Self Evaluation Document and Programme Specifications SED

1
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

2
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

3

• 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

4
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.
5

• 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

6
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

7
Uses for Programme Specifications

• 1. Institution
• 2. Students
• 3. Reviewers
• 4. Employers

8
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 insitutions
  own outcomes and processes can be reviewed and
  justified.

9
Review Activities

• Planning preparation meeting(s)
• Milestone/end date
• Evidence gt Activity
• Timescale
• Renegotiation/information on progress
• Work room for review team

10
Reference Points

• Judgements against reference points - likelihood
  of negative judgement limited
• Not check-lists
• Links to institutional review

11
Extracts from the Handbook for Academic Review

• For some programmes, more than one benchmark
  statement may be relevant, whilst in some
  specialist, innovative or inter-disciplinary
  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

12
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

13
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

14
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

15
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?

16
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?