions are managed by a Convenor appointed by the College, supported by a Review Board Secretary. More detailed guidance is provided in Composition of Programme Review Boards.

Review Boards members should receive relevant documentation at least three weeks prior to the event (including access details for to any online materials supporting the submissions). Convenors should arrange an opportunity to review and discuss the information provided prior to meetings with three panels, comprising:

1. senior/ executive staff and administrators
2. staff who teach or support the programme
3. students.

Membership of these panels is agreed between the programme leader and the Review Board Convenor.

Following these meetings, the Review Board will arrive at a formal conclusion in relation to the continuance of the Programme and consider any recommendations and/or conditions they may wish to make. Feedback will then be given to the programme team.

A formal report is drafted by the Convenor, agreed by the Review Board members, conformed for factual accuracy by the Programme Leader and then submitted to the Programme Leader, School Secretary and the Dean of the School. Reports should be discussed at the School Boards.

The Dean should arrange for a copy of the Programme Review Board Report and the School Board's observations to be forwarded to the College Board, the Director of Quality Assurance and the Vice-Principal (Educational Development).

Further details of all these processes are provided in Conduct of Programme Review

Support for Staff and Student Representatives

The Programme Review Process is supported by guidance, training and advice organised by the Director of Quality Assurance and Academic Affairs Directorate.

In consultation with deans, the Director of Quality Assurance will provide support for staff taking part in programme reviews, for example by meeting with school boards at an early stage to clarify the rationale and process of programme review. Where necessary, staff in Academic Affairs Directorate can provide additional guidance to that provided in Programme Review - Guidenotes and Checklists.

Student representatives taking part in Review Boards will normally attend a training event organised by Academic Affairs Directorate and/or Student Participation in Quality Scotland (sparqs).

Efficiency of the Review process

The review process should be implemented in ways that use resources, including the time of staff, students and Review Boards efficiently. This may be achieved by:

• combining reviews of a number of programmes that are cognate - subject to the approval of the dean, and the college head of learning and teaching (or equivalent)
• sharing the evaluation tasks among a number of members of staff
• adopting a 'light' and 'layered' approach to documentation. Documents submitted to the review board should be clear, concise and be primarily summaries of already existing evaluation, synthesis and planning at programme level. They should cite references to supporting documentation and evidence held at programme level
• ensuring that documentation submitted to the review board is complete and submitted on-time
• making effective use of the intranet or digitised files (e.g. on a CD) for provision of information and documents.

Programmes subject to external accreditation e.g. by a professional or statutory body may combine internal and external reviews, where the methodologies and outcomes are broadly similar:

• a joint review may take place subject to the agreement of the relevant school board and dean and college head of learning and teaching (or equivalent) and the external organisation
• if the external organisation prescribes a form of documentary submission, subject to the approval of the dean, this form may be used in place of the University's, with annexes attached to address any issues required by the University but not required by the external organisation
• similarly, the review report format of the external organisation may be used, with annexes addressing any distinct, additional University requirements

External audit

The review and enhancement processes should be organised, referenced and archived within the school in ways that could be easily audited, for example, as a sample within an external review of the University at institutional level.

Recognition of the importance of programme review

The University recognises:

• the importance of programme review in assuring and promoting the enhancement of standards and quality
• the academic expertise and time required to implement the processes effectively

Commitment and effective effort by individual members of staff in programme review activities should be recognised and valued in staff promotion and advancement as evidence of contribution to excellence in teaching.

Costs of Programme Review Board and event

All costs associated with the Review Board and event should be met by the relevant school and college.

External members of programme Review Boards should be:

• reimbursed for all reasonable expenses associated with travel, subsistence and accommodation
• granted a payment in recognition of their time. The University's Academic Quality Committee will recommend an amount for the approval of Senate; the current recommendation (2008) is 500 pounds.

Student members of Programme Review Boards should be reimbursed for all reasonable expenses associated with travel. Contributing to programme review panels is part of the 'job description' of DUSA executive members.

Monitoring and review of this policy

The University Academic Quality Sub-Committee will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the policy and related procedures and guidance, undertaking local audits as appropriate.