CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT FOR MANCHESTER MET HOMEDELIVERED PROVISION 2016/17
(Revised Summer 2016)
Please note: This document concerns Continuous Monitoring and Improvement for
Manchester Met taught home-delivered provision only. A separate process covers CMI in
taught collaborative provision at http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/cmicp.php .
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
As a University committed to maximising the satisfaction and success of all its
students, Manchester Met undertakes continuous monitoring and improvement at
unit, programme and institutional level. The monitoring process focuses on objective,
core data which informs senior managers and academic teams of the health of those
units and courses on which students are enrolled. Unit and course data is used for
purposes of analysis to develop unit and programme action plans which aim to
improve student satisfaction and success, and in which aspects of good practice are
highlighted. At institutional level this data provides an overview of course health.
1.2
The quality management of units, courses and programmes is the responsibility of
Unit and Programme Leaders, Heads of Department (or equivalent) and Faculty ProVice-Chancellors (see Appendix A for a schedule and timeline of key CMI tasks).
1.3
At programme level, the online Continuous Improvement Plan is the focal point for the
academic team to monitor the health of each course identified through the
Programme Specification, to review the quality of those courses and to address
issues in order to ensure enhancement of the student learning experience. It is the
record of issues raised and good practice noted, and records whether issues are
resolved or outstanding. The format of the Plan is prescribed in order to provide a
constant, which can be understood, analysed, compared and contrasted by those
(internally or externally) with an interest in the evaluation of the standards and quality
of courses that exist within a programme.
1.4
At unit level, the online Unit Improvement Plan is the focal point for the academic
team to monitor the health of each unit. The Unit Improvement Plan is the definitive
source of issues raised in the unit. Unit Leaders are responsible for updating the Unit
Improvement Plan, recording issues that arise and agreeing actions to address them.
1.5
The online Continuous Improvement Plan and Unit Improvement Plan are used for all
Manchester Met home-delivered provision and are updated regularly [see paragraph
3.4]. Each online Continuous Improvement Plan reflects a programme area as set
up in the student records system, and programme teams will complete the
Continuous Improvement Plan(s) for all those programme areas which are relevant to
the approved Programme Specification.
2
AIM
2.1
The aim of Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is to support the maintenance of
standards, to assure the consistency of learning opportunities and to enhance the
quality of the learning experience for students by continually reviewing provision,
identifying areas for improvement and aspects of good practice and acting on them.
2.2
Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is achieved through the:
1






systematic, effective and transparent use of available data and evidence to inform
improvement actions;
early identification of areas for improvement to ensure the maintenance of academic
standards and/or to enhance the quality of student learning opportunities;
prompt implementation of improvement actions;
prompt referral of any issues requiring institutional action to the appropriate service
area;
early identification, recording and dissemination of good practice in a timely manner;
tracking of issues and improvement actions, so that stakeholders including students,
staff and external examiners are aware of such actions.
In all cases, a clear locus of responsibility for the ownership of improvement actions at
unit, programme, faculty and institutional levels is identified.
2.3
3
By definition, Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is a ‘live’ process, with issues
raised and resolved at unit and programme level and good practice shared at the
earliest opportunity.
PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND
IMPROVEMENT
Programme and Unit-Level Monitoring and Improvement
3.1
Responsibility for course level monitoring, and for the completion and regular
updating of the Continuous Improvement Plan, rests with the Programme Leader.
The Unit Leader shall be responsible for the monitoring and analysis of unit health
and for the regular updating of the Unit Improvement Plan. The Programme Leader
shall be responsible for the oversight of all units within the particular course(s) for
which s/he is responsible, and uses the information within the Unit Improvement
Plans to inform the updating of the programme-level Continuous Improvement Plan.
3.2
At course level, evidence for monitoring includes a range of programme performance
statistics and external examiner reports, programme committee minutes and Student
Voice data, including the results of the Internal and National Student Surveys if the
results are available at course level. Please see section 4 for details of the
programme-level CMI evidence base.
3.3
Evidence for monitoring the health of units will include Internal Student Survey results
data, enrolment and student success/achievement data. Full unit-level ISS results
are available via myMMU, with selected unit-level results information available on the
CMI Data Dashboard. Please see section 4 for details of the unit-level CMI evidence
base.
3.4
Data and its analysis covers the student lifecycle and analysis takes place at the
earliest possible point in the year. As a minimum threshold, analysis should take
place on three occasions per year as follows:

programme data should be analysed at the beginning of the student year,
during the second term of study and following the assessment boards. Where
required, the online programme Continuous Improvement Plan should be
updated with issues requiring resolution and with aspects of good practice,
and with progress made towards existing actions.
2

unit data should be analysed following the Internal Student Surveys and after
the assessment boards. Where required, the online Unit Improvement Plan
should be updated with issues requiring resolution and with aspects of good
practice, and with progress made towards existing actions.
Programme leaders and unit leaders may update the Plans more frequently than the
above minimum requirements, if they feel this is appropriate.
3.5
If the Unit Leader identifies issues which require the formal modification of the unit,
this modification must be agreed with the relevant Programme Leader before it is
included within the Unit Improvement Plan and before the modification is undertaken
through the University’s published processes at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/event/modification.php
3.6
The CMI Data Dashboard is available at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/monitoring-improvement.php, and
includes the online programme Continuous Improvement Plan and the Unit
Improvement Plan.
3.7
Programme Continuous Improvement Plans shall be updated/amended by the staff
member who is the designated programme leader on the student records system.
3.8
Unit Improvement Plans shall be updated by the staff member who is the designated
Unit Leader on the student records system. This designated Unit Leader is
responsible for maintaining a single Unit Improvement Plan, which covers all
occurrences of the unit, and for ensuring that all actions within the Plan are
completed by the stated date.
3.9
The Continuous Improvement Plan is the definitive source of issues raised, and
responsibility for recording issues and agreeing actions to address them rests with the
Programme Leader. The Programme Leader is also responsible for the prompt referral
to the appropriate department of service related issues (e.g. resources and facilities)
and following up on action taken to resolve such issues [see paragraph 3.19]. Details of
each issue and the department to which it has been referred should be recorded on the
Continuous Improvement Plan.
3.10
All fields in the programme Continuous Improvement Plan and the Unit Improvement
Plan must be completed, including the name or position of the person responsible for
each action and the date by which the action is anticipated to be completed. Staff
should make every effort to ensure that the actions are ‘SMART’ – specific, measurable,
achievable/action-orientated, relevant and time-specific. Full guidance on the
formulation and use of ‘SMART’ actions in CMI is available at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/monitoring/docs/smart_actions_guid
ance.pdf .
3.11
The Programme Leader should scrutinise progress made in Unit Improvement Plans
and, if appropriate, formulate programme-level actions to address recurring unit-level
issues which have arisen.
3.12
After agreeing the Continuous Improvement Plan with the Head of Department, the
Programme Leader arranges for the Plan to be considered and approved by
Programme Committee members. Full guidance on Programme Committees at
Manchester Met is available at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/voice/docs/prog_committee.pdf
3
There is no requirement for the Unit Improvement Plan to be considered or approved by
the Programme Committee.
3.13
The Programme Leader will be responsible for ensuring that the Continuous
Improvement Plan is accessible to students, staff and External Examiners, so that they
can see what progress has been made on issues raised. More information on the
University’s requirements for ‘closing the feedback loop’ can be found in ‘Evaluation of
Student Opinion’ at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/voice/docs/evaluation_of_opinion.pd
f. The online Continuous Improvement Plan may be exported, emailed or printed for
this purpose. The Programme Leader will be responsible for ensuring that access to
CMI-related information is appropriate for all stakeholders, taking into consideration all
protected characteristics (for example disability, gender, age and ethnicity).
3.14
The Unit Improvement Plan is accessible only to Manchester Met staff. It is not
intended to be a publicly available document.
Department level monitoring and analysis of the health of courses
3.15
Each Head of Department has managerial responsibility for the health of courses within
his/her department (or equivalent). A departmental report is available on the CMI
dashboard for Heads of Department to review programme and unit health on a regular
basis and feedback to programme teams. On a termly basis, the Head of Department
(or equivalent) scrutinises the up-to-date Continuous Improvement Plans. The key
issues within the Continuous Improvement Plans will feed into the Departmental
Strategic Plan, where appropriate, and will be used by the Head of Department to report
to Faculty Executive Group (FEG). The ‘Department Reporting’ section of the
Dashboard is helpful in facilitating access to the information needed for the report to
FEG.
Faculty Analysis of the Health of Programmes
3.16
The Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor has overall responsibility for the health of courses
within the faculty. Through FEG, Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellors and Heads of
Department (or equivalent) consider the health of all courses for their area on a
termly basis. FEG uses course health data and the key issues from Continuous
Improvement Plans, reported by Heads of Department, to identify courses where
issues need action, for example those issues relating to student satisfaction,
progression/retention or employability. FEG makes decisions on actions to be taken
if ‘health’ cannot be assured.
3.17
Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellors identify those issues which require faculty-wide action
and those aspects of good practice for dissemination within the faculty. Specific
student experience issues/good practice are referred to the Chair of the Faculty
Education Committee (FEC).
3.18
FEC considers those issues referred for action, prioritising improvement actions and
sharing good practice within the Faculty. The Committee minutes should record the
outcomes of this consideration.
Monitoring and Analysis of Central Service Issues and Good Practice
4
3.19
Central service issues are referred for action in the first instance to those responsible in
the local area, such as Head of Faculty SAS, Catering Manager or Head of Library
Services. Programme teams are asked to include such referred issues in the
Continuous Improvement Plan, so this information is available for inclusion within the
Annual Overview Report of Quality and Standards where appropriate.
Institutional Oversight
3.20
The University Executive Group and Academic Board have institutional oversight of
courses offered by Manchester Met. The Education Committee is responsible for
oversight of the student experience and student success.
3.21
On an annual basis, the Education Committee and the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee receive the Annual Overview Report of Quality and Standards, and consider
the recommendations, including those relating to course health, student experience
and student success, before the Report is approved by Academic Board.
4
4.1
EVIDENCE BASE FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND IMPROVEMENT
The key requirement of Continuous Monitoring and Improvement is the academic
team’s timely engagement with an appropriate evidence base to review unit and
course health and focus on enhancement. Academic teams are required to make
effective use of a range of sources of evidence when developing the Continuous
Improvement Plan and the Unit Improvement Plan. In particular, the following key
indicators will inform academic teams in their analysis:
Programme-level data evidence
 The reports of external examiners;
 Student survey results, free text comments and other Student Voice data, including
key issues raised in the Internal Student Survey, National Student Survey and other
relevant externally hosted surveys;
Note 1: The surveying organisations apply strict constraints on quoting the data in publicly available
documents and for example, the use of student free text comments in such documents may be prohibited
completely. Programme teams should check that they are abiding by the rules of the student surveys
before directly quoting any results data/comments in the Continuous Improvement Plan.
Note 2: It is essential that any free text comments provided in student surveys and then made available
on the CMI Data Dashboard have been redacted according to the University’s redacti on protocol for
each survey.
 Data available on the CMI Data Dashboard and Uniview, including recruitment and
admissions, entry tariff, enrolment, assessment marks, progression and retention,
percentage of good Honours (UG only) data;
 Results from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey;
 Issues and good practice raised at Programme Committees and Staff Student
Liaison Committees (or equivalent);
 Recommendations made by programme approval, review and modification (PARM)
panels;
 If available, feedback from former students, staff, employers and professional bodies
(PSRBs) as appropriate;
 Unit Improvement Plans.
Unit-level data evidence
5



Unit-specific Student Voice data, including key issues raised in the Internal Student
Survey;
Unit data available on the CMI Data Dashboard, including enrolment onto the unit,
assessment marks, progression and retention data;
Unit-specific issues and good practice raised at Programme Committees and Staff
Student Liaison Committees (or equivalent);
Department-level data evidence

A range of programme- and unit-level data from each department can be accessed
from the ‘Department Reporting’ section of the Dashboard.
4.2
When using the online programme Continuous Improvement Plan and Unit
Improvement Plans, it is important to consider all of the data summarised in section
4.1 , not only the data which is available on the CMI Data Dashboard. The Plans
should be clear as to the source of the data being used as evidence.
4.3
On both the CMI Data Dashboard and Uniview, it is possible to filter data to obtain
the specific data required. The data is a snapshot at the point of retrieval, and it is
vital that course or programme teams date any reference to the data in the
programme Continuous Improvement Plan and Unit Improvement Plans and use
updated data throughout the year.
External Examiner reports
4.4
The reports of external examiners provide external verification of the standards and
quality of each course within a programme. Each academic team must consider the
specific issues identified within individual Subject External Examiner reports and the
Programme Leader must make a formal written response to each Subject Examiner
addressing issues they have raised in the external examiner report template. The
Programme Leader’s response will be provided in the relevant section of this report,
and when completed should be returned to the Subject External Examiner within the
period stipulated in the external examiner report template. The report, which
includes the Programme Leader’s response, will be posted on the CMI Data
Dashboard and in the relevant programme Moodle area in order to be made
available to students registered on the programme. Student course representatives
should consult with their student peers regarding the report and response. Any
actions identified following that consultation should be discussed with the Programme
Leader and fed into the Continuous Improvement Plan as appropriate.
In cases where the external examiner comments are of significant concern the Head
of CASQE will request that the Programme Leader makes an immediate response to
the external examiner. Confirmation that the academic team has responded to all key
issues in the report(s) is an essential part of the evidence base and comprises
important supporting information for the Continuous Improvement Plan. External
Examiners will also receive copies of the reports of the other external examiners
appointed to the programme (for very large multidisciplinary programmes, reports
from examiners in cognate areas would be sufficient). The response, and subsequent
related correspondence, should be made available when the Continuous
Improvement Plan is considered by Programme Committee members or at any other
formal review of the Continuous Improvement Plan. External examiners will be
provided with an updated copy of the Continuous Improvement Plan on at least one
occasion per year.
6
5
HELP AND SUPPORT
A range of help and advice is available to staff carrying out the Continuous Monitoring
and Improvement process, and details are available via the ‘Help’ and ‘Advice’ links at
the top of the CMI Data Dashboard screen, and on the CASQE website at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/monitoring-improvement.php.
Many queries can be resolved by referral to your local Management Services Team,
who will ensure that the appropriate person addresses the query. Contact details for
Management Services are available at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/sas/bssg/intranet/FSAS_contacts.php#Management Services
Group
CELT have prepared specific advice on reviewing key data and developing
programme Continuous Improvement Plans in relation to the Strategy for Learning,
Teaching and Assessment. This advice is available at
http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/cmi/index.php
For queries regarding the CMI Process itself, including what you should be doing at
different times of the academic year, please see the CASQE guidance available at
http://www.mmu.ac.uk/academic/casqe/experience/monitoring-improvement.php, or
contact Rob Baker (r.baker@mmu.ac.uk, extension 3695).
General comments about the CMI Process, including suggestions for future
development, may be submitted by email to cmifeedback@mmu.ac.uk. However, this
is not the address to contact for help and advice – please see above.
7
APPENDIX A
INDICATIVE SCHEDULE OF KEY TASKS 2016/17 (MANCHESTER MET HOME-DELIVERED
PROVISION)
Please note: This document concerns Continuous Monitoring and Improvement for Manchester Met
home-delivered provision only. A separate process covers CMI in collaborative provision. The Schedule is
indicative, and refers to those courses whose academic year runs from September to June.
KEY
CMI- Continuous Monitoring and
Improvement
CIP – Continuous Improvement Plan
UIP – Unit Improvement Plan
UNIT LEADER


SUMMER 2016
Reviews unit health following the Assessment
Boards, using all of the data evidence outlined
in the CMI Process.
Agrees with the Programme Leader any
actions which may require the formal
modification of the unit.
JANUARY 2017
Reviews unit health following the Autumn
ISS, using all of the data evidence outlined
in the CMI Process.
APRIL/MAY 2017
Reviews unit health following the Spring
ISS, using all of the data evidence outlined
in the CMI Process.
After each of the above reviews: Where required, updates the online UIP, including improvement actions, aspects of good practice and
progress
PROGRAMME LEADER
SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2016
 Reviews course health using all
of the data evidence outlined in
the CMI Process, including
UIPs.
 Agrees the CIP with the Head
of Department.
OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 2016
Arranges for the CIP to be
considered and approved by
Programme Committee
members.



JANUARY-MARCH 2017
Reviews course health using all
of the data evidence outlined in
the CMI Process, including UIPs.
Agrees the CIP with the Head of
Department.
Arranges for the CIP to be
considered and approved by
Programme Committee
members.


SUMMER 2017
Reviews course health following
the Assessment Boards, using
all of the data evidence outlined
in the CMI Process.
Agrees the updated CIP with the
Head of Department.
After each of the above reviews: Where required, updates the online CIP on the CMI Data Dashboard, including improvement actions,
aspects of good practice and progress
Throughout the year: Ensure that students, staff and external examiners are kept informed of actions taken.
8
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2016
JANUARY-MARCH 2017
SUMMER 2017
Once a term:
 Considers progress made regarding actions in the CIPs and reports on key issues and progress to Faculty Executive Group (FEG).
 Where appropriate, uses evidence from CIPs to inform the Departmental Strategic Plan.
FACULTY PRO-VICE-CHANCELLOR AND CHAIRS OF FACULTY EDUCATION COMMITTEE AND FACULTY ACADEMIC QUALITY &
STANDARDS COMMITTEE




NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2016
JANUARY-MARCH 2017
SUMMER 2017
At Faculty Executive Group, consider key issues from CIPs and the health of all programmes.
Make decisions on actions to be taken if ‘health’ cannot be assured.
Refer to Faculty Education Committee (FEC) or Faculty Academic Quality and Standards Committee (FAQSC) any issues requiring facultywide action, and good practice for dissemination.
FEC and FAQSC consider issues referred for action by the Faculty Pro-Vice-Chancellor, recording the outcomes of this consideration in the
Committee minutes.
INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL: REPORTING OF CMI OUTCOMES



AUTUMN 2016
SPRING 2017
CASQE compiles CASQE Annual Overview Report of Quality and
Standards 2015/16 including
o Summary of main issues and enhancement actions from CMI
reports which were submitted during the Summer by faculties.
o Student experience-related and other recommendations.
Academic Quality and Standards Committee and Education
Committee Consider the CASQE Annual Overview Report of Quality and
Standards, and submit recommendations to Academic Board as
appropriate.
Academic Board considers CASQE Annual Overview Report of Quality
and Standards and any recommendations from AQSC and Education
Committee.
CASQE co-ordinates
the implementation of
approved actions.
9
SUMMER 2017

CASQE collates information on CMI
2016/17 outcomes from faculties
including:
 Summary of main issues and
enhancement actions arising
from CMI, and examples of good
practice identified.