Attachments

 

 

 

Quality Handbook

 

 

 

Pre-Event Form Periodic Review

 

Periodic Review Event:

Name of Reviewer:

 

Please return the completed template, electronically, by DATE to NAME@sunderland.ac.uk 

 

This document is to be completed by all the panel members prior to the Periodic Review Event.

 

It supports the quality assurance function of a review by enabling the panel members to identify and share any issues/concerns/areas of good practice in advance of the event, assisting in the preparation of the agenda, and providing a clear audit trail that key issues have been considered, even if the outcome of that consideration is wholly positive. You can also use this template to identify additional documentation required.

 

Section A works by exception reporting - please simply mark the first column Y if satisfied for all programmes, or P if satisfied by some of the programmes but not all, or N if not satisfied for any programme. In the second column please indicate, for P or N, which particular programmes are at issue and the concern which you have. It is assumed that any programmes not mentioned in this column are counted as Y for that question.

 

Section B  identify any areas of good practice that you wish to note or explore further at the review, or to raise questions for clarification.

 

The Panel will all receive collated answers for use in the review.


 

Section A

 

 

Y/P/N

Notes

1. Do the aims of the programmes remain appropriate?

 

 

 

 

 

2. Do the programmes continue to meet the subject benchmark requirements, and do the learning outcomes remain appropriate to the awards (and to the relevant Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ) and Northern Ireland Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (NICATS) level descriptors?)

 

 

 

3. Are the learning outcomes clearly defined for each stage/interim award and assessed in the core modules?

 

 

4. Are the modes of assessment appropriate in testing achievement against the learning outcomes?

 

 

 

 

 

5. Additional comment

 

 

 

 

 


Section B

 

1. Introduction 

 

a)                   The overall strategy of the Faculty in relation to the provision

 

The target market, links with employers if applicable, the impact of pedagogical developments, the impact of research

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b)                   Future Developments

 

Any particular plans, either in progress or envisaged by the Faculty, to develop this area of provision.  This should include acknowledging any problems which the Faculty has identified and is addressing, and any innovations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Academic Standards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Quality of Provision

 

 

3.1Curriculum design and content

 

Have service users, patients, carers or the public been involved with the development of the programme/s? (dependent on the subject area)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.2 Teaching, learning and assessment

 

Are structures, in terms of core modules, optional modules, and pre-requisites, appropriate?

 

Are the teaching and learning styles appropriate for the learning outcomes and the target student audience, and have any enhancement opportunities been identified (including innovative uses of assessment)?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.3 Student support including the quality of information provided to students

 

Is the type and level of student support provided appropriate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.4 Student achievement and progression (including progression to employment)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.5 Learning resources

 

 

 

3.6 Quality management

 

Do the programme management and quality assurance processes remain clearly defined?

Are other forms of student representation clearly defined (e.g. Staff Student Liaison Committees, questionnaires, NSS feedback) in line with University policy?

 

 

 

 


4. Conclusions (this section will be completed at the end of the Periodic Review)

 

4.1 Decisions relating to revalidation

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Commendations

 

Any points of commendation, including aspects of the programme which are particularly innovative and represent good practice

 

 

Points of Innovation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Points of Good Practice

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 Summary of issues for development

 

Requirements

 

Requirements, any important issues which should be addressed before the programme commences

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations

 

Long term recommendations, any issues to be addressed, to enhance the quality of the programme

 

 

 

 


Periodic Review Revalidation Form

 

Programme Cluster reviewed:

Date of the Review:

Name of Review Chair:

 

Programme Title

Award

Recommended for revalidation for 6 years from DATE

Not recommended for revalidation for 6 years. Give reasons, and if a limited period of revalidation is recommended, state the period concerned. If revalidation is conditional upon immediate action by the Faculty, state the actions required.