APME_2015-16_Collaborative Provision
UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD
ANNUAL PROGRAMME MONITORING & ENHANCEMENT REPORT 2014/15
NB this form is for use by franchised and validated programmes approved to operate in the University’s
affiliated institutions only, except where a programme is scheduled for Periodic Programme Review and
Re-approval (PPRR) during 2015/16. All other programmes are expected to implement the Programme
Monitoring and Enhancement Procedure (PMEP) including the maintenance of a Programme Action
Log
Programme award and title
BA (Hons) Witchcraft
Affiliated Institution
Swinton College of Witchcraft
Banner Codes
Name of Programme Leader
Tabitha Tintwistle
Name of person completing this form
Tabitha Tintwistle
University Link Tutor
Henry Hoover
School
Magic & Wizardry
Basic information
Duration, mode(s) of attendance
3 years full-time
4 years sandwich
6 years part-time
Date of initial programme approval
April 2004
Date last re-approval
May 2011
Date next periodic review and re-approval due
2015/2016
The main purposes of annual programme monitoring and enhancement (APME) are:
a) to enable the University to carry out its governance and management responsibilities for the
quality, organisation and conduct of collaborative programmes of study;
b) to identify and disseminate more widely good practice in teaching, learning and assessment;
c) to provide an opportunity for programme teams, in liaison with relevant University link tutors, to
engage in action planning for enhancement purposes;
d) to provide an opportunity for students on collaborative programmes to engage in the monitoring
and enhancement of quality;
e) to ensure that problems arising in a particular programme are reported, along with the steps
taken to resolve them;
f)
to identify any general issues which the partner institution or the University more widely should
address;
g) to build up information needed for the periodic review of individual Programmes, for Strategic
School Review and for external reviews; and
h) to assist in demonstrating to appropriate external bodies that the University has effective means
of monitoring the quality of its collaborative programmes.
Details of the APME procedure, the electronic template for this form and a process timetable are
provided in the Academic Handbook.
The APME Report should be completed by Programme Leaders and submitted via the University Link
Tutor to the relevant Dean of School (typically via the School’s Associate Dean) by no later than
Friday 22 January 2016
1. Summarise how the programme team was involved in producing this report
1
APME_2015-16_Collaborative Provision
2.
Review of previous year's action plan
All actions identified in previous year should be included and reported upon
Action
3.
Achieved
(Y/N)
Person
responsible
Comments
Student evaluation and views
What were the outcomes from the University’s student experience survey, any programme or
level evaluation and from module questionnaires? What were the main issues raised by
students via staff/student meetings and other means? What action has been taken? Where
are actions needed?
[Student evaluation of the programme will help the programme team to assess the quality of the
learning opportunities provided. Information from staff/student meetings will help the team to
know how effectively they are working with the students as partners in the management of the
quality of the learning opportunities provided. This section is likely to note in-year actions and
identify planned enhancements for future delivery of the programme.]
4.
Staff Feedback
What substantive comments have been made by staff on the way the programme has operated
this year and the learning opportunities provided?
[This section will tend to draw on discussions in programme team meetings as well as reflect
upon the effectiveness of any recent changes or initiatives. It should also look forward to any
known external factors (revised subject benchmarks, changing employer needs or PSRB
requirements, changes to the 14-19 curriculum etc.) Actual changes made to the programme
are enumerated in section 8.]
5.
External Examiners' Comments/Reports
What comments have been made during the year by External Examiners? What action has
been taken or is planned in response? Were any comments not acted upon, if so, what were
the reasons for this? Indicate the date of receipt for all relevant External Examiner reports.
Has a response been sent to the External Examiners?
[External examiners are likely to comment on academic standards, on the administration and
conduct of final assessment and Boards of Examiners as well as on the quality of the learning
opportunities provided. Any negative comments about academic standards should be
discussed with the Associate Dean of School for Teaching and may be raised at University
level.]
6.
Professional and Statutory Body/Other Broader External Involvement
Which PSRB is the programme subject to? Are there any links with any other key bodies
externally? How do staff keep up to date and alert to any professional developments?
[This section will draw on links with PSRBs or broader involvement with other bodies externally.
External examiners for certain programmes may be drawn from such bodies. This section
could look forward to changing PSRB/external body requirements. Actual planned changes
should be enumerated in section 8.]
7.
Collaborative Arrangements
Comment on the operation of the collaborative arrangement, including feedback from staff in
the partner institution, student views, any specific comments by the External Examiners and the
effectiveness of management and support arrangements (visits, Joint Boards of Study, staff
development etc.). Reflect on any conditions or recommendations made at the last
approval/re-approval stage of the partnership.
[The University is responsible for the academic standards of all its awards and it is important
that these are monitored effectively with programmes delivered in whole or part by our
collaborative partners. Similarly the University is responsible for the ensuring that the quality of
2
APME_2015-16_Collaborative Provision
the learning opportunities provided by a partner are appropriate. This section will help to
illustrate how the University and partner are working together to ensure quality and standards.]
8.
Changes to the Programme
Summarise i) any programme amendments approved during 2014/15 for implementation in the
2015/16 and ii) any proposed changes planned for approval in 2015/16.
9.
Programme Statistics
Programme statistics should cover the reporting year and the two previous academic sessions.
The University Link Tutor should be able to access and provide relevant data reports drawn
from the University’s Student Information System to supplement or contextualise any data
generated by the partner institution.
In monitoring the performance of its own programmes the University will consider programme
statistics in relation to benchmark data for the following:





10.
Application to confirmed accepts ratio
Average entry tariff
Continuation (undergraduates continuing from year 1, where applicable)
Profile of student achievement (e.g. proportion of good degrees on Honours programmes)
Percentage of graduates/leavers in employment (or study)
Comments on statistics
All issued raised in any exception reporting and monitoring information supplied by the
University Link Tutor should be addressed. Generic issues which can be addressed include
what were the patterns in recruitment, is demand for the programme buoyant? What do the
entry profile, progression and completion rates and awards profile indicate about academic
standards and the learning opportunities provided? How do these compare with overall School
figures or similar programmes in the School? What changes have there been from previous
years? Destinations of students? How do these figures relate to national or subject benchmark
indicators? Where are actions needed?
[Statistical information will help the programme team and School make judgments about:
 The demand for and viability of the programme (looking at applications trends, entry,
achievement and destinations)
 The academic standards being set and achieved by the students (progression and
achievement data)
 Issues surrounding retention (match of entrants to the programme; match between initial
expectations and experience of the programme; whether the curriculum, teaching, learning
and assessment strategies and academic support are enabling students to meet the
intended learning outcomes etc.)]
11.
National Student Survey
What were the outcomes from the NSS for the subject area, if applicable?
Incorporate an initial evaluation of any relevant results from the NSS 2015 where applicable.
12.
Any other information
Anything else relevant to monitoring? For example, any lessons or noteworthy practice drawn
from: induction activities, subject updating, links with research, developments in work-based
learning, employer liaison and opinion, international dimension, programme delivery, staffing,
physical resources and facilities, response to equality and diversity requirements, staff
development, alumni feedback.
3
APME_2015-16_Collaborative Provision
13.
Summary of strengths (good practice which goes beyond the University's minimum
requirements)
Strength
Example:
Students from Level 5
are involved with
induction at L4 and
mentor new students
14.
Action to maintain strength/good
practice
Scheme introduced in
2011, staff note that L4
students settle into their
studies more quickly,
early withdrawals have
reduced from 8% to 6%
Continue scheme; present at School
away day to other programme
leaders; ensure student mentors
reflect their skills within PDP
Programme Team Action Plan for next academic year
Area for
improvement
15.
Evidence
Planned action
Person responsible
within programme
team
Target date for
completion
Issues for action or referral by School Management Team
Identify any issues requiring action by persons outside the Programme Team
4