Form: CP AMR 5
COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMME ANNUAL MONITORING REPORT FOR
CATEGORY F3: FRANCHISED: WHOLE PROGRAMME
CATEGORY F4: VALIDATED PROGRAMMES &
CATEGORY F5: JOINT AWARDS
(You should refer to Chapter 3 and 5 of the Quality Management
Handbook when completing this proforma)
Name of Partner Organisation:
Period of review:
Host University Faculty:
Host University Department:
Programme under review:
Report authors:
Date considered by Partner
Institution:
Date considered by Faculty:
Report status:
Evidence used by the
University Internal Verifier in
completing the report:
Dates of meetings with the
Partner Institution:
University Internal Verifier (IV)
University Academic Liaison Tutor
(ALT)
Partner Programme Leader (PL)
CONFIRMED
DRAFT
University Internal Verifier
University Academic Liaison Tutor
Section 1: Response to the previous year’s action plan
Actions identified
Responsibility
Outcome
1
2
3
4
5
Complete
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
Using the sub-headings provided, please (i) identify key issues, either positive (innovations,
achievements and/or examples of good practice) or negative (matters that require action and
resolution); and (ii) cite the evidence leading to their identification which may include staff and
student feedback; external examiner’s reports; periodic review report; and minutes of boards,
committees etc.
Section 2: Programme performance data1
Mode
Applications
Recruitment to
FT
Level 4
PT
Progression levels
(%) Level 4 – 5 at
FT:
commencement of
teaching
Progression levels
(%) Level 5 – 6 at
FT:
commencement of
teaching
Retention levels
FT
L4:
(%) throughout year
PT
L4:
Target numbers
Actual enrolment
PT:
PT:
L5:
L5:
L6:
L6:
1
Form: CP AMR 5
Final classifications
Recruitment to
Level 7
Final classifications
Foundation Degrees:
Distinction:
Merit:
Pass:
BA/BSc:
1st:
2:1:
2:2:
3rd:
Dip HE:
Distinction:
Merit:
Pass:
Mode
Applications
FT
PT
L7:
Distinction:
Merit:
Pass:
Target numbers
Actual enrolment
NSS (level 6 only)
Module
Performance2
Commentary on the
data3:
Section 3: Academic Liaison Tutors commentary4
Section 4: Collaborative Delivery Plan
Has the Collaborative Delivery Plan for the Partnership/programmes been reviewed?
YES/NO
Are any changes proposed to the CDP?
If yes, please describe the changes and how this will be implemented:
YES/NO
Section 5: Academic Standards, Curriculum and
Benchmarking5
IV
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Section 6: Teaching, Learning and Assessment6
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
IV
PL
Section 7: Student experience, student support and
guidance7
IV
PL
2
Form: CP AMR 5
Section 8: Learning Resources8
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
Section 13: Research, scholarly activity and staff
Action plan
development13
Enhancement plan
Individual staff development undertaken during the academic year (PL to list below):
YES/NO
YES/NO
IV
PL
Section 9: Management and Quality Assurance9
IV
PL
Section 10: Student Voice10
IV
PL
Section 11: Public Information11
IV
PL
Section 12: Staffing12
IV
PL
Staff member:
Developmental activity completed:
IV
PL
Section 14: Summary and general observations14
Action plan
Enhancement plan
YES/NO
YES/NO
IV
PL
ALT
3
Form: CP AMR 5
Section 15: Action plan (prioritised in order of risk)15
Actions identified
Risk16
Responsibility17
1
2
3
4
5
Section 16: Enhancement plan18
Feature of good practice
1
2
3
4
5
Section 17: Report authors
University Internal Verifier
Target date
Supporting evidence
Signature
Date completed
University Academic/Programme Liaison
Tutor
Partner Programme Leader
4
Form: CP AMR 5
Notes for completion of the Collaborative Programme Report
1
Section 2 Programme performance data: In this section the Programme Leader is required to
provide statistical information with associated commentary on student recruitment, retention,
achievement and progression, module performance and NSS.
Recruitment: Data to be supplied via FPOs from EHU student record database, EHU Admissions
staff, and Academic Registry’s Enrolment Team.
Progression: Data for progression to L6 to be supplied by EHU Academic Registry staff via FPOs.
Retention: Comparison to be made from the commencement of teaching to the completion of
assessment. Full assessment information available from FPOs.
Final classifications: Data from Awarding Body to be supplied by EHU Data Support Unit.
NSS (level 6 and UK only).
2 Module Performance: Identify modules with a first attempt pass rate lower than 90%. Student
number criteria 10+. Data is displayed on module mark sheets.
3 Commentary on the data. Utilise the data to provide analysis of areas within the programme that
are performing strongly, those that may require amendment (e.g. via Minor Modification), and
potential trends.
4
Section 3: Academic Liaison Tutors commentary: Here the Academic Liaison Tutor should
provide an overview of liaison and communication between the Institutions. This could include
contributions made to staff development activities, peer reviews undertaken, programme board
attendance and direct engagement with partner college students.
5
Section 5: Academic Standards, Curriculum and Benchmarking In this section, the Internal
Verifier should evaluate the steps taken to establish the continuing appropriateness and effectiveness
of the curriculum, and whether this is being delivered as agreed at validation. Any recent activity such
as benchmarking against the UK Quality Code for Higher Education and/or relevant professional body
standards or requirements, or membership of subject associations and/or engagement with
employers, should be evidenced. Employers’ views on the currency and appropriateness of WorkBased Learning (WBL) will be of particular significance in relation to Foundation Degrees. Where the
need for changes to curriculum are identified, the action and support required to achieve them, should
be discussed.
6
Section 6: Teaching, Learning and Assessment In this section, the Internal Verifier is required to
evaluate the processes for TLA, e.g. module handbooks, communication of assessment requirements
to students, and arrangements for Work-Based Learning. The IV should also indicate that the
assessment strategy is as agreed at validation, and that the standard of submitted work is
commensurate with the award/level of credit being considered.
The Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier, and should also
indicate any developments in relation to teaching, learning and assessment on the programme
resulting from (for example) academic and professional benchmarking, comments from internal and
external reports or staff/student feedback. Employers’ views in relation to WBL will be of particular
significance in the delivery of Foundation Degrees where the availability and appropriateness of
placement opportunities should also be evaluated.
7
Section 7: Student experience, student support and guidance. In this section, the Internal
Verifier should comment on the experience of those studying at partner organisations, and the support
available to them.
The Programme Leader has the opportunity to respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier.
8
Section 8: Learning Resources At this point, the Internal Verifier should indicate whether the
available learning resources are as agreed at validation and that they are appropriate for both the
level of programme being delivered and the student numbers. This judgement should be informed by
the most recent audit of partners’ learning infrastructures.
The Programme Leader is required to respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier, and
should also evaluate the current appropriateness and sufficiency of both organisation’s learning
5
Form: CP AMR 5
resources to meet student and programme needs, and the arrangements for allocating and managing
them. If the provision utilises significant course-specific resources, e.g. specialist technical facilities,
the continuing appropriateness and sufficiency of these should be evaluated and any issues noted.
The contextualisation of requirements alongside the evaluations of curriculum, and teaching and
learning, would be helpful.
9
Section 9: Management and Quality Assurance In this section, the Internal Verifier should
comment on and evaluate the local quality assurance mechanisms that are in operation, including
arrangements for internal and cross-partner moderation of assessment, and processes for involving
stakeholders in QA procedures. These may include the student voice, student module evaluation,
programme boards and student-staff consultative fora, employers’ fora and effective liaison with the
host department/Faculty.
The Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier, and should also
evaluate the continuing effectiveness of programme organisation and communications. This may
include course information such as prospectus, website and programme/module handbooks.
Communication with the University, e.g. with the Liaison Tutor and Faculty Partnership Officer may
also be considered. External communication with employers/placement providers may also be
included. They should consider the continuing effectiveness of programme quality management and
how these arrangements align with the UK Quality Code as well as EHU’s quality requirements e.g.
programme validation and delivery approval, periodic review, module/programme evaluation, AMR,
internal moderation (including cross-partner moderation within delivery consortia), internal verifier and
external examiner reports. External quality assessment such as Ofsted inspections, QAA reviews and
(where appropriate) scrutiny by professional bodies may also be referenced.
10
Section 10: Student Voice In this section, the Internal Verifier should comment on and evaluate
feedback from students (positive and negative). The Programme Leader should respond to any
issues raised by the Internal Verifier, and should also evaluate the feedback received from students
(positive and negative).
11
Section 11: Public Information The Internal Verifier is required to comment on the nature,
content, quality and accuracy of the information that is provided for prospective and current students,
i.e. print publicity, website and student handbooks.
The Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier.
12
Section 12: Staffing. This section requires confirmation of the approval of the staffing profile of the
programme. Any changes to staffing should be indicated, and confirmation given that all staff
delivering on the programme are approved as part of the University’s Registered Tutor Scheme.
The Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier and consider the
Student-Staff Ratio (SSR), and whether staffing levels, experience and expertise remain sufficient to
maintain programme quality and standards. Where changes have taken place to the teaching team
since delivery approval, or the previous AMR, these must be documented here.
13
Section 13: Research, scholarly activity and staff development. Within this section, the
Programme Leader should firstly list the developmental activities completed by members of the
course team.
The Internal Verifier should comment on whether appropriate opportunities for research and scholarly
activity are available to staff (in line with the expectations in Chapter 5 of the QMH), and if appropriate
staff development opportunities are made available to staff within partner organisations.
The Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal Verifier, and should
discuss and evaluate the arrangements for staff induction, training and development and how
scholarly activity and, where appropriate, research activity are supported. Feedback regarding staff
development opportunities provided by the University would be welcomed.
6
Form: CP AMR 5
14
Section 14: Summary and general observations In this section, the Internal Verifier should detail
any other issues that impact upon on the general quality and management of the programme as
delivered by the partner organisation.
The Academic Liaison Tutor/Programme Leader should respond to any issues raised by the Internal
Verifier and highlight any areas not covered elsewhere in the report.
15
Section 15: Action plan The grid within this section should summarise any issues identified within
the report that require further action. These should be listed in priority order based on an assessment
of risk.
16
Risk: Action should indicate level of risk identified, either LOW, MEDIUM or HIGH.
17
Responsibility: Action should identify the relevant member of staff responsible for the action, and
state whether they are employed by the University or the partner college.
Section 16: Enhancement plan The QAA defines enhancement as the ‘taking of deliberate steps
at provider level to improve the quality of learning opportunities’. Using the supplied ‘grid’, please
summarise any features of transferable good practice identified within your report that may have
potential for dissemination within the University or its partner organisations. You should cite the
evidence used to establish good practice, e.g. reports of relevant committees, student surveys,
module evaluations, periodic review, internal verifier and external examiner reports and/or reports of
QAA and Ofsted reviews.
18
7