qaad.edu.af

qaad.edu.af

Academic National Training Team Alex Moseley and Andrew Petersen, University of Leicester Services Academic Services Introductions University of Leicester Established in 1921 and became a full University in 1957 by Royal Charter Made up of 3 Colleges - Life Sciences - Science and Engineering

- Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities 25 Departments offering over 280 programmes across undergraduate, masters and doctoral level with approximately 19,000 students Academic Services Introductions Dr Alex Moseley - Head of Curriculum Enhancement Primary responsibilities: Overseeing curriculum developments and enhancement across the University. - Development of new programmes - Revision of existing programmes - Enhancement of teaching practice - Enhancement of student experience

- Digital, open and distance learning Academic Services Introductions Mr Andrew Petersen - Assistant Registrar Primary responsibilities: Overseeing the operation of all core quality assurance processes for the University: - Programme Development and Approval - Annual Programme Monitoring - Periodic Programme Review - Programme closure - External Examining - Regulatory Framework, Codes of Practice and Academic Policy Academic

Services Aims of the Workshop - To share practice and experience to date in the implementation of APM and PPR - To introduce new NTT members to the APR policy and provide an opportunity for mentoring by experienced NTT members - To develop further knowledge, understanding and skills to effectively undertake the PPR process - To review and validate a draft APR handbook for colleagues engaged in the process Academic Services Introductions

Train the Trainers Outline of the Workshop Day 1 Recap, sharing good practice and Mentoring of new NTT members Day 2 Action Planning, PPR process and template Day 3 Practical PPR review of documentation, Panel exercises Day 4 PPR Implementation Planning, APR Handbook Academic Aims of Day 1 - To review the core principles from the initial NTT workshop in Istanbul, August 2018 - To introduce new members of the NTT and develop relationships - A brief overview of APM for new members - Explore the main aims and themes of the remaining workshop

Services Academic Introductions National Training Team Please introduce yourself and say: - Your name - Your institution - Are you a new member of the NTT? - Have you conducted a PPR in your institution previously? Services Academic Services

Warm-up activity Your expertise Think about your best skill or ability (negotiation? mechanical skill? cooking? teaching?). Write it on the card provided. When everyone has written their skill/ability, share them with the group. Academic Services Warm-up activity Your expertise How would your group use all its skills and abilities, to: A) Design and build a car? B) Set up a new university?

Academic Services NTT Terms of Reference Agreed Istanbul, August 2018 1. Report to VCAA, be a member of IQAC and report to this and other governance bodies each semester 2. Support the design and delivery of strategic level presentations on APR by Chancellor and VCAAs 3. Design and deliver workshops on APR for appropriate staff in faculties and departments, according to agreed training plan 4. Alongside QA staff, support departments and faculties to implement APM 5. Provide training and workshops to departments and panels to implement PPR, according to agreed training plan Academic

Services NTT Terms of Reference Agreed Istanbul, August 2018 6. Identify issues and challenges faced during implementation and report these to IQAC 7. Introduce APR policy and APM/PPR processes and forms to neighbouring institutions (public and private) 8. Support neighbouring institutions to draw up a realistic action plan for APR to be submitted to QAAD, MoHE 9. deliver workshops to staff at neighbouring institutions in line with training plans Academic Quality Assurance Framework Services

Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Introduction The Accreditation Framework covers 11 standards with 49 specific sub-criteria within this. - Mission and Strategy - Research - Contribution to Society - Faculty Members and Staff - Governance, Leadership and Administration

- Student Experience - Financial Resources and Management - Academic Programmes - Quality Assurance and Enhancement - Library and Information Resources - Teaching, IT and other resources Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Introduction The Accreditation Framework covers 11 standards with 49 specific sub-criteria within this. - Mission and Strategy

- Research - Contribution to Society - Faculty Members and Staff - Governance, Leadership and Administration - Student Experience - Financial Resources and Management - Academic Programmes - Quality Assurance and Enhancement - Library and Information Resources

- Teaching, IT and other resources Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Section 5: Academic Programmes Expectation: Academic programs are consistent with the institutions mission and are regularly reviewed to ensure continuous improvement. Indicators: A series of indicators are given for each area to demonstrate the requirements. These are split into indicators for first and second, and then third stage candidacy Total Score Available for Section 5 A score is awarded for meeting the Indicators. A total score of 70 is available for the section.

Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Requirements of the Framework 5.2 Annual Programme Monitoring Criteria All programmes are monitored annually using the MoHE Programme Approval and Review process Max. Score - 10 Indicators All programmes are monitored annually using the approved MoHE checklist

and data, including student feedback, to measure programme performance Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Requirements of the Framework 5.3 Programme Review Criteria The portfolio of programmes and all programme curricula are reviewed within 5 years using the MoHE Programme Approval and Review process Max. Score - 8

Indicators The institution is implementing the MoHE Periodic Review process to ensure that the curriculum of all academic programmes are reviewed every 5 years to reflect external changes and to ensure they conform to relevant disciplinary, professional and international standards. Academic Services Academic Programme Review Policy Developed by National Committee for programme Review and approved by the MoHE 'To ensure that all University or Higher Education Institutions in

Afghanistan produce programmes that comply with the national standards and by-laws, improve the quality of their programs on an ongoing basis and provide an innovative and quality based education to students.' To provide clear guidance on how each institution should: - manage its portfolio of programmes to ensure that the programs that are delivered offer the best learning experience for the students; - provide assurance to MoHE on the strength of its processes for managing its portfolio and the quality of its programs. Academic Services Academic Programme Review Policy Quality Assurance Lifecycle Quality Assurance Lifecycle

Process(es) Policy Section Develop and Approve Programme Development Business Case Academic Case 1) New Programme Approval Monitor Annual Monitoring Review of datasets Action planning

2) Annual Programme Monitoring (APM) Review Periodic Programme Review Action Planning Interim and Final response 3) Periodic Programme Review (PPR) Terminate Portfolio review Outcomes of APM / PPR Teach out 4) Programme Suspension,

Merger and Closure Academic Services Academic Programme Review Policy Quality Assurance Lifecycle Quality Assurance Lifecycle Process(es) Policy Section Monitor Annual Monitoring Review of datasets

Action planning 2) Annual Programme Monitoring (APM) Academic Services Academic Programme Review Policy Quality Assurance Lifecycle Quality Assurance Lifecycle Process(es) Policy Section Review

Periodic Programme Review Action Planning Interim and Final response 3) Periodic Programme Review (PPR) Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Documentary Framework National Accreditation Framework Academic Programme Review Policy APM / PPR Process

APM / PPR Form Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Documentary Framework - Recap National Accreditation Framework Academic Programme Review Policy APM / PPR Process APM Form Academic Services

National Accreditation Framework Documentary Framework Looking Forwards National Accreditation Framework Academic Programme Review Policy APM / PPR Process PPR Form Academic Definitions PROGRAMME = A W A R D Medicine Dept Dept

Dept Service Service Anatomy Pharmacy Nursing Library Teaching rooms Services

Academic Services Definitions Quality Assurance and Quality Enhancement Quality Assurance Process Processes required by the MoHE and implemented by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to monitor, review and report on the quality of all aspects of the operation of the HEI Quality Enhancement Process Processes implemented by the HEI to ensure that the improvements recommended by quality assurance are implemented in order that the quality of the student learning experience is enhanced Academic Services

Academic Programme Review Policy Cycle of Quality Assurance & Quality Enhancement PROGRAMME CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE QUALITY ENHANCEMENT ACTION PLANNING Academic Services

Annual Programme Monitoring APM Policy Section 2 of QA Policy Annual Programme Monitoring (APM) is defined as: 'A formal process conducted by all departments within an HEI each year to review their academic program and identify areas for improvement.' Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring Process programme level - Takes place at the end of the academic year - Undertaken by the Head of Department and a member of Faculty or Institutional QA Committee - Based on data regarding student progression and achievement, feedback from staff and students and implementation of action plans - Meet with staff and students

- Complete standard form Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring Process Faculty and Institutional level - Final APM report for the programme submitted to Faculty Dean - All APM reports considered by Faculty QA Committee - QA Committee prepares Faculty level summary report - Reviewed by the Institutional QA Committee and submitted to the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Directorate Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring

APM Themes Section 1: Programme Information Section 2: Student Numbers, Progression & Employability Section 3: Student Feedback Section 4: Staff Feedback Section 5: Physical Learning Resources Section 6: Staff Resources Academic Annual Programme Monitoring APM Themes Section 7: Update on APM Action Plan Section 8: Update on PPR action Plan Section 9: Good Practice Section 10: Conclusion Section 11: Action Plan Services

Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring EXAMPLE Section 2: Student Numbers, Progression & Employability Data sources: Recruitment and Registration, Retention and Withdrawal, Student Progression and Completion, Alumni Issues for consideration: - 3 year recruitment trends, conversion rates and issues of concern. Impact of recruitment initiatives, new proposals - 3 year student progression rates, student outcomes, issues of concern - Trends in employment & further study rates, student work experience, employability and career skills in the curriculum Academic

Annual Programme Monitoring APM Monitoring Form APM Form Sections 2 - 6 Section a) Present Data Section b) Reflect on Data Identify Issues APM Form Section 10 Summarise Issues APM Form Section 11 Action Plan

Services Academic Services APM and PPR the differences Difference from APM APM and PPR look at a number of similar issues, but their focus and outputs are different APM PPR Frequency Annually

Every five years Conducted by Head of Department and Faculty QAC Panel appointed by Chancellor or VCAA Focus Self Reflection and continuous improvement Strategic and developmental Outputs

Local report and action plan Panel report, action plan from department under review Academic Services NTT Practice sharing National Training Team Aims of Final Session: - For existing NTT members to share their experience of implementing APM in their institutions - For new NTT members to get the benefit of members experience in approaching the implementation of APM - To build a community of practice between members of the NTT - To identify areas where further training and support might be valuable

- To identify further themes for inclusion in the draft APR Handbook Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring Guided group work for practice sharing Activity 1: Reflect on NTT TOR for those colleagues that have been implementing APR, are there any of the elements of the TOR which are unclear or would benefit from additional clarification? Academic Services NTT Terms of Reference 1. Report to VCAA, be a member of IQAC and report to this and other

governance bodies each semester 2. Support the design and delivery of strategic level presentations on APR by Chancellor and VCAAs 3. Design and deliver workshops on APR for appropriate staff in faculties and departments, according to agreed training plan 4. Alongside QA staff, support departments and faculties to implement APM 5. Provide training and workshops to departments and panels to implement PPR 6. Identify issues and challenges faced during implementation and report these to IQAC 7. Introduce APR policy and APM/PPR processes and forms to neighbouring institutions (public and private) 8. Support neighbouring institutions to draw up a realistic action plan for APR to be submitted to QAAD, MoHE 9. deliver workshops to staff at neighbouring institutions in line with training plans Academic Services

Annual Programme Monitoring Guided group work for practice sharing Activity 2: Institutions that have not yet attempted PPR what are the challenges that you might experience in your institution in terms of the effective implementation of APM and PPR? Colleagues that have undertaken both APM and PPR do you have any experience of these challenges, and how did you address them? Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring Guided group work for practice sharing Activity 3: a) Identify who are the main stakeholders in the PPR process? b) From your experience of implementing APM what different activities would be the most effective in training or supporting each

group to undertake PPR? Sample training activities: Face to Face: Information sessions, Workshops, local interventions Resources: National templates/guides, local templates and questionnaires, Role definitions, local process documentation Academic APR Handbook Proposed structure and contents Resource for VCAAs, NTT and IQAC members Covering: Quality Assurance cycle and individual processes Preparation (data and training)

APM, PPR and Action Planning Glossary, Templates and Forms, supporting documents Services Academic Services Annual Programme Monitoring Guided group work for practice sharing Activity 4: In groups, construct an Elevator Pitch to explain the purpose and

value of the Quality Assurance Cycle - 90 seconds long - Designed for someone with no prior knowledge of QA processes Academic Services Day 2: Introduction and Recap Covered: - Introductions and reflection on experience to date - Induction of new NTT members - Reflection on Accreditation Framework, QA Policy and APM - Distinction between APM and PPR - Introduction of Quality Assurance Guide Further planned follow-up NTT TOR clarification of working in partnership with private Universities Use the Handbook as a tool to clarify roles

Academic Services Day 2: Schedule and Aims Schedule: AM: Action Planning Workshop PM: PPR Process, and guided Review of PPR template with notes of guidance Aims of day 2: Discuss the role of effective action planning as a tool to drive quality assurance and enhancement Further develop action planning skills Engage with the purpose and process of PPR Explore the data, reflection and potential Panel considerations via the PPR template

Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Introduction Action Plans are the key output from several quality assurance processes: - New Programme Approval (NPA) - Annual Programme Monitoring (APM) - Periodic Programme Review (PPR) Action Plans may contain short, medium or long term actions Action Plans will be annually monitored through the APM process, and specific actions may be monitored more closely via Quality Assurance or Curriculum Committee Academic Services

Action Planning Workshop Principles of action planning Effective Action Planning allows us to: Articulate an issue concisely Agree and record the specific steps that will be taken to address the issue Identify who is responsible for completing the action Agree a timescale for completing the action Identify how completion of the action will be monitored and measured HOLD COLLEAGUES TO ACCOUNT Academic Services Action Planning Workshop 1. Clear, defined actions

Be specific, not thematic Make focussed and manageable Break down large tasks into smaller individual actions with individual timescales Consider the desired impact of the change and how this might be measured Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Example 1 Action: Improve student satisfaction scores for teaching quality in Year 1 Mathematics module Concentrating only on the wording of the action point, what are the limitations of this action as expressed? Is it specific? Is the scope of the action manageable?

If not, are there clear steps for how it will be achieved? How would success be measured? Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Alternative Action Suggestions Action 1: Hold focus groups with students to understand issues and areas for improvement Action 2: Peer to Peer review of module teaching materials Action 3: Appoint co-lead and mentor for year 1 Mathematics Module Leader for 2019/20 academic year Academic Services

Action Planning Workshop 2. Designate clear responsibility Ensure accountability within the organisation Is Individual or Group responsibility is appropriate? o Individual: Empowering, personal accountability and responsibility o Group: Authority, collective responsibility for implementation Avoid informal groups Avoid overloading key individuals - counterproductive Break down large tasks with different component owners, but keep overall co-ordination/oversight Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Who would be the appropriate designated officer or Group to

complete the following actions? Action 1: All departmental teaching staff to complete Moderation Training session Head of Department Action 2: Review Assessment Pattern in Project Module to improve assessment variety Module Leader Action 3: Develop and approve Examination Feedback Policy Split Action 1. Develop 2. Approve Academic Services Action Planning Workshop 3. Provide a Realistic Timescale

Ambition vs Pragmatism Design an Integrated Plan: Consider range of actions and loading on individuals o Peak periods and clashes o Governance schedules Plan, prioritise and stagger to allow completion with limited resource Academic Services Action Planning Workshop 4. Monitor Progress Clear mechanisms for monitoring helps hold individuals and groups accountable Maintain momentum in the process Consider empirical measures where possible

Consider setting Milestones o Break complex actions into stages o Helps make actions clear and unambiguous hold officers to account o Reference key decision points Academic Action Planning Workshop How would you evaluate whether the following proposed action plan is realistic? Issue: Lecture notes for students not regularly reviewed and updated Action: Update all lecture notes Accountable: All teaching staff Timescale: By the end of the month Monitored: Head of Department What would you change?

Services Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Feedback Session Action: Update all lecture notes Alternatives: Undertake paired peer review of all teaching materials Develop and provide guidance on standardising lecture notes Implement gated approval process for all new lecture notes Accountable: All teaching staff Alternatives: Head of Department Designated member of Curriculum or QA Committee Programme Leader (where they exist) Approval via Curriculum Committee

Academic Services Action Planning Workshop Timescale: By the end of the month Alternatives: USE MILESTONES 1. Guidelines to be developed by DATE 2. Review and Revision process to take place by DATE 3. Submission for approval to Curriculum Committee by DATE 4. Provision to students by DATE Monitored: Head of Department Alternatives: Accountable Officer to provide update to Curriculum Committee Random sample of lecture notes reviewed annually by Head of Department Academic

Action Planning Workshop Instructions 1. Review and Critique the sample Action Plan Are the actions clear and defined? Who is responsible for completing them? Are the timelines well balanced? Are there clear mechanisms for monitoring? 2. Use the grids provided to suggest alternative action plan wording Services Academic Services Action Planning Workshop

Monitoring Actions Plans Action Plans may be monitored by several means, depending on the nature of the actions and the timescales involved: Action Plan Typical Monitoring For specific items APM Next APM Dept or Faculty QAC Dept or Faculty Curriculum Committee PPR

Next APM Next PPR University QA Committee Faculty QAC Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Aims of PPR Training 1. To review the core principles of PPR and the process 2. To review the PPR template 3. To analyse a partially completed PPR to identify themes for exploration 4. To participate in mock PPR Panel event Academic

Services Academic Programme Review Policy Quality Assurance Lifecycle Quality Assurance Lifecycle Process(es) Policy Section Develop and Approve Programme Development Business Case Academic Case 1) New Programme

Approval Monitor Annual Monitoring Review of datasets Action planning 2) Annual Programme Monitoring (APM) Review Periodic Programme Review Action Planning Interim and Final response 3) Periodic Programme Review

Terminate Portfolio review Outcomes of APM / PPR Teach out 4) Programme Suspension, Merger and Closure Academic Services Academic Programme Review Policy Quality Assurance Lifecycle Quality Assurance Lifecycle

Process(es) Policy Section Review Periodic Programme Review Action Planning Interim and Final response 3) Periodic Programme Review Academic Services National Accreditation Framework Requirements of the Framework

5.3 Programme Review Criteria The portfolio of programmes and all programme curricula are reviewed within 5 years using the MoHE Programme Approval and Review process Max. Score - 8 Indicators The institution is implementing the MoHE Periodic Review process to ensure that the curriculum of all academic programmes are reviewed every 5 years to reflect external changes and to ensure they conform to relevant disciplinary, professional and international standards.

Academic Services Periodic Programme Review PPR is defined as: A formal process conducted by the HEI at least every five years to assess the future viability, quality and standards of each of their academic programs and to establish whether significant changes to any aspect of a program are necessary. An Opportunity to: - Carry out a major refresh of the programme so that it attracts more applicants and produces high quality, satisfied graduates -

Consider the overall portfolio and the potential need for merger or closure - Consider innovation in teaching delivery and assessment - Raise issues for consideration by the University Academic Services Periodic Programme Review National Committee has agreed the following: - All programmes at Committee Universities should undertake PPR within 5 years - Timetable should initially focus on programmes that have been

running for more than 5 years - Indicative 10-20% of programmes per year - 'Out of Cycle' review can be triggered by VCAA - Universities should notify the MoHE of the timetable for Periodic Review - Timetable should initially focus on programmes that have been running for more than 5 years Academic Services Periodic Programme Review PPR Purpose To enable the Faculty and University to confirm that the programme is still aligned with the University Strategy To enable the University and MoHE to decide whether there is and will continue to be for the next five years a market need and a student demand for the programme

To enable the Faculty and University to confirm that the programme is still aligned with the programme description and intended learning outcomes To enable the Faculty and MoHE to confirm that the programme is running well and is fit for purpose Academic Services Periodic Programme Review PPR Purpose To enable the Faculty and University to confirm that the action points from the previous PPR and APM action plans have been implemented To review the quality of the student learning and teaching experience To identify required actions to address any weaknesses in the programme and to improve the student learning and teaching experience, and their employment outcomes

To confirm that the physical and staffing resources are adequate to enable the programme to continue to be delivered To enhance the teaching skills and methods of programme teams Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Difference from APM APM and PPR look at a number of similar issues, but their focus and outputs are different APM PPR Frequency Annually

Every five years Conducted by Head of Department and Faculty QAC Panel appointed by Chancellor or VCAA Focus Self Reflection and continuous improvement Strategic and developmental Outputs

Local report and action plan Panel report, action plan from department under review Academic Periodic Programme Review Difference from APM Issues which may not be able to be addressed in an APM, but can be addressed via PPR: Strategic alignment or overlap of provision Major resourcing issues physical or staffing Significant program content or assessment change University level Staff development Overall student numbers and quotas

Services Academic Services Periodic Programme Review PPR Process University will develop and maintain a schedule for PPR and departments notified of the projected timescale for PPR of their programme PPR Panel appointed directly by Chancellor or VCAA and consists of - VCAA or Dean of the Faculty in which the programme is based - Member of the University Quality Assurance Committee - 3 Senior Academics from other faculties - Representative of University Curriculum Committee - 1 student from the department under review Academic

Services Periodic Programme Review PPR Panel Head of Department prepares preliminary report: - Description of programme and policies - APM reports - Action Plans - Relevant data sources PPR Panel meets to discuss the report and identify issues to follow up PPR Panel conducts interviews with: - Academic and administrative staff - Students and alumni - Employers Academic Services

Periodic Programme Review PPR Process PPR Panel produces a report to submit to the University QA Committee focussing on: - ongoing value, viability and sustainability of a programme - overall quality of teaching and learning environment and the achievement of intended learning outcomes - areas of good practice for wider dissemination - Areas where ongoing monitoring or review may be required Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Conclusions, Outcomes and Response The Panel will seek to identify the following: 1. Areas of Good Practice and Commendations

2. Requests to the department requirements that must be addressed in a specific timescale 3. Requests to the University requirements to be escalated to the VCAA or Chancellor 4. Recommendations suggestions for improvement that are not mandatory Academic Services Periodic Programme Review PPR Process Department produces a response and action plan for approval by the University QA Committee A summary of all PPR activity produced for the University and submitted to MoHE Academic

Services Periodic Programme Review PPR: Additional Good Practice Additional Options for the Panel: Attend a Student / Staff Committee meeting Attend a Curriculum or QA Committee meeting Student member potentially arrange focus groups with students for informal feedback Offer informal session over lunch break to speak with students Academic Services PPR Template Introduction 15 Sections

Completed by HOD Common themes for each section: Aspects of Good Practice with wider University application Issues which may require University level action Each part includes section for Panel Commentary Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 2: Alignment Data sources and reference points:

Include a link to the institutional and faculty strategy documents Where plan/strategy is separated into sections or heading (such as Contribution to Society, Engagement with Employers, Meeting Government Targets) list these separately and include specific references to how the programme supports these. Not all programmes will support all elements of the strategy Consider any relevant national strategies for industrial or skills development Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 2: Alignment Issues for Panel consideration:

Do the priorities and actions in the department align with those at University level? Are there clear examples? Does the department have any feedback on the institutional or university strategy as part of this process? What is the strategic future of the programme? Could major changes be required to improve the relevance or alignment of the programme with local or national priorities Is there any overlap with other programmes at the University? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 3: Good Practice

Data sources and reference points: Focus on actions which have a clear positive impact on the student learning experience, satisfaction and employability Include evidence, where possible, to support Potentially draw from Actions completed in previous APM exercises Positive feedback received from students, alumni or employers arising from departmental actions Department wide initiatives Initiatives in response to external stakeholder comment or priorities (ie employers) Academic

Services Periodic Programme Review Section 3: Good Practice Issues for Panel consideration: How is good practice identified and acknowledged? How is good practice in one area disseminated to other areas of the University? Is the good practice common across the department or limited to individual areas or staff members? Is what is listed genuinely good practice, or should it be common practice? Are the opportunities to build upon the good practice? Would this require support from the Faculty/University? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review

Section 4: Update on PPR Action Plan Data sources and reference points: Where there has been a PPR previously, the action plan, monitoring and any follow up reports should be included Where PPR has not previously been conducted, consider outputs from other processes, ie Teaching Assessment Review Issues for Panel consideration: Has there been completion of all of the actions listed in the previous action plan? If not, what have been the obstacles to completion of actions? Is ownership of the action plan clear within the department Has there been effective Faculty/ University monitoring of completion of actions? Academic Services

Periodic Programme Review Section 5: Update on APM Action Plan Data sources and reference points: Previous APM action plans, typically last 3 years, if APM has only just commenced, include all that are available Combined single table of actions Where evidence of action (or monitoring) is available through Committee minutes, consider including these as appendices Where an action has not been completed or has been superseded, consider adding notes to this effect Cross reference with section 3 (Good Practice) to identify any specific items of good practice arising from APM process Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 5: Update on APM Action Plan

Issues for Panel consideration: Has there been completion of all of the actions listed in the previous action plan? If not, what have been the obstacles to completion of actions? Are all colleagues in the department aware of the action plan? Is the plan used as an active tool to manage activity within the department? Can the department point to where it is used in the Committee structure? Is there evidence of actions being carried over across multiple years and not completed? Is ownership of the action planning process clear within the department and is there evidence through the Committee structure? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 6: Student Progression Data sources and reference points:

Similar to APM, but may cover more than one programme Minimum of 3 year data for the number of students that successfully move from each year of the programme to the next (student numbers and %) Minimum of 3 year data for the number of students graduating each year link back to the number of students that started in that cohort to identify the % of students that started the programme subsequently graduated Distinction between the number of students that did not complete a year/graduate to establish:

Academic failure, Course transfer, Withdrawal (reasons)? Module level data pass rates, evidence of performance in individual assessment types Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 6: Student Progression Issues for Panel consideration: Does the data indicate stability or volatility? Any significant change in progression rates or graduation rates

Numbers of students failing to progress or complete for non-academic reasons Particular trends for individual student groups (Male/Female, for example) What actions are being taken to address any of the above? How does the department identify potential issues in this regard? How are issues considered and actions agreed, monitored and reviewed? How are students engaged in this process? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 6: Student Progression

Issues for Panel consideration: How is the wider staffing base engaged in addressing issues as they arise? If there is a significant issue around student progression, completion or graduation, could this be an issue for major programme redesign? Is there evidence of significant and sustained poor student performance what University level measures may need to be put in place? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 7: Employability Data sources and reference points: Similar to APM, but at the level of the department

Graduate employment rates, data on employment or further study types Transferable skills provision in the curriculum Departmental provision of employability events or opportunities Internships External input into programme design and review (employers)

Student feedback on employability opportunities Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 7: Employability Issues for Panel consideration: How does the department engage with employers to inform the development of its programmes? Can this be evidenced? Is it clear how the programmes are designed to meet the needs to the market? How are transferrable skills developed in the curriculum? Are there any trends in student employability or further study rates how is this data used to inform programme development? Which Committee or Officer has responsibility for Employability? How does current student feedback inform employability design?

Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 7: Employability Issues for Panel consideration: Are there any particular employability features in the programme to highlight? Could there be a need for a major intervention or redesign in order to meet the needs of the market or employers? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 8: Student Feedback

Data sources and reference points: All available sources of student feedback should be included where possible Module, Year or Graduate feedback Consider appendices for large amounts of data or free text comments Student-Staff Committee minutes Academic and non-academic feedback Response rates to questionnaires how are these monitored and improved? Analysis of both specific issues and themes Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 8: Student Feedback Issues for Panel consideration: Are there recurring local themes? Cross check with APM action plan summary to see if there are any recurring areas that have not been addressed.

How are students represented at various levels in the department? How do students hear about actions taken in response to their feedback? How systematic is the feedback process? Is there a risk of single point failure or inconsistent approaches? Does local feedback demonstrate issues which require University level consideration? If so, how are these escalated? In the event of consistent poor student feedback, could a major intervention be required? What format might this take? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 9: Alumni Feedback Data sources and reference points: PPR represents an opportunity to seek additional feedback beyond standard mechanisms:

Phone campaign Local focus groups Any historic alumni feedback Examples of how alumni feedback has informed programme development and delivery Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 9: Alumni Feedback Issues for Panel consideration: How is alumni feedback gathered and fed into the department?

Are there any examples of specific action taken in response? Does the department understand the needs of its graduates as expressed through alumni? How does the programme or suite of programmes meet the needs of graduates? Is there overlap? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 9: Alumni Feedback Issues for Panel consideration: Consider parallels between alumni and employer feedback are there any common themes? What opportunities are there for alumni to contribute to the programme or the department directly? If there is clear evidence that the programme is not meeting the needs that alumni have identified, could there be the need for a major intervention?

Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 10: Lecturer Feedback and Teaching Quality Data sources and reference points: Surveys of teaching quality Informal Student Feedback Consider holding an open meeting to gather lecturer feedback on issues Minutes of Staff meetings or Teaching Team meetings Rates of staff engagement with training or enhancement activities Outcomes of any formal appraisal mechanisms Recognition mechanisms for teaching quality Outputs from peer observation exercises Academic

Services Periodic Programme Review Section 10: Lecturer Feedback and Teaching Quality Issues for consideration: What do staff perceive to be the main issues affecting the department or programmes? How does the department encourage, monitor and enforce the continuous improvement of teaching? Is there a need for more University level input? How do staff engage with training opportunities? How is good practice in teaching highlighted and spread? What actions are taken in the event of poor feedback or teaching practice? How does the department manage the personal support of students? Academic Services

Periodic Programme Review Section 11: Employer Feedback Data sources and reference points: Potentially seek input via questionnaire, direct contact or interview, feedback from any formal Industrial Boards or local businesses local context critical National references industrial strategies, skills strategies etc Where the department has contact with alumni, use these connections to identify employers to target Examples of where employer feedback or market need has informed programme development Departmental Strategy how does it align with wider needs of the local or national market? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 11: Employer Feedback

Issues for consideration: Is the portfolio of programmes appropriate for the market need? Is it clear where employer feedback informs programme development? Are there any particular skills or competencies that are not currently delivered within the programme(s) that employers would desire? What further opportunities are there for the department to work with employers to identify areas for enhancement? What support mignt be required from the University to facilitate more effective industrial liaison? What opportunities are there for direct interaction between students and employers? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 12: Physical and Virtual Learning Resources Data sources and reference points:

Teaching spaces (size, composition, IT and other teaching resources in rooms) Laboratories (size, availability of equipment, efficiency of use) Number of modules using virtual learning resources Library resources Student and staff feedback Growth in student numbers utilisation statistics Recent investment in teaching estate strategy for future development Requests for additional learning resources from the university Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 12: Physical and Virtual Learning Resources Issues for consideration: Are the physical resources sufficient to support the existing cohorts? Are there any plans for expansion of student numbers are there the

resources to support this? Where do staff and the department feel that resources would be best directed? Opportunities for more effective use of existing resources What support does the department need from the University? How are staff engaged with the development of virtual learning resources? What support is there from the University for development of innovative virtual learning resources? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 13: Staff Resources Data sources and reference points: Number of staff and spread across levels Qualifications of staff Number of clerical or technical staff

Workload allocation models spread of teaching duties across staff Split between permanent staff and contract staff Induction programmes for new staff, mentoring programmes Opportunities for staff development and developing leaders in learning and teaching Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Section 13: Staff Resources Issues for consideration: Is the staffing base sufficient to deliver the programme?

Is there a good mix of senior, middle and junior staff? What mechanisms are in place to support the development of staff to become future leaders in learning and teaching? Is the clerical and technical support staffing sufficient? Is there are clear allocation of duties with respect to teaching? How does the department ensure consistent practice across tutors?

Do the departmental communication and governance structures support staff in raising ideas for improvement? Academic Services Periodic Programme Review Conclusions, Outcomes and Response The Panel will seek to identify the following: 1. Areas of Good Practice and Commendations 2. Requests to the department requirements that must be addressed in a specific timescale 3. Requests to the University requirements to be escalated to the VCAA or Chancellor 4. Recommendations suggestions for improvement that are not mandatory

Academic Services Day 3: Introduction and Recap Covered: - Action Planning and the link between APM and PPR - PPR Policy and broad process, with NTT feedback - Detailed review of PPR template with data sources, reflection and issues for Panel consideration Further planned follow-up - Provision of updated PPR notes of guidance - Provision of more detailed role descriptors - Procedural advice in APR Handbook Academic

Services Day 3: Schedule and Aims Schedule: AM: PM: PPR Panels: Roles and Schedule Review of sample PPR and identification of issues PPR Role Play Panel and Interviewees Aims of day 3: Practice identifying issues from PPR reports Practice composition of appropriate questions Experience a mock PPR exercise as both a panel member and interviewee Reflect on experience Academic

Services PPR Panel Process Panel Preparations Once a date is set, interviews will typically be arranged with: - Head of Department - Teaching staff - Students (current and alumni) - Employers The Panel will be provided with core documentation in advance of the meeting date The Panel will typically have a pre-meeting to identify themes that they wish to pursue on the basis of the initial documentation - Briefing note? The Panel may wish to specify additional interviewees Academic

Services PPR Panel Process Panel Appointment Chair : - VCAA or Dean consider independence IQAC member and Curriculum Committee member: - Seek to spread load across Committee membership Senior Academic Members (3): - Disciplinary spread and appropriateness of skills and experience - Seniority not necessarily linked to length of service, research profile etc - Need to have sufficient experience and authority to conduct interviews - Development opportunity for future leaders in learning and teaching - Experience of APM or PPR helpful Academic

Services PPR Panel Process Panel Appointment Student member: - Current student in department under review - Consider existing student representative systems - No formal academic or performance criteria - Need to be engaged and willing to work with the student body - Will require briefing and support Secretary (optional) - Logistical and Administrative Support for the Panel Academic Services PPR Panel Process Panel Appointment and Roles

Option 1 - Appoint a PPR Committee Benefit of training a small group to develop expertise Benefit of increased consistency Risk of overloading small number of individuals Need to ensure the right disciplinary spread Option 2 Train a wider group of staff Benefit of sharing the load and introducing a greater number of staff to the process Able to access the full range of disciplines for Panel coverage Greater need for training Risk of inconsistency Academic Services PPR Panel Process Allocation of Panel Responsibilities Strategic Management and

Portfolio review Chair (VCAA or Dean) Effective Action Planning IQAC member Student Feedback and experience Academic member Progression IQAC or CC member Staff resources and development

Academic member or Chair Employability, alumni and employer feedback Academic or CC member Staff resources and development Chair (VCAA or Dean) WHO IS MISSING? Academic Services PPR Panel Process The Review Day

On the Review day: 1. Pre meeting for the Panel to review allocations and any additional lines of questioning 2. Interview with Head of Department responsible for programme (could include head of contributing depts.) 3. Interview with Teaching Staff 4. Interview with Students and Alumni 5. Interview with Employers 6. Panel session and conclusions Academic Services PPR Panel Day Overview 1. Overview of PPR Panel roles Form panel groups 2. Panels review form to identify major themes

Break 3. Panels take key themes and develop questions Lunch 4. The PPR Panel: a) Interviews, b) Panel Academic Services PPR Panel Day 2) Identify main themes As a panel group, work through the PPR Form and identify any main themes that need to be investigated. Some themes may cut across PPR sections: try to connect different data together. Academic

PPR Panel Day 3) Develop questions for panel interviews In your groups, identify issues to investigate in the following areas, and develop a set of questions for your interviews. A & B: Strategy, completion Student experience, curriculum C & D: Employability Teaching, marking, staff career development Interviews: students, staff, HOD, employers Services Academic PPR Panel Day Panel role allocation 1. Dean [Chair]

2. University QAC member 3. University Curriculum Committee member 4. Staff member A 5. Staff member C 6. Student representative Services Academic PPR Panel Day 4) The PPR Panel: Panel Interviews 30 Minutes: Interviews (students, staff, HOD, employers) 10 : HOD, Employer 10 : Students (Year 1, Year 3) 10 : Staff (Lecturer, UG Tutor) Services

Academic Services PPR Panel Day 4) The PPR Panel: Panel Deliberations 30 Minutes: Panel deliberation and recommendations Add your comments/recommendations to the PPR Form in the Panel sections, then email final form to [email protected]

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • ARVs & DDIs in pregnancy Dr. Angela Colbers,

    ARVs & DDIs in pregnancy Dr. Angela Colbers,

    RTV boosted (DRV/RTV QD) AUC total 34-35%. AUC unbound 20-34%. AUC DRV total 50-56%. AUC DRV unbound 40-55%. Poster: Mark . Mirochnick presents data from P1026 (IMPAACT) Hier beginnen met: Naast de bekende en vanzelfsprekende veranderingen die elke zwangere vrouw...
  • Sami Religion. - Loreto Milford

    Sami Religion. - Loreto Milford

    Sami Religion. By: Finn Markus Silje Petter Rolf Harald Sami religion today. Sami is Christian too. Earlier the sami belived in Gods and Godesses who lived in the nature. But then the other people in Norway, Sweden and Finland wanted...
  • Progress Report: Week 2

    Progress Report: Week 2

    Progress Report: Week 2 February 16, 2006 Manotech Associates Jina Kim Forrest Liau David Lin Teresa Wang Product Proposal Customized prosthetic hand The "Manotech Approach" Low-cost, self do-it kit Consumer ease Reversible mold Innovative process Progress Overview Components of Focus...
  • FileNewTemplate - Cengage

    FileNewTemplate - Cengage

    KeyBoarding Pro Deluxe ONLINE. Getting Registered. COURSE NAME. Engaged with you.
  • Rapid Expansion of Whole Health Facilitator Training: Update

    Rapid Expansion of Whole Health Facilitator Training: Update

    Another definition by one of the founders of Duke Integrative Medicine and creator of the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction program at Duke University is "The intention to pay attention, in the present moment, with a friendly and open orientation." Jeff...
  • MYHR June 2011 Report - Tech Mahindra

    MYHR June 2011 Report - Tech Mahindra

    You can send your request to [email protected] (Shekhar Kshirsagar) techmahindra.com for additional provident fund deduction with your full name, employee ID and % of basic towards additional PF contribution b. For further details on VPF please visit Payroll FAQ on...
  • IF I HAD KNOWN THEN WHAT I KNOW

    IF I HAD KNOWN THEN WHAT I KNOW

    The government is making aninvestmentin you and you should make an investment in the cohort - it has the strongest wealth in experience, leadership and humanity (and is the program's most valuable asset).. The cohort dynamic and . relationships. matter...
  • ISB PowerPoint Template

    ISB PowerPoint Template

    Color Palette / Typography. Anatomy of Slide Design (Guide to changing Slide Footers) Section Break. Typical Slides. Table Designs. Content Boxes. ... This will help you reduce the size of your ppt by keeping image at relevant resolution .