UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Strategic Departmental Review: Executive Summary
The Periodic Review of Courses has been in place for over twenty years at the
University. The Quinquennial Departmental Review process was established by the
Senate in 2001. To ensure a more holistic review process, Periodic Review and
Quinquennial Department Review were merged in 2005. While only a small number
of Departments have participated in the new Strategic Departmental Review Process
to date, a number of potential improvements to the process have been identified
during the initial reviews and further enhancements are therefore being proposed to
the Strategic Departmental Review Process to ensure that it facilitates the full range
of desired University objectives.
The key aspects of Strategic Departmental Review (SDR), detailed in the attached
document, are as follows:










The process will ensure that the full range of a Department’s present and
planned future activities is reviewed once every five years.
The process will ensure that the standards and quality of teaching and learning
of every course in the University are reviewed at least once in a five-year
period.
The Review will normally be conducted over a three-day period.
External peers are involved at all stages of the process and will be in a majority
on the Review Group.
Senior internal members, external to the Department, will also be involved on
the Review Group.
Strategic Departmental Review involves direct engagement with the views of
staff and students. At least one meeting with a representative group of
undergraduate and postgraduate students will always form part of the review
process.
While Strategic Departmental Review performs an important quality assurance
function, it is also concerned with the enhancement and development of
courses and the future academic vision and strategy of Departments. The
process is intended to encourage a constructive and challenging dialogue
between the Review Group and members of the Department.
Dependent research centres will form part of the review.
Strategic Departmental Review is overseen by the Steering Committee which
initially considers the Review Report and determines what actions should be
taken as a result of the recommendations and by whom. Matters specific to the
standards and quality of courses will normally be delegated to the quality
assurance committee structure culminating in the Academic Quality and
Standards Committee (AQSC) and matters relating to management and
resources normally to the Academic Resourcing Committee (ARC).
A summary of the process and those outcomes relating specifically to courses
will be made available on the Teaching Quality Information (TQI) website (or its
successor) within six months of completion of review.
Sections 1, 2, 3, 12, 13 and 14 and Appendices B and C of the following
document will be provided to the members of the Review Group prior to the
review to inform them of their aims and objectives and the process by which
the University will progress any recommendations made by the Group.
1
UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK
Strategic Departmental Review (SDR) Process
1.
Aims and Objectives
The main purpose of the Strategic Departmental Review process is to assure the
quality of the full range of a Department’s activities and provide an opportunity for
reflection and external advice as to how to enhance these activities and what new
opportunities there may be to pursue.
The objectives of Strategic Departmental Review are:
(a)
to assist Departments in the formulation of medium-term strategies for the
development of research, teaching and resourcing and in the development of
management capability to deliver those strategies;
(b)
to evaluate current strengths and weaknesses in the teaching, research and
management activities of the Department with a view to identifying potential
enhancements that can be made to the Department’s activities;
(c)
to identify potential improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of the
allocation of resources within the Department;
(d)
to encourage Departments to consider the long-term development of their
provision;
(e)
to promote the enhancement of the quality of education for students in the
Department and to stimulate new initiatives in teaching;
(f)
to assure the University and other interested parties (e.g. applicants,
students, employers) of the standards and quality of the courses under
review;
(g)
to formulate recommendations to the Vice-Chancellor and the Department
under review;
(h)
to assess progress in relation to the outcomes and recommendations of the
Department’s previous review(s).
While bearing in mind the above objectives of the Strategic Departmental Review
process, the Review Group will answer all of the ‘Key Questions’ provided on the
agenda for each section of review meetings.
2.
Responsibility for the Strategic Departmental Review Process
The Steering Committee has ultimate responsibility for the oversight of the Strategic
Departmental Review process and will consider the final report and the Departmental
response. The Committee will determine any subsequent action that will be taken in
the light of the recommendations of the Review Report and which body will be
delegated responsibility for each (see section 13 below).
Responsibility for the standards and quality of courses ultimately rests with the
Senate, which delegates oversight to the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee (AQSC). AQSC will follow up specific issues relating to the teaching and
learning arising from Strategic Departmental Review following the consideration and
referral of recommendations by the Steering Committee.
Responsibility for the implementation of issues relating to academic strategy and
financial or resourcing matters of non-devolved departments will usually be referred
to the Academic Resourcing Committee.
2
3.
The Cycle and Format of the Reviews
Strategic Departmental Review continues to operate on a five-year cycle, approved
by the Steering Committee and the AQSC. The schedule of Strategic Departmental
Reviews will be presented to the Senate on an annual basis for consideration and
review. The schedule will identify the academic year in which each academic
Department in the University is scheduled for review under the Strategic
Departmental Review process. Any requests for a review to take place either earlier
or later than set out in the schedule will be put forward to the Steering Committee via
the Vice-Chancellor. Faculty Boards will ensure that the reviews scheduled to take
place in the current and following two years are reported to the Faculty Boards in the
Autumn Term and that any amendments to the review schedule within the year are
reported at the first meeting of the Faculty Board following the change in the
schedule.
Outside the normal cycle of review, the Steering Committee, Academic Quality and
Standards Committee (AQSC), Academic Resourcing Committee (ARC), the Board
of Graduate Studies (BGS), the Board of Undergraduate Studies (BUGS) or the
Collaborative, Flexible and Distributed Learning Sub-Committee (CFDLSC) may
recommend an interim review of particular aspects of a Department’s activities, or
particular courses of study, if there is prima facie evidence that such an investigation
is necessary or desirable. Reports of such reviews will normally be provided within
the review documentation for the SDR.
Undergraduate and postgraduate courses will be reviewed together as part of the
Strategic Departmental Review process. The Review meetings normally will be held
in a 1 + 2 format, ensuring that one full day focuses on undergraduate and
postgraduate teaching and learning and two subsequent days focus on the full range
of a Department’s other activities. The three days of review can take place
consecutively, or alternatively, the first day of review meetings focussing on quality,
standards and enhancement of a Department’s course provision can be held up to
one month prior to the subsequent two days of review meetings, an option which may
be particularly suitable for Departments with large or complex course provisions. In
the case of a non-consecutive three days of review meetings, a draft summary of the
issues raised and any specific recommendations proposed during Day 1 will be
brought forward to the Review Group to inform the subsequent two days of review
meetings. (See section 6 below for further details of the possible variations in the
Review Group membership for Day 1 versus Day 2 and 3.)
4.
Determination of courses to be reviewed as part of the SDR process
The following bodies have formal responsibility for ensuring the various types of
courses are included in the review:



The Board of Graduate Studies (BGS) is responsible for ensuring that all
taught postgraduate courses across the University are included.
The Collaborative, Flexible and Distributed Learning Sub-Committee
(CFDLSC) is responsible for ensuring that all collaborative courses are
included.
Each Faculty Board is responsible for ensuring that all undergraduate courses
within the Faculty are included.
3
The Faculty Board Secretariat in conjunction with the Teaching Quality section of the
Academic Office will produce a provisional list of courses for which a Department is
responsible and will ensure that close attention is paid to courses provided jointly
with other Departments. A joint degree will be reviewed as part of the provision of
the Department which is responsible for its management (normally the Department
which offers the main component). Where a Department is not responsible for a joint
degree, but contributes modules to the course, these modules will still be reviewed
as part of that Department’s provision. The Faculty Board Secretariat will identify
such provision, but does not need to list each discrete module.1
This list of courses is considered and approved by the Faculty Board before being
passed for final confirmation to AQSC, on which members from BGS and CFDLSC
serve. This will normally take place at meetings of the Faculty Board and the AQSC
in the Spring Term prior to the academic year the review is scheduled to take place.
In addition to the Academic Quality and Standards Committee, the above bodies
have an opportunity to highlight any issues which should be considered by the
Department or indeed the Faculty via mechanisms such as the annual course review
process and the consideration of the student staff liaison committee annual reports.
If there are particular teaching and learning issues which the above-listed bodies
wish to recommend to the Review Group for consideration during the Strategic
Departmental Review of a particular Department, these can either be formally
minuted and a report provided to the Secretary to the Review for circulation to the
Review Group and the Department. Alternatively, the Chair of the relevant body may
write to the Vice-Chancellor to ensure that any such issues identified are highlighted
to the Review Group as part of the introduction and briefing held with the ViceChancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor and the Review Group.
5.
Stages of Strategic Review
The Deputy Registrar, in consultation with the Vice-Chancellor, will determine the
proposed term in which the Strategic Departmental Review will take place within the
agreed Review Schedule as set out in section four. If the availability of the external
members of the Review Group necessitates a deferral of the timing of the review, the
Secretary to the Review Group must consult the Vice-Chancellor via the Deputy
Registrar.
A brief sequence of the process is as follows, with further details being set out in
subsequent sections:
(a)
The approved schedule of Strategic Departmental Reviews to be presented
annually at the Autumn Term meetings of Faculty Boards. This acts as due
notice for the Departments under review.
(b)
Consideration to be given by the Department under review as to potential
external members of the Review Group to be recommended to the ViceChancellor and whether a subject-specialist might be recommended to the
Chair of AQSC for participation in the review meetings relating to teaching and
learning on Day 1.
1
This approach ensures that all components of a course are reviewed. For example, the BA
in French with Film Studies, in which French is the majority component, is managed by the
Department of French Studies. The degree structure and the French component would be
reviewed as part of the review of the Department of French Studies, while the modules in Film
would be reviewed as part of the Department of Film and Television Studies’ provision.
4
(c)
The Secretary to the Review to consult with the Department as to whether it is
preferable to have three consecutive days of review or if the review of teaching
and learning should take place up to one month in advance of the subsequent
two days of review meetings, noting that this may depend to a certain extent on
the composition and availability of the external members of the Review Group
once they are appointed.
(d)
The external members of the Review Group are to be recommended to the
Vice-Chancellor, noting this may be an iterative process before the final
approval of the individuals to be invited to be external members of the Review
Group is received. The external subject specialist to participate in the teaching
and learning Review Meetings on Day 1, if participation of any is being sought,
is to be recommended to the Chair of AQSC. Responsibility for final approval
of all external and internal members of the Review Group rests with the ViceChancellor.
(e)
Invitations are sent from the Vice-Chancellor by the Secretary to the Review,
following appointment of the Review Group by the Vice-Chancellor. If any of the
individuals initially invited to participate in the Review Group decline the
invitation to participate, the Secretary to the Review Group, in consultation with
the Head of Department being reviewed, will recommend another external
member of the Review Group to the Vice-Chancellor via the Deputy Registrar.
(f)
Once the external members of the Review Group have confirmed their
participation in principle, dates for their availability will be sought according to
the provisional format of meetings agreed for the particular review.
(g)
In consultation with the Deputy Registrar, internal members of the Review
Group will be recommended by the Secretary to the Review to the ViceChancellor via the Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
(h)
The Self-Evaluation Document is prepared and this and any other supporting
documentation are submitted by the Department under review to the Secretary
of the Review Group at least four weeks prior to the date of the Review
meetings, with a view to the Review Group receiving the documentation at least
three weeks in advance of the review meetings.
(i)
Review meetings are held considering teaching and learning and all courses of
study will normally take place on Day 1. [If Day 1 is held in advance of Days 2
and 3 by up to one month, a brief summary of the issues covered and potential
recommendations from Day 1, including the draft of the completed template
relating to the quality and standards of the Departments courses, will be
presented by the Secretary to the Review Group prior to the start of the
meetings on Days 2 and 3.]
(j)
Review meetings considering all other Departmental activities will normally take
place on Day 2 and 3 (see Review Meetings sample template);
(k)
Production of the Review Report by the Secretary of the Review Group in
consultation with the Group, with the final approval of the Chair of the Review
Group, within three weeks of the review. An opportunity for the Head of
Department to correct matters of accuracy will be provided before the Review
Report is circulated further (within 1 week of it being provided to the
Department);
5
(l)
The Review Report is forwarded to the Vice-Chancellor who will determine
when it is forwarded to the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee will
determine what actions, if any, will be taken, by whom and by when.
(m) Following the initial consideration of the Report by the Steering Committee, the
Head of Department will be invited to attend the Steering Committee to present
the Departmental Response to the report.
(n)
Consideration of, and follow-up to, the Review Report, including preparation,
approval and publication on the TQI website (or its successor) of the summary
report on the course review element, to be finalised normally within six months
of the date of the review.
A more detailed checklist of administrative matters for Secretaries to Review Groups
is available from the Deputy Registrar’s Office.
6.
Composition of the Review Group
The Review Group consists of senior and experienced internal and external peers
appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. A typical composition of the Review Group would
be:
Chair
A Professor from another University, a recognised leader in
the field*
Additional external
members
At least two further external peers, normally at Professorial
level*
Internal members
A Professor from outside the Faculty
A Professor from within the Faculty, but outside the
Department
Secretary
The Faculty Board Secretary (or another member of the
University administration identified by the Deputy Registrar)
*with one external member being a member of academic staff at an eminent
overseas institution.
If it is not appropriate or possible to obtain the full Review Group as set out above for
three consecutive days, Day 1 of the review relating to teaching and learning can be
conducted with two of the five members of the Review Group present: one being an
external member of the Group and one an internal member of the Group.
Additionally, consideration will be given by the Department in conjunction with the
Secretary to the Review and the Chair of the Academic Quality and Standards
Committee as to whether the taught course provision within the Department is large
and/or complex enough to warrant one additional subject specialist from outside the
University to participate in Day 1 of review meetings relating to teaching and learning.
An additional external participant with particular expertise in an area under review
might be useful particularly where only one external member of the above Review
Group participates in the review meetings focussing on teaching and learning.
6
7.
Appointment of the Review Group
The Deputy Registrar will establish whether the Vice-Chancellor has any initial views
on the external and internal membership of the review teams. In the light of this
information, the Secretary to the Review will then ask the Head of Department to
bring forward suggestions for appointment for external members of the Review
Group for approval by the Vice-Chancellor through the Deputy Registrar. This
process will commence at least two terms prior to the year when the review is
scheduled to take place.
A choice of proposed external members, together with brief biographies and a
rationale as to why they would be suitable, will be submitted by the Head of the
Department to the Secretary to the Review. External input and participation is
essential for Strategic Review to be effective. External members should be
independent of the Department and of a suitable standing in the field to review a
University of Warwick Department. External examiners who have served in the three
years prior to the Review normally will not be used. External members of the Review
Group will be asked to state during the appointment process the nature of any
previous relationship with the Department or its members.
At least one external member of the Review Group will be a leading overseas
academic of international standing. In some cases, it may be appropriate to nominate
one or more individuals of high standing from outside the academic community, for
example from the professions or industry.
The proposals for external membership of the Review Group will be passed by the
Secretary to the Review to the Deputy Registrar (to ensure there is no duplication
with members of other panels and to highlight where we might already have contact
with externals). The final recommendations with then be submitted to the ViceChancellor via the Deputy Vice-Chancellor for consideration. As soon as external
members of the Review Group have been identified, efforts will be made by the
Secretary to the Review Group to arrange the dates for the Review in accordance
with the approved SDR timetable. Experience to date indicates that Reviews may
take some considerable time to plan given external members’ commitments and can
be an iterative process, particularly when one or more of the proposed external
members declines the invitation to participate in the Review. In the case of a refusal
from one of the individuals invited where no alternate was previously identified, a
further appointment to the Review Group needs to be sought from the ViceChancellor by the Department via the Secretary to the Review.
Once the external members of the Review Group are appointed, the Secretary to the
Review Group will recommend to the Vice-Chancellor via the Deputy ViceChancellor, in consultation with the Deputy Registrar, the internal members of the
Review Group. The following variations should be noted:
 Where the review encompasses a significant amount of postgraduate
provision, the Board of Graduate Studies may recommend to the Vicechancellor, via the Secretary to the Review, one of the internal panel
members.
 Where the review encompasses a significant amount of collaborative
provision, the CFDLSC, via the Secretary to the Review, may recommend to
the Vice-Chancellor one of the internal panel members.
Letters of invitation to serve on the Review Group from the Vice-Chancellor will be
prepared by the Secretary to the Review via the Deputy Registrar’s Office. The ViceChancellor will determine which of the external members will chair the Review Group
7
once the external membership of the Review Group has confirmed participation in
principle. At this stage, the Vice-Chancellor will also be asked if there are any
particular areas or issues which will be highlighted to the Review Group at the
introductory meeting held with either himself or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, taking
into account any recommendations made by the Chairs of other bodies relating to
teaching and learning as previously outlined in section 4.
8.
Fees/Honoraria
External members of the Review Group will be paid an honorarium of normally
£1,000 plus reasonable expenses for preparation, participation in the review
meetings and consideration of the Review Report. This amount is on the basis of a
half-day preparation time plus attendance at three days of review meetings and a few
hours following the review in consideration of the review report. If externals do not
participate in the full three days of review meetings, the honorarium will be paid on a
proportional basis.
Following consultation with the external members of the Review Group regarding the
final review report, the Secretary to the Review will ensure that the appropriate
payments are made to the external members. Payments are normally made using
the Gross Payment Form, ensuring the restrictions noted in the guidance to the form
are adhered to. Copies of all requests for payments submitted to the appropriate
contacts in the Staff Office will be forwarded to the Deputy Registrar’s Office for
tracking of the funds via the relevant cost centre for Strategic Departmental Reviews.
9.
Accommodation
External members of Review Groups are normally accommodated in Warwick
Conferences facilities; the Secretary to the Review will normally book rooms in
Arden, Scarman or Radcliffe as soon as possible after dates have been set for the
Review visit. The Secretary to the Review will also find out from the external
members how they would like to use any spare time in the evenings. A panel dinner,
which would serve as a useful forum for further discussions, is considered the
preferred option on one of the evenings following the formal review meetings.
10.
Documentation
An important part of the Review process is the preparation by the Department of a
Self-Evaluation Document (SED) and the collation of associated documentation. The
SED should be relatively short (no longer than 14 pages) and focused and will raise
the main issues for the Review Group’s consideration and highlight any areas of
particular interest or reference within the documentation submitted to the Review
Group.
A typical structure of the SED will cover:
 Context and background of the Department including an overview of the
Department’s strategic objectives and key activities;
 An overview of teaching and learning including the aims of the overall subject
provision;
 An outline of the research strategy of the Department and an overview of the
Department’s research performance;
8


An overview of the management structures in the Department, including how
resources are prioritised and deployed and the development and support
given to staff;
Any other issues deemed to be important by the Department.
More detailed guidance on the contents of the SED is set out in Appendix A. The
Head of Department is strongly encouraged to engage a range of staff in the
Department in establishing the contents of the SED.
The Secretary to the Review Group will maintain frequent communication with the
Head of Department under review throughout the Review process. As soon as the
Review Group is established and the dates for the review have been confirmed with
the external members of the Group, the Secretary to the Review will send a note to
the Head of Department, formally confirming the dates the Department will be
reviewed, and indicating:
(a)
The membership of the Review Group;
(b)
The list of courses to be reviewed;
(c)
The deadline date for the submission of the SED and related documentation
to the Secretary;
(d)
A draft agenda for the review meetings, noting this may be amended in
consultation with the Chair and as a result of the issues raised within the
SED;
(e)
A request to arrange for the appropriate staff and students to be available to
meet with the Review Group.
The following documentation underpins the deliberations of all parts of the
process:

The Self-Evaluation Document (SED);

The Directors of each dependent research centre of the Department will also
prepare a brief (2-3 pages) self-evaluation document, which should be
accompanied by formal comments on the centre’s activities by two external
members of the centre’s Advisory Board where applicable;

Previous Periodic/Departmental/Strategic Review report(s) and response(s)
to them;

Any subject- or course-level reports from the Quality Assurance Agency or
from Professional, Statutory and Regulatory bodies carried out since the last
review, along with any follow-up reports overseen by the Academic Quality
and Standards Committee and a schedule of upcoming accreditation events;

If relevant and appropriate, any internal review reports carried out by the
Steering Committee, Academic Resourcing Committee or Internal Audit;

Summary information outlining the courses and modules offered by the
Department (often this information is available on Departmental websites),
including the course specifications for ALL courses under review;
9

Annual Course Review and External Examiner reports produced for all of the
relevant courses for the last three years;

A sample of student handbooks, promotional literature, Departmental
handbooks and module guides;

Student Staff Liaison Committee annual reports and, at the discretion of the
review group, a small sample of SSLC minutes/student feedback
forms/module questionnaires and analysis of these forms;

Departmental data, predominately drawn from the Academic Statistics,
including intake, progression, completion and destinations data; research and
grant income; and any benchmark data the Department references to assess
Departmental performance;

Previous RAE submission and post-RAE research strategy;

List of staff in the Department with brief biographical information for each;
Staff data from Academic Statistics for the Department; a chart of the
management structure for the Department and outline of who is responsible
for key areas of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching, personal tutoring,
research, financial planning, postgraduate research students, etc.; and

Financial data including the latest set of transparent accounts, the most
recent approved five-year plan together with the ‘Forward Look’ statement,
the Finance Office commentary and key Departmental risks submitted to the
Academic Resourcing Committee.
Information on individual students should not be included in the documents
submitted to the Review Group.
Note that it is also important that
documentation is properly indexed.
The intention is to limit the amount of new material Departments have to produce to
the minimum necessary while ensuring that the Review Group is able to have a clear
and sufficient overview of the Department and its activities.
Departments may call upon the expertise and experience of the Learning and
Development Centre during their preparations for Strategic Departmental Review.
The Secretary of the Review, in consultation with the Chair of the Group, will check
the documents submitted by the Department in advance of the review meeting to
ensure that they are complete and clear and that they will enable the Review Group
to meet the proposed aims and objectives of the Strategic Departmental Review
process. The content of the SED will determine what, if any, additional information
the Review Group would wish to see and many of the key issues which may be
discussed at the meetings during the visit. It is therefore particularly important that
the SED and other documentation submitted is checked thoroughly for
completeness. The Chair and Secretary may ask the Department to clarify or submit
revised documentation if they are not satisfied. Any such requests for clarifications
or additional information will be made by the Secretary on behalf of the Chair of the
Review Group as soon as possible and normally in advance of the review meetings.
10
While the Review Group may request additional information, a balance needs to be
struck between providing relevant and useful data and ensuring that the reviews are
not overly intrusive. Reference material may be made available in the meeting room
without the need to circulate multiple copies of non-essential material to all members
of the Review Group. The circulation of electronic versions of documents before the
review meetings is strongly encouraged.
11.
Review Meetings
The Secretary of the Review Group will liaise closely with the Head of the
Department and the Chair and members of the Review Group before the visit to
arrange meetings with relevant staff and students and to call for and collate relevant
documentation for consideration prior to and during the visit.
The Secretary of the Review Group will need to establish with the Chair(s) and in
liaison with the Head of Department at an early stage how they would like to conduct
business and schedule meetings during their visit.
Useful general meetings might include:
 Initial welcome and briefing with the Vice-Chancellor or Deputy ViceChancellor;
 Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning);
 Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research);
 Chair of the Board of Graduate Studies
 Chair of the Faculty;
 Chair and Secretary to the Academic Resourcing Committee;
 Meetings with Departmental staff. Depending on the size and structure of the
Department, the number of staff with whom the Review Group meets may be
restricted to those holding a specific office or role or to meet staff in groups.
This will be determined by the key areas for review and in early discussions
with the Chair of the Review Group and the Head of the Department. Efforts
will be made to ensure that all Directors of dependent research centres under
review have an opportunity to discuss their evaluation with the panel. The
Review Group may decide to hold a single plenary meeting with all staff or
split the meeting up into separate sessions with different members of the
Department. The latter approach can be useful in reviewing a large
Department.
 Students: undergraduate and postgraduate;
 Feedback session with the Department;
 De-brief session with the Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor.
Other meetings will depend on the issues likely to be raised during the Review and
the concerns of the Department and the Review Group, such as staff research
profile, accommodation, third-leg income activities, whether other staff outside the
Department (e.g. Pro Vice-Chancellors) have been specifically involved in any issues
in the Department or where professional views may be of value e.g. employers. Early
indication from the Department of such key themes will be necessary to ensure that
key internal staff are also available. The structure and conduct of the meetings will be
based on the SED and advance documentation.
The Review Group will also meet with a group of students separately from staff. The
students may include but not be limited to SSLC representatives and comprise a
small group chosen by the Department representing different years, courses of study,
or types of student. The meeting with the undergraduate and postgraduate students
11
will normally be held separately and a further meeting specifically with postgraduate
research students may be held within the research section of the review meetings.
The Review Group meets in camera before the review meetings begin in order to
discuss the documentation and agree an agenda, lines of enquiry, and group
members’ responsibilities for asking different questions. Similarly, after the meetings
with staff and students, the Review Group will meet in private to discuss and agree
on its conclusions and recommendations. The Review Group may have the TQI
template (or its successor) to hand in formulating its course review conclusions to
ensure that appropriate consideration has been given to all issues required for
publication. The Review Group will ensure that all of the ‘key questions’ listed on the
agenda can be answered by the end of the review meetings.
A typical schedule for a Strategic Departmental Review and the ‘key questions’ for
each area to be covered is included as Appendix B.
12.
Production of the Report
A single Strategic Departmental Review report is produced, consisting of a general
account of the process (composition of Review Group, documentation considered,
meetings held etc.) and discrete sections relating to the different subjects covered in
the review. It is intended that the full review report will be available to the relevant
University committees following the consideration of the report by the Steering
Committee, with the exception of any areas of the Review Report where the Group
expressly has agreed with the Vice-Chancellor that comments and recommendations
are to be restricted. Heads of Department should consult relevant staff in the
Department when making the Department’s formal response to the review report and
should ensure that any follow-up to the recommendations is considered at the
relevant Departmental committees/meetings.
Secretaries should expect the Chair(s) to offer clear guidance and direction in
drafting. The Secretary will find it useful to reserve, as far as possible, one hour to
ninety minutes at the end of each day to reflect on the findings and formulate
preliminary conclusions.
The Secretary is responsible for the initial drafting of the report for approval by the
Chair and the Review Group. The Secretary to the Review Group will draft the report
as soon as possible after the review meeting. The draft report will be approved by
the Chair within two weeks of the end of the Review Group meetings and then be
submitted to all members of the Review Group for comment and approval. The draft
report will be agreed by the Review Group and a copy sent to the Head of
Department to comment on factual errors or misunderstandings, but not to challenge
the analysis, conclusions or recommendations. This entire process will take no longer
than four weeks.
While the format of reports will vary slightly in the light of specific issues and
concerns, they should be concise and summarise the meetings held, evidence and
information considered and issues discussed. They will set out clearly the
conclusions and specific recommendations of the Review Group and the basis on
which those conclusions are reached. The report will ensure that the Review Group’s
judgements on the Standards and Quality of courses are clearly stated and that there
is a separate, identifiable section covering the standards and quality of courses.
There is no specific word limit but a report which exceeds 15 sides of A4 is likely to
be excessive.
12
It is necessary for the Secretary to the Review to produce a summary of the
outcomes of the conclusions on courses for the Teaching Quality Information website
(or its successor) using the approved template available from the Teaching Quality
section, including standard paragraphs for sections covering the aims and objectives
of review and external input into the process.
The full report will include but not necessarily be limited to:











Title of the report indicating the Department and the academic year of the
review.
The internal and external members of the Review Group, and their
affiliation/Departments.
Brief description of the methods used by the Review Group (i.e. scrutiny of
self- evaluation and documents provided by the Department and meetings
with staff and students). This will usually be standard text.
How the Department has responded to the previous review/external
assessment.
List of courses of study reviewed.
The Review Group’s evaluation of the standards set and achieved in the
Department’s courses, noting whether standards continue to be set at the
appropriate level and whether students are achieving the intended learning
outcomes, paying attention to such issues as aims; curricula; assessment;
and student achievement in terms of both degree results and progression to
employment/ further study.
The Review Group’s evaluation of the Quality of the learning opportunities
provided on the Department’s courses, covering such issues as the quality of
teaching; learning resources; and student support and guidance.
The Review Group’s conclusions on whether the Department’s courses
remain current and valid in the light of developing knowledge in the discipline,
practice in its application and developments in teaching and learning.
The Department’s preparedness for any forthcoming PSRB accreditation or
review engagements.
The Review Group’s evaluation of the Department’s present and future work
in Research, Teaching, Third-Leg Income Activities, Resources and
Management, noting:
(a)
whether the Department is meeting its stated strategic aims and
objectives;
(b)
strengths, with any examples of good practice;
(c)
issues for consideration, noting any areas of concern and what action
the Department is taking to improve matters;
Clear summary of Conclusions; Commendations for good practice; and
Recommendations, with an indication of the significance and urgency of the
recommendations.
The ‘Key Questions’ listed on the sample agenda for the review meetings set out in
Appendix A should all be addressed in the report in some way, as should any issues
identified by the Vice-Chancellor prior to the review.
13
A note on Recommendations
Recommendations may be directed to the Department and/or (separately) to the
University. The Recommendations will be clearly differentiated according to their
significance and will be categorised under one of two headings as follows:
(a)
The Department will wish to consider the advisability of:
reviewing…
introducing…
instituting…
These are usually recommendations for immediate action, based on the
identification of a significant issue which requires resolution or amelioration in
the short term. Departments are expected to address such recommendations
within a term.
(b)
The Department will wish to consider the desirability of:
further developing…
monitoring…
These are usually recommendations or suggestions for improvements, often
in the medium term. Departments would normally be expected to set up a
process to address these recommendations within their normal management,
development and enhancement activities.
More forceful recommendations for action may be made by the review group if the
situation warranted but these would be expected to be rare.
The Review Group may also submit confidential comments or recommendations to
the Vice-Chancellor or the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of the Vice-Chancellor,
or request that certain recommendations would have a restricted circulation, but
again, these instances would be expected to be rare.
13.
Consideration of, and Follow-up to, the Report
The final Report (agreed by the Review Group and checked for factual accuracy by
the Head of Department) is submitted to the Vice-Chancellor and the Head of the
Department in the first instance. The Vice-Chancellor will determine if and when it is
appropriate to submit for consideration by the Steering Committee. Following initial
consideration at the Steering Committee, the Department is then required to respond
formally to the report and its conclusions and recommendations and the Head of
Department is strongly encouraged to discuss the report and its findings with other
members of the Department prior to making the Department’s formal response.
Departments should be given at least two weeks to proved a formal written
Departmental response from the point at which the Head of Department has received
a copy of the review report.
The Head of the Department will be invited to attend the Steering Committee for the
consideration of the Report and the Departmental response, which covers all
elements of the review. It is helpful if the Departmental response, as will the report,
separates out responses to issues related to courses, as these are normally
considered in detail by academic committees. The Steering Committee retains
oversight of the progression of any issues identified for action and determines to
which bodies and officers the recommendations contained within the Report are
referred for consideration and action.
14
It is vital that recommendations as determined by the Steering Committee are
followed up through the appropriate committee route (the Steering Committee or
Academic Resourcing Committee for Departmental issues; Quality committees for
course review issues) within an appropriate time frame. It is expected that most
advisable recommendations will normally be addressed and resolved, or significantly
advanced, before the end of the term following the review.
Review reports will be scrutinised during subsequent reviews. Once the follow-up to
the Review is completed, it is therefore important that both the Department and the
review Secretary keeps a clean, final version of the review report, the SED, the
Department’s response, and a note of any follow-up or resolutions by the Board, the
Academic Quality and Standards Committee, the Academic Resourcing Committee
and/or the Steering Committee. The Secretary to the Review Group will submit these
documents as well as the full Departmental submission to the Deputy Registrar’s
Office for the University House central file store once the SDR process is completed
for that Department. Electronic versions of any of the above documents will also be
forwarded to the Deputy Registrar’s Office. It is also important that Departments
consider review reports formally at Departmental meetings and other appropriate fora
and keep a record on file of these discussions and resulting action.
14.
Questions and Queries
Any queries about the process, or requests for further briefings or training, should be
directed to the Deputy Registrar in the first instance. Questions relating to the course
review element should be addressed to the Teaching Quality section.
Approved by the Senate on the recommendation of the Academic Quality and Standards Committee
December 2007
15
Appendix A
Guidance on producing a Self-Evaluation Document (SED)
Departments are encouraged to produce as concise a document as possible and ideally one
which does not exceed fourteen pages of A4 or around 6,000 words in length (excluding
annexes) and which covers the key areas of Departmental activity. The SED should make
reference to other documents within the submission which provide further details or
supporting information and should highlight or address any particular significant areas of
concern that may have been raised in previous reviews or via external examiners reports.
The ‘key questions’ for each section of the review meetings set out in the Typical Review
Meetings Schedule in Appendix B should be considered when writing the SED. It is not the
intention that the SED should answer all of the questions posed in the Key Questions, but it
should clearly provide the context within which further discussion at the review meetings can
be based.
The Self-Evaluation Document should be structured as follows:
1.
Coversheet
The Self-Evaluation Document should have an additional covering page which provides the
following information:





2.
Department;
Academic year of review;
Name and position of person(s) who have prepared the self-evaluation document;
Courses (please list all courses for which the Department is responsible);
Contributions to other joint degrees (please list those joint degree courses run by other
Departments to which the Department contributes modules).
Overview of the Department’s Strategy and Structure
A brief summary of the Department’s current activities and full staffing profile should be
given, referencing the relevant supplementary documentation provided to the Review Group.
The SED should provide an overview of the key objectives for the Department and its
overarching strategic goals over the next five-year period. Any new areas for potential
development can be highlighted. Reference can be given to the Department’s SWOT
Analysis, which is also considered annually during the five-year planning process, and how
this Analysis has informed Departmental strategy.
The management and decision-making structure within the Department should be outlined
and reference should be made as to the effectiveness of the structure in supporting the
Department’s key objectives.
16
3.
Teaching and Learning in the Department
Part 1 Overall aims of the subject provision
There must be a clear statement of the overall aims of the subject provision. Overall aims will
reflect the distinctive mission of the institution, and might place study of a discipline in
contexts such as:




Enabling students to develop their capacity to learn;
Meeting international, national, regional or local needs;
Preparing students for employment or for further study;
Widening access to higher education.
Statements of aims should be succinct but should convey clearly the parameters of the
subject provision. They may be presented as narrative statements, bullet points, or as a
mixture of the two.
Part 2 Evaluation of the standards and quality of courses
The evaluation should indicate where the supporting evidence may be found, e.g. within
other Departmental documentation (whether or not it is actually provided for the review
group). Such references will avoid the need for merely descriptive material to be included in
an evaluative document.
(a)
Learning outcomes
The first part of the evaluation should address the appropriateness of the intended learning
outcomes in relation to the overall aims of the provision and relevant subject benchmark
statements (where published). The evaluation should discuss the effectiveness of measures
to ensure that staff and students have a clear understanding of the aims and intended
outcomes of degree courses.
(b)
Curricula and assessment
The evaluation should review the effectiveness of the content and design of the curricula in
enabling the intended outcomes of degree courses to be achieved. Specific issues to be
covered include:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Academic and intellectual progression within the curriculum;
Appropriateness of content in relation to the level of the award;
Curriculum development, including review of content and structure, the
inclusion of recent developments in the subject and evidence of research-led
teaching within the curriculum;
The integration of skills development within the curriculum;
Engagement with e-Learning in the curriculum;
Reflection of best practice in pedagogy.
In addition, the evaluation should review the effectiveness of student assessment in
measuring achievement of the intended outcomes of courses and in particular in:
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
Enabling students to demonstrate achievement;
Discriminating between different categories of performance;
Promoting student learning (especially through formative assessment).
17
(c)
Quality of learning opportunities
The evaluation should review the effectiveness of teaching and learning, in relation to
course aims and curriculum content and in particular should cover:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
Range and appropriateness of teaching methods employed;
Ways in which participation by students is encouraged;
Quality of learning materials provided;
Strategies for staff development to enhance teaching performance;
Effectiveness of team teaching;
Student workloads.
The evaluation should also review student progression. The effectiveness of
strategies of academic support, and the extent to which they take account of the
ability profile of the student intake in relation to the aims of the courses, should be
discussed. The evaluation should cover:
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
Recruitment and induction of students;
Identification of and action on any special learning needs;
Feedback to students on their progress;
Overall academic guidance and supervision;
Tutorial support.
The evaluation should review the adequacy of learning resources and the
effectiveness of their utilisation. The evaluation should therefore cover:
(xii)
(xiii)
(d)
Physical resources;
The effective use of human resources through such things as induction,
mentoring and development of staff.
Maintenance and enhancement of standards and quality
There should be an evaluation of the effectiveness of the measures taken to maintain
and enhance the quality and standards of provision. The evaluation should
cover the use made of quantitative data and qualitative feedback in a strategy
of enhancement and continuous improvement.
Quantitative data should include:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
Statistics on student achievement in terms of degree classifications;
Entry qualifications;
Progression and completion rates;
First employment destinations.
(or as much as can be derived from the Academic Statistics)
Qualitative feedback should include:
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Student feedback;
Staff feedback;
External Examiners' reports;
Employers’ views on graduates they have recruited;
Accreditation and monitoring reports by professional or statutory bodies;
Previous Subject Reviews.
18
PART 3 Research Degrees
For reviews which include coverage of research degrees, the following additional information
should be included as part of the evaluation of this area of the Department's work:
(a)
Recruitment, including entry requirements for research degrees, the quality and
nature of the student intake and any specific factors which limit success in increasing
student recruitment.
(b)
Studentships and awards including financial support available for your research
students, the success of your research students in obtaining awards and any action
to increase the provision of financial support.
(c)
Supervision arrangements including expected contact hours, frequency of
supervisions, arrangements for joint supervision, special arrangements for part-time
students, dealing with study leave, change of supervisor arrangements and the
distribution of students amongst supervisors.
(d)
Any special arrangements for support, induction and guidance including for overseas
and part-time students.
(e)
The research training course provided including the skills which the research training
course aims to develop, whether it is assessed and if it has Research Council
recognition.
(f)
Any particular resources available to support research students (e.g. Library, study or
work space, IT, equipment, funds for research travel and conference attendance).
(g)
Monitoring and recording student progress, mechanisms for upgrade from MPhil to
PhD and dealing with unsatisfactory progress.
(h)
Submission & completion rates including the Department’s Research Council/British
Academy submission rates (i.e. the proportion who submit within 12 months of the
end of their award), for other research students (e.g. overseas, part-time, selffunding), proportion of students who successfully complete and employment rates.
(i)
The role of graduate assistants in supporting teaching or research including the
general nature of their responsibilities, number employed in each category, maximum
workloads, training and supporting research students (including graduate assistants)
in respect of their work for the Department.
A number of these issues may be more appropriate to address within the Research section
of the SED.
19
4.
Research
An overview of the research strategy of the Department should be provided. The
Department’s research performance, benchmarked against identified key national and
international competitors, should be outlined as well as how the research centres and
research groupings within the Department support the aims of the Department’s research
strategy. Reference can be given to any key performance indicators or benchmarking
information included in the documentation submitted to the Review Group. The Department
will wish to highlight any issues specific to their Department or subject area.
5.
Financial and Physical Resources
A brief overview of the current position of the Department relating to financial and physical
resources should be provided, again, referencing the documentation submitted to the Review
Group in advance of the review which would provide further details (i.e. Forward Look
Statements, the Department’s transparent accounts, etc.) An outline as to how the
Department prioritises spending within its limited resources should be given.
6.
Other Key Issues
If the Department feel there are other issues which should be raised or would benefit from
discussion with the Review Group which do not fit comfortably in any of the above sections,
they can be briefly outlined in an additional section of the SED.
20
Appendix B
Typical Review Meeting Schedule for a Strategic Departmental Review (1 +2 format)
and the Key Questions for the Review Group to Consider
This schedule gives an indication of the typical structure that could be appropriate to the
review. It is not intended to be overly prescriptive, but to ensure that the aims of the review
process can be met. The precise schedule is a matter for negotiation with the Chair of the
Review Group, in consultation with the Head of Department via the Secretary to the Review,
and will depend on the themes identified in the Self-Evaluation Document.
In addition, the members of staff that are present at particular meetings will be a matter of
discussion and negotiation between the Chair of the Review Group and the Head of
Department, often via the Secretary to the Review. Those individuals responsible for the
management of key aspects of the Department would normally participate in the relevant
review meetings, such as the Directors of Undergraduate and Postgraduate Study, the
Departmental Senior Tutor, the Deputy Head of Department, the Chair of the Departmental
Research Committee, etc.
While the Self-Evaluation Document will be a relevant reference in all of the review meetings,
upon submission of the precise review documentation to be circulated to the Review Group,
the ‘key references’ section should be completed to aid the Review Group’s identification of
the key pieces of information relevant to the topic under consideration and its key questions.
21
Day 1
Teaching and Learning
Key Questions
Key References
 Can the Review Group confirm that the academic
standards of the taught courses offered by the
Department reflect the learning outcomes and levels of
achievement which are embodied in national-level
statements of the expectations of study at Higher
Education level, including QAA Subject Benchmark
Statements and Framework for Higher Education
Qualifications as well as professional body requirements
(where applicable)?
 Can the Review Group confirm the quality of the student
learning environment which is put in place to support
students in maximising their potential to its fullest and to
gain direct feedback from students on their experiences
within this environment?
 Can the Review group confirm the effectiveness of
Departmental procedures for the quality assurance and
enhancement of teaching, learning, and assessment in
the context of institutional policies and procedures?
 How does the Department ensure that the quality of
education for students in the Department is enhanced and
that new initiatives in teaching are stimulated?
 What areas of good practice are there related to teaching
and learning?
 Are there areas where the Review Group feel
improvements can be made to improve the quality of the
Department’s taught provision?
NB When considering these key questions, Review Groups may wish to reflect on the more
detailed questions set out Appendix C for the review of the quality and standards of the
Department’s course provision.
If the Day 1 Review on Teaching and Learning is not held immediately prior to the
subsequent two days of review meetings:
08.30
Coffee/Tea Available with the Review Group, Head of Department and Key
Departmental Staff (normally held within the Department)
08.45
Review Group Members introductory meeting with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Teaching and Learning) or his/her deputy setting out any key University-wide
teaching and learning issues, highlighting any particular areas of focus related
to this area for the Review.
09.00
Panel convenes:
 Review of the aims of the Course Review with particular emphasis on
enhancement
 Discussion of main teaching and learning issues which members of the
Review Group wish to consider
 Preparation for meeting(s) with students
 Preparation of issues for discussion with staff: Standards
22
10.00
Meeting with students from the range of courses under review and
representing the diversity of the student population within the Department.
 Meetings with postgraduate and undergraduate students might be
separate, noting that a minimum of four undergraduate and four
postgraduate students should be in attendance.
11.30
Meeting with Departmental staff, Standards:
 Aims and Learning Outcomes
 Curricula
 Assessment
12.45
Lunch
13.30
Meeting of the Review Group:
 Reflections on morning session
 Preparation of issues for discussion with staff: Quality
14.30
Meeting with Departmental and support staff, Quality:
 Teaching and learning
 Student support and guidance including welfare and Careers
 Learning resources and e-learning
 Management of collaborative links or distance learning courses (where
appropriate)
15.30
In camera meeting of Review Group:
 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations on Standards and Quality
of courses in the Department and the effectiveness of activities to enhance
teaching and learning
16.45
Initial feedback meeting with the Head of Department and other Departmental
staff selected by the Head of Department.
17.30
Meeting ends
If the three days of reviews are consecutive, the Chair and Secretary of the Review
Group can consider a slightly later start on Day one and postpone the feedback on
teaching and learning issues to the end of the three days of review meetings, as well
as hold a formal dinner of the Review Group to discuss further issues in the evening
of Day 1 (normally from 19.00 at one of the Conferences Centres).
23
Day 2
09.00
Review Group meeting with the Vice-Chancellor or Deputy Vice-Chancellor
outlining key University strategic issues in the context of the Department’s
activities, highlighting any particular issues the Review Group should
consider.
RESEARCH
Key Questions
Key References
 Does the Department have a clear and ambitious research
strategy which is in harmony with the goals of the University
Strategy?
 Is the research performance of the Department against its
strategy effectively monitored and benchmarked against
key national and international competitors?
 Is there a strong ‘Research Community or Culture’ in the
Department?
 Are the research centres and research groupings of the
Department supporting the achievement of the overall
Departmental research strategy?
 Does the Department have in place effective arrangements
to maintain appropriate standards and to enhance the
quality of postgraduate research programmes? Are
postgraduate research students effectively supervised and
engaged with Departmental research activities?
 How does the Department plan for succession in key areas
of its research strategy?
 How are expectations of research income for the
Department communicated to staff and how does this
related to the planning process for the Department?
 Are there effective incentives deployed in the Department
to encourage high quality research as well as expected
levels of research income? (Is study leave effectively
utilised within the Department?)
09.20
Review Group Meeting with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research) setting out
any key University-wide research issues, highlighting any particular areas of
focus related to those for the review.
09.40
Panel convenes:
 Reflect on the aims of the Strategic Departmental Review Process and
consider the key questions relating to research.
 Prepare issues for discussion in meetings with students and staff relating
to Research.
10.30
Meeting with Postgraduate Research Students
11.30
Meeting with Departmental staff: Research, including:
 Research activity and quality issues
 Dependent research centres
 Resources for research
 Strategic developments
24
12.30
Working Lunch
 Summary, Conclusions and Initial Recommendations relating to
Research
DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND RESOURCES
Key Questions
Key References
 Does the Department have clear objectives with milestones
against which the Department can monitor progress?
 Given the nature and size of the Department, is its financial
position what should be expected?
 How are bids for investment or allocation of Departmental
resources prioritised and how does the Department monitor
if the original planned outcomes of investment have or are
being met?
 How does the Department support the development of both
its junior as well as its more senior staff?
 How are administrative, teaching and supervision
responsibilities allocated and is the method clear to all
members of the Department?
 Do Departmental decision-making structures encourage the
contribution of all levels and types of staff in the
Department?
 How does the Department plan for succession in key
departmental management roles?
 How are administrative staff working in partnership with
academic management to support the ability of the
Department to fulfil its objectives?
 Are the physical resources in the Department appropriate
and are they utilised effectively to pursue the Department’s
objectives?
13.30
Review Group reconvenes:
 Preparation of issues for discussion: Departmental Management and
Resources
14.15
Meeting with early career staff and staff new to the Department
15.00
Meeting with Departmental staff: Departmental Management and Resources,
including:
 Management Structures
 Staffing
 Resources
 Financial Position
16.30
In camera meeting of Review Group:
 Summary, Conclusions and Initial Recommendations on Finance and
Resources
17.30
Meeting ends.
19.00
Review Group Dinner (if not held on Day 1) or Free Evening for the Review
Group, though dinner should be made available for the Review Group and
they should be advised of the productions on at the Arts Centre.
25
Day 3
Key Questions
Key References
 Are there any areas where the Review Group have
further questions or require further information in
order to fulfil the key aims of the review?
 What areas of activity or practice within the
Department should be highlighted as good practice or
particularly innovative?
 What areas do the Review Group feel could be further
developed or enhanced? Are there any suggested
models of good practice?
 What specific recommendations would the Review
Group like to make to the Department across the full
range of its activities?
 Are there any elements of the Review Report or
recommendations which the Review Group would like
to propose to the Vice-Chancellor are restricted to
University and Departmental senior management?
(These should be rare but it is important that items
should not be left out of the report if the Review Group
feel they should not be circulated to the wider
University community immediately following the
consideration of the Review Report to the Steering
Committee.)
09.00
Panel convenes
 Reflections on review, identification and consideration of further areas
for discussion
10.00
Further meetings on areas identified for more discussion
(NB The Head of Department and key staff in the Department should be
available during this time.)
12.30
Lunch
13.30
Panel reconvenes:
 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations on the review of the
strategic development of the Department across the range of their
activities, including research, teaching, resourcing and the capability of
the Department’s management to deliver their strategy.
14.30
Feedback meeting: Panel with key Department staff
15.30
Final meeting of Panel with VC/DVC
16.00
Feedback/ Review end
26
Appendix C
Aide-memoire for Course Review Element issues
The course review element complements course approval and monitoring procedures of the
University and is designed to assure the University of the standards and quality of its
courses. The structure of this element is designed to meet national quality assurance
framework expectations and for this reason it is important that certain core topics are
covered.
The core document on which the review is based is the Department’s Self-Evaluation
document. This document is supplemented by a further set of existing documents provided
by the Department.
The areas below are suggested as a framework to guide your preparatory reading and
identification of main issues and themes for the Course review element of the review. These
supplement the key questions within the Learning and Teaching section of the review but do
not have to be addressed individually at the review meetings.
Evaluation of the intended learning outcomes in relation to external reference points
and to the broad aims of the provision
1.
Are the intended learning outcomes for units and courses set at the appropriate level?
2.
How do they relate to external reference points including relevant subject benchmark
statements, the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and any professional
body requirements?
3.
How do they relate to the overall aims of the provision as stated by the Department?
4.
Are they appropriate to the aims?
The means by which the Department designs curricula that permit achievement of the
intended outcomes
5.
How does the Department ensure that curriculum content enables students to achieve
the intended learning outcomes?
6.
How does the Department ensure that the design and organisation of the curriculum is
effective in promoting student learning and achievement of the intended learning
outcomes?
7.
How does the Department ensure that it reviews and challenges the format of
curriculum content and structure on a regular basis? What changes have been made
as a result of curriculum review? How does the Department engage with e-Learning in
the curriculum?
8.
How are learning outcomes relating to key (generic) skills delivered within the
curriculum? How are the key skills assessed to demonstrate achievement of these
learning outcomes?
9.
How does the curriculum enable and encourage research-led teaching and researchbased learning?
27
The means by which the intended outcomes are communicated to students, staff and
external examiners
10.
How are the intended outcomes of a degree course and its constituent parts
communicated to staff, students and external examiners?
11.
Do the students know what is expected of them?
Evaluation of the means by which the subject provider creates the conditions for
achievement of the intended learning outcomes
12.
Do the design and content of the curricula encourage achievement of the intended
learning outcomes in terms of knowledge and understanding, cognitive skills, subject
specific skills (including practical/professional skills), transferable skills, progression to
employment and/or further study, and personal development?
13.
Is there evidence that curricular content and design is informed by recent
developments in techniques of teaching and learning, by current research and
scholarship, and by any changes in relevant occupational or professional
requirements?
Evaluation of the assessment process and the standard it demonstrates
14.
Does the assessment process enable learners to demonstrate achievement of the
intended outcomes?
15.
Are there criteria that enable internal and external examiners to distinguish between
different categories of achievement?
16.
Can there be full confidence in the security and integrity of assessment procedures?
17.
Does the assessment strategy have an adequate formative function in developing
student abilities?
18.
What evidence is there that the standards achieved by learners meet the minimum
expectations for the award, as measured against relevant subject benchmarks and the
qualifications framework (when published)?
Evaluation of the Department's approaches to reviewing and improving the standards
achieved
19.
How does the Department review and seek to enhance standards?
Evaluation of the quality of the learning opportunities offered by the Department: the
teaching delivered by staff and how it leads to learning by students
20.
How effectively do staff draw upon their research, scholarship or professional activity to
inform their teaching? Do courses remain current and valid in the light of developments
of the discipline?
21.
Is the quality of teaching maintained and enhanced through effective staff
development, peer review of teaching, integration of part-time and visiting staff,
effective team teaching and induction and mentoring of new staff? What do students
think of the quality of teaching?
28
22.
How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of student workloads?
Student progression and academic support
23.
Is there an appropriate overall strategy for academic support, including written
guidance, which is consistent with the student profile and the overall aims of the
provision?
24.
Are there effective arrangements for admission and induction which are generally
understood by staff and applicants?
25.
How effectively is learning facilitated by academic guidance, feedback and supervisory
arrangements?
26.
Are the arrangements for academic tutorial support clear and generally understood by
staff and students?
Learning resources and their deployment
27.
Is the collective expertise of the academic staff suitable and available for effective
delivery of the curricula, for the overall teaching, learning and assessment strategy and
for the achievement of the intended learning outcomes?
28.
Are appropriate staff development opportunities available?
29.
Is appropriate technical and administrative support available?
30.
Is there an overall strategy for the deployment of learning resources?
31.
How effectively is learning facilitated in terms of the provision of resources?
32.
Is suitable teaching and learning accommodation available?
33.
Are the subject book and periodical stocks appropriate and accessible?
34.
Are suitable equipment and appropriate IT facilities available to learners?
29