Periodic Review

1. Periodic Review Departmental Review

2. Periodic Review Departmental review every 6 years Align with Institutional objectives for an outstanding student educational experience (TEF gold) Reducing overall burden Meeting external expectations for quality assurance and enhancement

3. Periodic Review Wide view of entire portfolio Risk based Sampling documentation Self-service (where available)

4. Review Outcomes Department and its courses are reviewed against a set of University expectations for the management and quality of courses and student experience Periodic review outcomes are judgements against each of the expectations • Commendation • Meets expectations • Requires improvement to meet expectations • Pending

5. Review Outcomes The actions, commendations and affirmations can relate to the Department, the Institute and/or individual courses Where the review identifies a Department requires further improvement to meet a significant number of expectations, as confirmed by ASQEC, there will be a further Review meeting in one year’s time to consider progress.

6. Review Outcomes Normally all courses within the Department will be re-approved as an outcome of the periodic review; although there is provision for the panel to recommend that one or more individual courses must be re-approved before they can run again

7. Process The Institute reviews, updates and checks all programme & module specifications in the spring/summer before the Review • Formal meeting with representation outside of the Institute, including AQU

8. Process HoDproduces an EDD to a new template which will ask for: • Departmental context • Management of academic standards and quality • Management of partnerships and collaborative programmes • Evaluative commentary for each of the L&T strategy goals • Enhancement plan Panel members consider Departmental performance against University expectations and have access to publically available information and metrics

9. Process: First Panel Meeting Institute/Department provides requested documents 4 weeks ahead The panel has an initial meeting to identify lines of enquiry (c6 weeks ahead of the Review) and the sample of documents to be provided, on the basis of: • EDD and the last Institute AER • Data (NSS, recruitment & retention –’dashboard’) • AQU produced EE summary table • Access to Programme Specifications and Module Specifications

10. Process: First Panel Meeting Student focus group Employer representatives/stakeholders External is invited and can participate remotely Expectations/Lines of enquiry allocated to panel members

11. Panel membership External x2 Chair: independent senior member of staff Student rep Staff member from the Institute but from another Department Senior experienced member of staff from outside the Institute AQU officer Other post holder (ie: international officer, employer rep)

12. One week before the second panel meeting Meet with the panel Chair, AQU Officer, IQC Chair and Head of Department to agree the agenda Indicate key lines of enquiry

13. Process: Second Panel Meeting 4 parts: • Pre-meeting: identify agenda • Meeting with Institute SMT: HoI, HoD, IQC Chair, L&T lead, and any other Institute SMT relevant posts • Meeting with Department team: HoD and other senior post holders and course leaders/sample of course leaders • Short private meeting of the panel to identify any outstanding issues or requirements for additional evidence • Deliberations, judgements, recommendations etc • HoD to observe

14. Collaborative Partnerships and collaborative programmes to include To provide an overview and assessment of the Department’s responsibilities for the management of academic collaborations. List of all collaborative courses and arrangements by partner, indicating type (eg validated, franchised, dual award etc) showing current student numbers for year of course, and where there is possible progression to UW top-up Brief evaluative account of how the Department manages risk in relationship to collaborative programmes and partnerships, drawing on track record in relation to, for example, recruitment, progression to UW and general academic quality matters Any specific strengths, weaknesses, opportunities or threats in relation to collaborative partnerships.

16. Who’s doing what? Plus information from DMU

17. EDD: what’s new Includes Learning and Teaching strategic goals Excellence in teaching and student learning Progressive and inspiring curricula Highly employable graduates Students as partners in learning and academic communities Supporting academic progression and achievement Metrics, data and benchmarking

18. EDD The EDD is not a descriptive account of the courses concerned; programme specifications serve this purpose. The main concern of the EDD is evaluation, and it should be the outcome of team discussions and discussions with students about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, based on the evidence available. The writing style should be reflective and self-critical. It should identify common themes across courses within a Department and highlight any areas of concern or instances of good practice which are particular to a given course.

19. Panel Questions How academic quality and standards is being managed at department level

20. Report and outcomes Judgements Conclusions Actions/Recommendations Commendations Affirmations