Annual Programme Review Policy and Procedure Annual Programme Review (APR) is the cornerstone of the quality assurance process. This policy has been written in accordance with the expectation and indicators outlined within Chapter B8 of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education on ‘programme monitoring and review’ and Part A ‘setting and maintaining academic standards’. APR gives departments the opportunity to reflect upon the teaching, learning and operation of a programme or a group of cognate programmes in the previous academic year through the production of an evaluative report. The process also aims to identify successes and good practice, which could be shared throughout the institution, and to identify any areas requiring resolution or further development. Aims The purpose of the APR process is to maintain and enhance the quality of Goldsmiths’ taught programmes, specifically: To review the appropriateness and effectiveness of the learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment strategies of a programme and consider the planning of any consequent changes to modules and/or programmes; To ensure that any problems arising in a particular programme are reported, along with the steps taken to resolve them; To monitor and evaluate how feedback from students obtained through internal and external surveys, Staff/Student Forums and module evaluations has been considered and appropriate action taken as required; To consider any relevant external comments on the wider aspects of the programme(s), including those of External Examiners and, where appropriate, Professional Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRBs) and employers; To identify any trends in student recruitment, progression and achievement, particularly with respect to identifying if more could be done to support certain groups of students in meeting the learning outcomes of their programme(s); To report on any new developments/enhancements in learning and teaching that might be disseminated within and outside the department. Scope and reporting requirements It will normally be the responsibility of the Programme Convenor to write the APR report for an individual programme. Where a set of programmes is grouped together within an APR report, measures should be taken to ensure that the process still enables effective scrutiny of any specific issues arising for individual programmes. What is common to all programmes, and what is distinct to particular programmes, should be clearly identified in the report. A separate report is written for joint programmes which is the result of evaluation by both departments. Where a programme has a very small cohort an APR should still be submitted but this can be brief and should focus on how standards are assured and the student experience maintained in the context of small numbers of students. APR should be undertaken for all programmes which are in the process of teaching out, including for the final year of the programme(s). In these circumstances, the APR should focus on the student experience and how any specific issues encountered as a result of teaching out have been addressed. Those programmes subject to annual external reporting requirements from a Professional, Statutory or Regulatory Body are not required to complete Goldsmiths’ APR process. Collaborative Provision Leaders of programmes delivered at Partner Institutions are required to submit an APR report using a similar template as outlined in this policy and procedures. More detailed guidance for Partner Institutions is published in the Collaborative Provision Handbook. Following approval by the relevant committees at the Partner Institution, APR reports will be reviewed by the Goldsmiths Academic Link and noted at the corresponding Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee at Goldsmiths. APR reports will also be analysed centrally by the Collaborative Provision Team and included in the Quality Office annual summary, which is considered by Goldsmiths’ Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee. The Collaborative Provision Team will be responsible for giving feedback to the Partner Institution on any further action required by the Committee. For validation partnerships, the relevant Goldsmiths’ Academic Link will, when required, be involved. The Annual Programme Review process for University of London International Programmes for which Goldsmiths is the Lead College are subject to the annual monitoring processes of the University of London International Academy. Procedure To facilitate the production of APR reports annually, each department has a designated APR VLE page, which enables department staff to access the following information uploaded centrally by the Quality Office: the current APR template; management information (student recruitment, progression and achievement data); External Examiners reports; periodic review report(s) and action plan(s) (where actions remain outstanding); Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (PSRB) reports and responses (where appropriate); Student survey results (internal and external); Destination of Leavers from Higher Education results. Departments should also draw upon locally held information, including module evaluation findings, staff feedback, Staff/Student Forum and departmental committee discussions, Departmental Student Coordinator reports and other student feedback. The report should also consider the previous year’s APR report and any outcomes arising from it. The APR report should provide a commentary on the entire evidence base above and additionally on: learning and teaching developments/enhancements; any new features of the programme, teaching and assessment methods, or plans for their introduction. It is important that the APR constitutes a collective reflection on the programme(s) and not the views of a particular individual and should include information compiled from a range of other meetings held throughout the reporting period. Student Surveys and External Feedback External Examiners make explicit reference to a programme’s alignment with external reference points (e.g. Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and Subject Benchmark Statements) in their reports. The APR report should make explicit reference to feedback from External Examiners in their reports, the programme response and how the programme will address any recommendations from External Examiners. Where a programme also engages with a PSRB the APR report should highlight and comment on engagement over the reporting period. Explicit reference should be made to PRSB visits and where reaccreditation activity has taken place, the outcomes should be identified along with any planned action to address recommendations arising from these activities. Any reports from PSRBs should be appended to the APR report. Feedback from employers, alumni and other external stakeholders should be highlighted within the APR report. The Institution engages with a number of external surveys; the National Student Survey; Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey; Postgraduate Research Experience Survey; Student Barometer and the International Student Barometer. Goldsmiths also operates an internal student survey for continuing students. The appropriate data sets for programmes will be uploaded to the programme’s APR VLE page. The APR report should comment on trends identified by the survey data sets and identify the proposed actions to address areas of concern highlighted by the datasets. Survey data may also help departments to identify areas of good practice for wider dissemination across the institution. Submission of APR reports Undergraduate APR reports are normally submitted to the Quality Office during the first week of December, with postgraduate APRs due in at the end of February. The specific deadline for each is set and communicated by the Quality Office each year. The Quality Office will provide support and guidance to Programme Convenors as required, during the production of their APR reports. Departmental level scrutiny Annual Programme Review reports should be received by the Departmental Learning and Teaching Committee (DLTC) and discussed with students. Departments are expected to monitor programme operation on an ongoing basis throughout the year, to take prompt action where appropriate in response to feedback and to document fully matters raised, together with their outcomes. Departments should use the outcomes of the APR developmentally. The APR report should specify any actions identified as a result of the review discussions, who will follow up on these, and provide a timeframe. The final APR report must be submitted to the Quality Office. APR reports are accessible on the Goldsmiths’ website, alongside External Examiner reports and responses. These are available to all staff and students with a Goldsmiths’ login. Institutional level scrutiny Each year, the Quality Office produces a separate APR summary for all undergraduate and postgraduate programmes (including collaborative provision and University of London International Programmes) pulling together any key themes and trends, highlighting any areas of good practice for wider dissemination, and identifying institutional level actions. These summary reports are submitted for consideration at the Quality and Standards SubCommittee. The summary report from the University of London International programmes will be considered at Institutional Partnership Sub-Committee. The Goldsmiths Learning Enhancement Unit (GLEU) considers the points raised in each APR summary report and identifies potential enhancement activities that could be taken forward at institutional level. The GLEU report is also considered by Learning, Teaching and Quality Committee. Information from Annual Programme Reviews and other evaluative material forms part of the evidence base of a department’s Periodic Review activity, held every six years. Policy Review The APR process and reporting templates are kept under constant review. The effectiveness of the reporting cycle is evaluated by the Quality Office and any identified enhancements to the process are considered and communicated by the start of the next reporting cycle. Policies are also reviewed in light of other internal or external factors, such as, changes to the internal committee structure or an amendment to the UK Quality Code for HE. Quality Office August 2014