1. Collaborative Programmes Annual and Periodic Quality Assurance Arrangements Rebecca Broome Quality Management Division November 2007

2. We will be considering: What are we assuring? Responsibility for standards and quality? The role of the student in quality assurance Annual monitoring Partner engagement Periodic review

3. What are we assuring? Standards: Academic Standards are defined as the level of achievement that a student has to reach to gain an academic award Quality: Academic Quality is defined as a way of describing how well the learning opportunities available to students help them achieve their award

4. Responsibility for standards and quality? Who and where… Lecturer Course Leader Partner/University Contact Course Administrator Head of Department External Examiner QA Officers PSRBs Student Staff Consultative Committee Board of Studies Board of Examiners Faculty Boards Quality Assurance Committee Students

5. The role of the student in quality assurance Student representation in annual monitoring unit and course feedback Student staff Consultative Committee Board of Studies Periodic review University engagement

6. Annual Monitoring Student Input Student Feedback –Unit and Course Level Student Staff Consultative Committee or equivalent Board of Studies (includes student representative/s) Course Level Evaluation and Reporting Unit Evaluation Form Annual Standards and Quality Evaluation Report Partner Institution Report University Contact Report External Examiner’s Report

7. Department Level Head of Department Annual Standards and Quality Evaluative Report Annual Review Group (HoD, Associate Dean (Academic), Associate Dean (Students)) University Level Collaborative Provision Annual Report Academic Registrar’s Annual Report Quality Assurance Committee Pro Vice-Chancellor (Academic) Annual Report Board of Governors Enhancement

9. Periodic Review Partnership Review Aim: To confirm academic standards and quality of learning opportunities are appropriate and to enhance the student experience and partnership relationship Main Considerations: The partnership relationship as whole The ability of the University and partner to provide an appropriate student learning experience assurance that standards and quality maintained

10. Outcome: Identify strengths Recommendation to continue the collaboration for a further 3 years Recommendations are categorised under two levels of priority: Conditions and Recommendations

11. Periodic (Curriculum) Review Aim: To confirm continuing fitness of purpose of the curriculum and confirmation that the annual monitoring and review processes are being effective Main Considerations: The effect of changes, including those which are cumulative and those made over time, to the design and operation of the programme Current research and practice in the application of knowledge in the relevant discipline(s), technological advances and developments in teaching and learning Changes to external points of reference (Benchmark Statements, PSRB etc)

12. Changes in student demand, employer expectations and employment opportunities Student feedback, including the National Student Survey Data relating to student progression and achievement Outcome: Identify strengths Fitness of purpose of curriculum confirmed Annual monitoring and review processes effective Recommendations are categorised under two levels of priority: Advisable and Desirable

13. Information on Programme Monitoring and Review: www.port.ac.uk/reviewcycle