UNIVERSITY LEARNING, TEACHING AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
Periodic Review of
[ subject ]
[date of review]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version No [ ]
This report is available in alternative formats on request
from the Department/School of [ name ]
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Explain how the Self-Evaluation Document was produced, including the extent and
manner of student input and partner input (where appropriate)?
1.2 What has been the impact on the maintenance of academic standards and/or the
quality of the student learning experience, of actions taken in response to the
previous periodic review?
SECTION 2 – PORTFOLIO OF PROGRAMMES: TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
2.1 Explain the department’s/school’s exit strategy with regard to programmes being
withdrawn as a result of Curriculum 2016.
2.2 Where the review includes collaborative provision, explain how collaborative
provision fits in with the faculty’s/department’s/school’s portfolio of on campus
provision.
2.3 Where the review includes collaborative provision, explain how the portfolio of
collaborative programmes is managed, including plans, and those factors taken into
account, to support the establishment of new partnerships and collaborative
programmes.
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 3 – LEARNING OUTCOMES
3.1 Explain the processes for setting and reviewing Learning Outcomes, including the
way in which these processes ensure that account is taken of internal and external
reference points and that module learning outcomes support the achievement of the
programme learning outcomes.
3.2 How do you inform students of learning outcomes?
3.3 Do you have any good practice for involving students in programme development?
How do you plan to involve students in the development of programmes in the future?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 4 - CURRICULA AND ASSESSMENT
Curricula
4.1 Where the review includes collaborative provision, in what ways does the
faculty/department/school support partners in the design and development of
programmes?
4.2 Explain the processes for ensuring that programmes, including collaborative
programmes (if appropriate), remain valid and relevant, including the way in which
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
1
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
these processes ensure that curricula reflects up-to-date subject knowledge,
developments in learning and teaching, that learning outcomes remain aligned
(programme-module-assessment) and that published information reflect those current
arrangements.
4.3 In what ways are external examiners, students, and professional and statutory
bodies, employers and other stakeholders involved in the development of the
curricula?
4.4 What will a student at the end of each Level have achieved?
Assessment
4.5 How do you ensure that methods of assessment support the achievement of the
intended learning outcomes (at module and then programme level)?
4.6 Currently, what opportunities are there for formative assessment? How might these
opportunities change for programmes designed as part of Curriculum 2016?
4.7 How are appropriate assessment strategies devised in relation to different Levels, the
standard of the award and the University’s Assessment Tariff?
4.8 In designing assessment how do you address the needs of students who possess
different protected characteristics (identified by the Equality Act, 2010) to ensure that
all students have an equal opportunity to demonstrate their achievement?
4.9 Explain the process for the development of appropriate assessment criteria.
4.10 How are students informed about assessment requirements, assessment criteria
and procedures for receiving feedback?
4.11 Where the review includes collaborative provision, evaluate the
faculty’s/department’s/school’s processes for the implementation of the University
Code of Practice: Moderation of Collaborative provision (QH: F19)
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 5 - QUALITY OF LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
a) Learning and teaching
5a.1 Explain the processes by which departmental/school learning and teaching
strategies are developed and reviewed. How are appropriate teaching strategies
devised in relation to different Levels?
5a.2 Explain the procedures for the management of learning opportunities for students on
programmes involving more than one subject; work-based learning/placements; online learning; distance taught; and free electives.
5a.3 Do you have any good practice with respect to the ways staff utilise their expertise
based on their research, scholarship or professional activity?
5a.4 How does the department/school ensure that module-specific learning and teaching
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
2
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
strategies support the achievement of learning outcomes?
5a.5 Please explain any good practice that exists with respect to the enhancement of
learning and teaching. Does the department/school have a systematic approach to
the enhancement of learning and teaching?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
b) Student admission, progression and achievement
5b.1 Explain the admissions processes for ensuring that students are dealt with fairly, and
properly, and are accurately informed of the demands and opportunities offered by
the programme.
5b.2 Where the review includes collaborative provision, explain the
faculty’s/department’s/school’s processes for the implementation of the University
Code of Practice: Devolution of Admission (QH: J1), for example a request to lower
the entry requirements (para. 26), applications deemed to be ‘special cases’ (paras
36-39) and applications after the commencement of the programme (para. 43).
5b.3 In what ways does the range of students admitted inform departmental strategies?
5b.4 Explain the department’s/school’s strategies for inducting and supporting all students
academically and personally, including progress monitoring and PDP.
5b.5 How are students informed about the opportunities for support?
5b.6 In what ways does the department/school use data on student achievement and
progression?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
c) Learning resources
5c.1 What are the mechanisms through which staff are deployed to deliver and support
programmes? You should refer specifically to plans to manage the transition from
current provision to Curriculum 2016.
5a.6 Where the review includes collaborative provision, what are the mechanisms through
which staff are deployed to oversee and support collaborative programmes?
5c.2 What are the mechanisms through which the quality of teaching and specific
responsibilities (e.g. supervision, disabilities, examinations) is assured? Particular
attention should be paid to the range of staff (e.g. experience, level of responsibility,
teaching and non teaching commitments).
5a.7 Where the review includes collaborative provision, what are the mechanisms through
which the quality of support for collaborative provision (for example roles such as
University contact, academic contact) is assured?
5c.3 What are the mechanisms through which the quality of teaching and support,
including that for collaborative provision (where relevant), is enhanced (e.g. staff
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
3
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
development activity, dissemination of good practice)?
5c.4 What are the mechanisms through which material learning resources are matched to
programmes and students (taking into account University facilities and
responsibilities)?
5a.8 Where the review includes collaborative provision, evaluate the
faculty’s/department’s/school’s processes for the implementation of the University
Code of Practice: Recognised Teacher Status (QH: C1).
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 6 - MAINTENANCE OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS
Where the review includes collaborative provision, this should be reflected in responses
to 6.1-6.3.
6.1 Explain the procedures employed to protect the integrity of the
examining/assessment process, from the setting of assessments to the meetings of
boards of examiners and the detection and prevention of unfair means.
6.2 In what ways does the department/school use external examiners?
6.3 Are procedures employed to consider non-standard cases such extensions and
mitigating circumstances effective?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 7 – ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY
Where the review includes collaborative provision, this should be reflected in responses
to 7.1-7.3.
7.1 Explain the processes employed to assure the quality of provision, including
communication with students and opportunities for student input directly or via
representatives.
7.2 In what ways is provision critically evaluated? You should provide evidence of
commitment to continuous improvement, for example through action planning.
7.3 How is good practice identified and disseminated?
7.4 In what ways has the department/school responded to the University’s Learning,
Teaching and Student Experience Strategy?
7.5 Explain the procedures for handling student complaints.
7.6 How many student complaints have there been in the last five years? How have you
learnt from the complaints?
7.7 Explain the processes for providing information to students about their rights and
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
4
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
obligations.
7.8 How are external examiners’ reports shared with students?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 8 – ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF PUBLISHED INFORMATION
8.1 How does the department/school ensure the accuracy of information, including that
related to collaborative provision (where relevant), provided both internally and
externally?
8.2 Explain those methods used to enhance the quality of that information.
8.3 How does the department/school obtain feedback from current and prospective
students (for example in relation to handbooks, web pages, information provided on
the VLE) and in what ways is published information enhanced in light of that
feedback?
Evaluation: Please highlight particular strengths and areas needing development.
SECTION 9 – RESEARCH DEGREE PROVISION
9.1 Confirm completion of the Research Degree Provision pro forma.
9.2 Explain how the RDP pro forma was produced, including the extent and manner of
student input.
APPENDICES
Tick to confirm that the following appendices have been provided along with the SED:
1. Agreed sample of programme specifications
2. External examiners’ reports & responses to those reports for the previous 3 years
3. Chart(s) indicating the Departmental organisational structure
Refer to Annexe 2 of the code for further information regarding the three appendices
which must be provided with the SED.
SUBMISSION AND SIGN OFF
Name of person submitting the SED
Date submitted to Secretary of the Panel1
Faculty sign off (where applicable2)
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
5
Periodic Review of [subject] – [date]
Self-Evaluation Document
Version x xx
1
The SED (and appendices) must be submitted to the Secretary of the Review Panel no
later than four weeks before the review day.
2
Under paragraph 31 of the code the Dean should determine the extent to which s/he
wishes the Faculty to be involved in supporting the writing of the SED and in signing it off
before submission to the Secretary.
Periodic Review SED Template
Version 2 04 – May 15
6