AUDIT GUIDE - AMENDED
Description
ACADEMIC OFFICE Code of Practiceon Annual Monitoring and Periodic Departmental Review 2007/08 UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW Contents Page Preface ii Equal opportunities and risk management statements iii 1. Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring 1 2. Code of Practice on Departmental Review 3 Appendices A Departmental Reviews : Review Documentation B Typical Structure of a Review Report C Annual Monitoring Pro Forma i CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC REVIEW Preface Responsibility for the regular review of academic provision and for the periodic and detailed review of syllabuses lies with departments, and before 2001/02, the central monitoring of these processes was undertaken through periodic departmental reviews. These reported on any failure to engage effectively or comprehensively in regular reviews of departmental activities and critically assessed the means by which such reviews were carried out. The publication by the QAA in May 2000 of the section of its Code of Practice on Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review stimulated the Standing Committee of Deans to provide further assistance to departments by putting together a Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring and encouraging the use of a standard record sheet. An assessment of the usefulness and ...
Informations
| Publié par | Affe |
| Nombre de lectures | 12 |
| Langue | English |
Extrait
Code of Practice on Annual Monitorin and Periodic Departmental Review 200 7/08
UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW Contents 1. 2.
Preface Equal opportunities and risk management statements Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring Code of Practice on Departmental Review
Appendices
A De partmental Reviews : Review Documentation B T ypical Structure of a Review Report C Annual Monitoring Pro Forma
Page ii iii 1 3
i
CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC REVIEW Preface
Responsibility for the regular review of academic provision and for the periodic and detailed review of syllabuses lies with departments, and before 2001/02, the central monitoring of these processes was undertaken through periodic departmental reviews. These reported on any failure to engage effectively or comprehensively in regular reviews of departmental activities and critically assessed the means by which such reviews were carried out. The publication by the QAA in May 2000 of the section of its Code of Practice on Programme Approval, Monitoring and Review stimulated the Standing Committee of Deans to provide further assistance to departments by putting together a Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring and encouraging the use of a standard record sheet. An assessment of the usefulness and effectiveness of these monitoring procedures was undertaken during 2002/03, and in 2003/04 the procedure was formalised and placed under the aegis of the Academic Review Committee. The first part of this Code sets out how this procedure works. The second section of this Code sets out the current arrangements governing the departmental reviews conducted by the Academic Review Committee. These reviews have been operating for over twelve years (including those conducted under the aegis of the Academic Audit Committee) and departments are familiar with the general process. This Code is designed to alert departments to changes in the procedures as and when they occur, and to serve as an aide memoire to ensure that departmental developments take account of the scope and focus of the reviews. Copies of this Code are sent to senior University Officers, Deans of the Faculties, the Graduate Dean, Sub-Deans, Sub-Deans (Graduate Studies), the Associate Dean (Combined Studies), Heads of Department/Schools, Faculty Board Secretaries, the Secretary of the Academic Review Committee and the Secretary of the Board of Graduate Studies. The Code can also be found on the Academic Office website at http://www.le.ac.uk/academic/quality/Codes/ . Any comments on the operation of the Code should be addressed to Dr Michael Gilmore (tel: 5258 or e-mail: mjg10@le.ac.uk) or to the Academic Registrar. The code is reviewed annually by the Standing Committee of Deans and reissued as necessary. Each edition takes account of lessons learned from the conduct of the reviews themselves and relevant national developments, in particular recommendations of good practice arising from QAA audits and contained in QAA publications. Kathy Williams Academic Registrar October 2004
ii
CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC REVIEW Equal opportunities and risk management statements Equal opportunities: The University’s annual and periodic review procedures reveal departments’ approaches to equal opportunities and their general compliance with equality legislation (as reflected in the University’s equality codes and guidelines) as follows: • by providing assurance that through their annual reviews departments are monitoring: • curriculum content • entry standards • assessment results • student progression • schemes of assessment and marking policies • student feedback • through obtaining periodic assurance that departments are well managed, responsive to their staff and students, engaged in regular reviews of provision, and meeting national benchmarks in relation to quality and standards. Risk Management: The annual monitoring procedures constitute a clear process of risk assessment. Through the scrutiny of a number of important ‘health indicators’, departments identify matters of concern and remedy these in order to avoid undesirable consequences or an escalation of difficulties. They also identify good practice and promote this as a way of minimising risk. Recommendations for change from external examiners, staff and students are tested out in the light of available evidence, and decisions are reached about the benefits or otherwise of their implementation. By seeking evidence that this process has been carried out, the University then engages in a further assessment of the potential risk that academic quality and standards are not being properly monitored. Through its departmental reviews, the University engages in a full-scale examination of all aspects of departmental activity to provide it with the confidence that its departments have the internal means of managing and controlling their activities. The intention is that this feeds into the development of institutional strategies which as a consequence are based on a realistic understanding of what can be successfully accomplished at departmental level.
iii
UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING AND PERIODIC DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW The University assures itself of the quality and standards of its academic provision primarily through departmental reviews conducted by the Academic Review Committee. These normally take place on a six-yearly basis, and therefore cannot and do not remove from departments the obligation of conducting their own regular and systematic reviews of provision. Such reviews will vary in their intensity, and may range in their outcome from full-blown curricular or structural transformation to minor amendments to existing practices. This Code does not attempt to cover the first of these, because comprehensive reviews happen relatively infrequently, are usually undertaken within a University framework (an example of which was the introduction of a modularised structure), or because of external requirements (such as the MBChB review which occurred as a response to the publication of ‘Tomorrow’s Doctors’), and are monitored through departmental reviews. The following Code of Practice on Annual Monitoring addresses instead the need for the regular examination of the way in which a department’s* teaching activities are functioning, looked at from the perspective of all the participants, and taking into account as much concrete evidence as is available. 1. CODE OF PRACTICE ON ANNUAL MONITORING 1.1 The monitoring of departmental provision must take place annually, at a time when the maximum amount of relevant information is available for scrutiny. The process might, for example, commence with the receipt of the external examiner’s report for the previous year/cohort, which for undergraduate programmes, would place the review in the Autumn Term (this is, in fact, the preferred timetable, and is reflected in the Academic Review Committee’s decision to seek feedback on the process in the Spring Term). 1.2 The overall objectives of annual review are to: • ensure that remedies are identified and implemented in response to issues raised during the past year by academic staff, students, external examiners, University departmental reviews, QAA developmental engagements and reports from professional bodies • identify any curriculum changes arising from the movement of academic staff into and out of the University • examine the effectiveness of recruitment strategies and induction arrangements • monitor assessment outcomes at module, year and, for undergraduate courses, final classification level • monitor progress on responding to issues raised in previous years (from both internal and external sources). 1.3 Heads of Department should regard annual monitoring as an essential feature of departmental management, and should therefore take a proactive approach, both in terms of influencing the format and timing of the review, and ensuring that the results are acted on. [*for Schools, the review may be conducted at School level, if this adds to the effectiveness of the process]
1
1.4 Monitoring outcomes should be recorded in or appended to the minutes of departmental meetings. The pro forma attached as Appendix C to this Code should be completed either as a comprehensive record of the review, or as a summary covering note to departmental documentation (for example, the minutes of a departmental committee meeting). For departments wishing to adopt their own recording procedures, the form serves as a checklist of the type of problems which the monitoring process should be addressing. 1.5 The following evidence should be used to support the review process: • external examiners’ reports • internal and external review reports • reports from professional bodies • recruitment and admissions data • feedback from student questionnaires, including the University’s Graduate Survey • feedback from staff • staff/student committee minutes • written examination and continuous assessment results, on a module-by-module basis • final results, and for undergraduate courses, degree classifications • student employment data and any available feedback from employers. 1.6 The outcome of the review should inform: • amendments to course regulations and programme specifications* amendments to modules* • • prospectus entries • the fixing of recruitment targets for the forthcoming year • the form and content of the department’s planning statement submitted to the Budgets and Resources Committee each year • the structure and content of examination question papers • the scope and timing of continuously-assessed work • the identification of staff development needs relating to learning and teaching • progress monitoring on the implementation of the learning and teaching strategy • monitoring of staff and student workloads • requests for changes to library and bookshop holdings • the identification of IT requirements. 1.7 The Academic Review Committee asks departments for the outcome of their annual review process in time for its Spring Term meeting. Undergraduate and postgraduate provision are considered separately, alongside relevant programme specifications. The material submitted is subject to detailed review by a sub-panel of the Committee, which prepares a report identifying any specific or generic issues requiring attention. 1.8 Evidence of annual monitoring is also being sought during departmental reviews, and departments should therefore ensure that documentary evidence exists of both the conduct and the outcome of their internal procedures. [*for report to the relevant Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee.]
2
1.
CODE OF PRACTICE ON PERIODIC ACADEMIC REVIEWS Terms of reference and constitution of the Academic Review Committee Academic reviews are the primary means by which the University satisfies itself that departments, schools and collaborative partners are fulfilling its requirements regarding the maintenance of academic standards and teaching quality. It is intended that the outcome should be a positive and beneficial experience which, in opening up practices to wider scrutiny, should stimulate discussion and comparison, and encourage standardisation in those areas where the University might be expected to operate consistent and coherent policies. The promulgation of good practice and the identification of gaps in central guidelines and procedures should be a feature of the exercise. Academic reviews are also the means by which the University meets the requirement of the QAA's Code of Practice that an institution should review the continuing validity of its programmes of study. It is assumed that collaborative provision is typically linked to a single internal department in the University. If there is no link with a single internal department, then it is assumed in the following procedures that the members of staff within the University who have primary responsibility for the collaborative provision take the role of the Head of Department. If the extent of the collaborative provision is limited, for example, in respect of part of a programme only, then it may be included within the scope of the related departmental review. If the collaborative provision is more extended, including for example a whole academic programme, then it may be subject to a separate academic review. If a School is subject to an academic review then the Head of School takes the role of the Head of Department. The Academic Review Committee operates with the following terms of reference: 1. The Committee shall be responsible to Senate for conducting a rolling six-year programme of academic reviews of departments, schools and programmes of study delivered by collaborative provision. The reviews shall cover all aspects of teaching and research, with a primary focus on those quality assurance and assessment mechanisms which underpin undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and training. 2. The Committee shall report its findings to Senate and to relevant Boards and Committees of Senate. 3. The Committee shall receive and monitor responses to the recommendations contained in its reviews, and shall conduct regular interim surveys of quality assurance procedures in the periods between reviews.
1
2.
3.
4.
Membership The Committee's membership is as follows: a) The Vice-Chancellor b) The Pro-Vice-Chancellors (of whom one shall be Chairman) c) Two members appointed by Council, from amongst those appointed to Council by Court or Council d) Six members appointed by Senate; one from each Faculty (excluding the Deans of the Faculties) e) The President of the Students' Union Each academic review is conducted by a panel chaired by a Pro-Vice-Chancellor and comprising one member from category (c), two members from category (d), and the relevant Dean. If the provision under review belongs to more than one faculty, then the deans concerned decide among themselves which of them should be a member of the panel. In exceptional circumstances more than one of them may be a member. Where the Dean is a member of the department under review, he or she nominates a substitute (e.g. the Sub-Dean) who is not a member of the department. In the event that insufficient members of the Committee are available for a review, the chairman of the panel may invite another member of Senate or Council (as appropriate) to substitute for one of the Committee members under (c) or (d). External assessor The Panel membership for each review is supplemented by one external assessor. The assessor should normally be a senior member of staff working in the subject area of the review in a university of similar mission to this University. If collaborative provision is involved, then it is desirable that the external assessor should have some experience of this form of provision. The Head of the department under review is asked to suggest three names of possible assessors (which he or she may rank in order of preference), one of whom is selected by the Vice-Chancellor after consultation with the Chairman of the Academic Review Committee. Where appropriate, an assessor from industry, commerce, or the public sector may be selected, but current and recent (i.e. within the last three years) external examiners may not serve. Review timetable The main part of each review takes place on one day when there is a series of interviews with staff and students from the Department. The Department is given at least a term's notice of the approximate timing of its review, and at least four week's notice of the date of the interview day. The Academic Office is responsible for liaising with the Head of Department about the detailed arrangements. Before the interview day, there may be one or more preliminary visits to the Department. In the case of a review including collaborative provision, the Head of Department is responsible for informing the partner institution of the review arrangements. The preliminary visits include one or more visits to the partner institution. The series of interviews with staff and students includes individuals from the partner institution. A schedule is drawn up in consultation with the Head of Department. The following broad outline is normally followed.
2
Before the interview day The internal members of the panel have the opportunity to visit the Department in order to examine its facilities and meet departmental administrative, technical, clerical and other support staff. During the visit, the Head of Department is asked to introduce the Department and its activities. The visit typically lasts about 1 -1½ hours. In the case of collaborative provision, a similar visit is made to the partner institution. By arrangement between the Head of Department and the Review Secretary, individual members of the panel attend particular teaching sessions. These class observations are not for the purpose of any direct assessment of teaching quality, but in order that members of the panel are informed about the Department's teaching and learning activities, in preparation for the interview day. By prior arrangement, an individual member of the panel observes a departmental meeting that bears a responsibility for management of quality and standards. This might be a staff meeting, a learning and teaching committee meeting, or a meeting of collaborative partners Interview day The interviews with representative staff and students are normally conducted in the following order: Head of Department Undergraduate teaching staff Postgraduate teaching staff Postgraduate supervisors and research grant holders Undergraduate students Taught postgraduate students Research students Head of Department These outline arrangements can be amended as necessary in the light of departmental circumstances. In the case of collaborative provision, among the staff interviewed by the panel are individuals from the partner institution, including the member of staff responsible for coordinating the collaborative arrangements. Similarly, students who are registered for the programme(s) of studies delivered by collaborative provision are included among those interviewed. The review would not normally include research staff and research students from the partner institution, unless the collaborative arrangements include research student supervision. 5. Nominations for the interviews Approximately three weeks before the date of the review, the Department is required to nominate the following interviewees: (a) three members of staff who are heavily involved in undergraduate teaching, including where possible, one member of staff on probation or on a fixed-term contract;
3
(b) up to three members of staff involved in postgraduate teaching including the course convenor (or his/her representative) for each of the Department's Master's courses; (c) up to three members of staff who are currently supervising research students; (d) seven undergraduate students representing different years and programmes of study within the Department; (e) one or two postgraduate students from each of the Department's taught Master's courses; (f) up to three research students at different stages in their research. (Note: The numbers specified above are those appropriate for a medium-sized department. They can, however, be adjusted to take account not only of size, but also of special departmental characteristics and of the need to include staff and students from a partner institution. The Head of Department is therefore at liberty to request a different distribution.) The nominated undergraduate students are supplemented by some chosen at random from Registry records. 6. Documentation Approximately three weeks before the date of the review, the Department is required to provide the Academic Office with documentation relating to the following aspects of the Department's activity: Maintenance and Enhancement of Quality and Standards Curriculum and Assessment Standards Teaching and Learning Student Progression Learning Resources Research A list of suggested documentation that could be included under each of these headings is attached as appendix A. The quantity of documentation should normally be small enough to fit into one large A4 ring-binder. The Panel wishes to examine material that is already in existence, and with the two exceptions below does not require a department to create new documentation. It does, however, welcome material on any matters which may appear to fall outside these guidelines, but which the Department feels is relevant to an examination of the maintenance of academic standards. The first item that might have to be especially written for the review is a statement of the Department's aims. The aims should present the Department's broad purposes in its programmes of study and research.
4
The second item is a statement from the Head of Department that describes how the Department is run. The Panel wishes to understand how decisions are reached in the Department on teaching arrangements, students' work and progress, admissions, examinations and research management, and it is therefore helpful if it has some advance knowledge of a department's internal organisation. In a large department with a complex committee structure, this information can perhaps be best presented in diagrammatic form, but it is likely that in most cases, the Head of Department would prefer to submit a written description. This can be in note form if this helps to present the information clearly and easily. Although one copy of most documents is sufficient, it greatly assists the Panel if the Department can supply seven copies of any key documentation issued to students, such as recruitment pamphlets and student handbooks. The Academic Office can provide centrally held documentation such as QAA subject review reports, previous academic audit and academic review reports, the results of the University Graduate Survey, and statistical summaries of student achievement. Background information from the Computer Centre, the Library and EDSC is available to the Panel, and if any related matter of concern arises a member of the review panel may interview a representative of the service concerned. 7. Module documentation The Panel reviews a sample of core (or other significant) modules. Typically each member of the panel reviews one module. The Department is asked to provide relevant samples of student work (both examination scripts and coursework), together with the related module handouts, reading lists and assessment information for each of the modules selected. This should be supplied at the same time as the other documentation. The review of student work is not intended to be a direct assessment of student achievement, but is intended to inform members of the panel about the Department's assessment methodology and its link with the curriculum. 8. The Panel's investigations The examination of documentation, the departmental visits and the interview sessions allow the Panel to review the quality and standards of the Department's teaching and training at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The Panel's considerations are focussed on the following aspects. Maintenance and Enhancement of Quality and Standards Standards: Curriculum and Assessment Teaching and Learning Student Progression Learning Resources Research These headings are used in the drafting of the report of the review. More detail on these aspects is provided in appendix B. In reviewing the Department's research activity, the Panel is concerned with whether the Department's research management is effective in achieving its research objectives. No attempt is made to assess the quality of output.
5
© 2010-2024 YouScribe