Transcript No Slide Title

Introduction
Self Evaluation Document and Programme Specifications (SED)
• Planning and preparation meeting(s)
• Use of reference points (Benchmark Statements/Code of Practice)
• Variation of intensity of scrutiny
QAA New Method
• Teams of reviewers at the subject/programme level will
comprise subject specialists and a co-ordinating reviewer
• The number of reviewers and days allocated will be based on
the quality profile of the institution and subject, as well as the
size of the provision
• Reviewers combine desk-based review of documentation,
including student work, with meetings and discussions
• No “snapshot” visit or judgements, documentation may be
provided over a more extended period
• Review of teaching will be based mainly on internal peer review
and student evaluations, but may include direct observation
Main Changes from the Current System
• Outcomes specified in terms of shared reference points
• Outcomes monitored as well as process
• Greater explicitness and public clarity
• Shift in emphasis from special, external to usual, internal,
mechanisms
The SED
At both subject and institutional levels there will be a
Self-evaluation document.
Reviewers will seek to test and verify the conclusions
reached in the self-evaluations.
SED: Preparation
• Annex C / additional guidance paper : structure
• Annex E : to inform
• What makes a good SED? What? How? Why?
• What are ARs looking for?
• Agenda-setting
• Strengths & weaknesses
Programme Specifications
Template form or free text
•
Must make explicit learning outcomes in terms of:
Knowledge
Skills and other attributes
•
Clear articulation of:
Teaching and learning methods
Assessment methods
Relationship of programme with qualifications framework
Uses for Programme Specifications
1.
Institution
2.
Students
3.
Reviewers
4.
Employers
From the Handbook:
Guidance on Programme Specification
“Academic reviewers will wish to understand how any relevant
subject benchmark statements have been used to inform the
specification of programmes. However, outcomes for a
programme should be determined through a deliberate process by
the institution, they should not be simply copied from a subject
benchmark statement. Rather the benchmark statement should
act as a point of reference against which the insitution’s own
outcomes and processes can be reviewed and justified.”
Review Activities
• Planning & preparation meeting(s)
• Milestone/end date
• Evidence > Activity
• Timescale
• Renegotiation/information on progress
• Work room for review team
Reference Points
• Judgements against reference points - likelihood of
negative judgement limited
• Not check-lists
• Links to institutional review
Extracts from the Handbook for Academic
Review
“For some programmes, more than one benchmark statement may
be relevant, whilst in some specialist, innovative or interdisciplinary fields there may not be any statement that is of direct
relevance….. In all cases the institution remains responsible for
identifying and assuring the standards for its awards and for
ensuring they reflect appropriate external indicators”
Intensity of Review will be Determined by
Four Factors:
• The initial institutional profile
• The performance of the subject provider in the previous quality
assessment/subject review(s)
• The self evaluation and its analysis by reviewers
• The review process
Variation in Number of Days
• Weak SED
• Possibility of a judgement of no confidence in standards or a
failing judgement
• Further work to identify weaknesses or strengths (exemplary
features) required
• Reduction in number of days also possible
• Continuing negotiation
QAA New Method
• Report on standards and quality
• Report on standards focuses on intended learning outcomes,
curricula, assessment and achievement
• Judgements on standards are not graded, but identify the level
of confidence reviewers have in the academic standard of the
provision (may differentiate level of confidence in the standards
of particular subjects/levels/programmes)
• Report on quality focuses on teaching and learning, student
progression, learning resources
• Judgements on quality grade the provision as
commendable/approved/failing, may identify exemplary features
and where necessary differentiate between
subjects/levels/programmes
Standards….
• Is the curriculum content appropriate to each stage of the
programme and to the level of the award?
• Is assessment designed appropriately to measure achievement
of the intended outcomes?
• Does student achievement match the intended outcomes and
the level of the award?
The Judgements to be made: Standards
• Are there clear learning outcomes for the programme(s) which
reflect appropriately applicable subject benchmarks and the
level of the award?
• Is the content and design of the curriculum effective in achieving
the intended programme outcomes?