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