DESCRIPCIÓN DE DIFERENTES SISTEMAS DE CUBICAJE

6.1 A wide range of programmes delivered by the College either require, or choose to seek, validation or accreditation from relevant PSRBs. In these circumstances a validation or accreditation event may be combined with a programme review,

provided that the review cycle of the PSRB is no longer than six years, the College’s objectives for programme review can be met and the outcomes reported according to the College’s requirements. Advice should be sought from QAS in advance of any combined reviews.

6.2 Where a department/Faculty (Institute/School) chooses to combine these two events a copy of the documentation submitted to the professional, statutory or regulatory body must be submitted to QAS. If the information submitted to the PSRB does not cover all the College’s requirements as set out in section 7 below then additional information should be provided by the department/Faculty (Institute/School) to take account of this. If Faculties (Institutes/School) choose to combine programme review with accreditation/validation they should ensure that the process allows them to report the outcomes of a review as specified in section 8 below. However, there may be occasions when the professional, statutory or regulatory body report does not fulfil in its entirety the College’s requirements for a review report, in which case the

Faculty (Institute/School) will need, additionally, to review those aspects not covered and produce a report.

6.3 The report from the professional, statutory or regulatory body on the accreditation or validation, with the additional review report if applicable, should be considered by the FEC in the same way as a review report would be considered and a recommendation form completed. The professional, statutory or regulatory body report, review report if applicable and recommendation form should then be submitted to CASC in the usual way.

Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review

45

6.4 In cases where validation/accreditation is not combined with programme review, the validation/accreditation reports from the professional, statutory or regulatory body should be considered by the FEC and CASC in the same way as review reports. The procedure to be followed is given in Guidance on professional, statutory and

regulatory body (PSRB) reporting on page 214.

7.

Documentation for review

7.1 The following information should be provided for the review by the programme/ department:

(a) a Self-Evaluation Document (SED)

(b) a cover sheet (Form PRFa) listing all the programmes covered by the review (see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/monitorreview.aspx) (c) the current programme specification for each programme (see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/specs/index.aspx) together with a note of all major changes to component modules since the previous review

(d) a copy of the student handbook for each programme or web link to on-line handbook

(e) reports from External Examiners for the period since the last review/initial approval

(f) statistical data

7.2 The SED should be evaluative rather than descriptive, as factual information will be provided by the student handbook(s) and the programme specification(s), and should provide an assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Where weaknesses are identified an action plan should be provided of how these are being addressed. There is no set limit for the length of the SED, but a minimum of 4/5 sides of A4 might be considered as a guide. The SED should cover the following points for each programme or group of programmes under review:

(a) rationale for the programme, including overall aims and market demand; (b) assessment of the effectiveness of teaching, learning and assessment and

how they support:

 achievement of the programme aims

 learning outcomes and the fit between module learning outcomes and overall programme learning outcomes

 embedding TEL in programme delivery  embedding research skills into the curriculum  embedding a global dimension into the curriculum

 identification of opportunities for interdisciplinary learning  the progression, completion and attainment of students

 equality of opportunity and access (see Guidance on equality of

opportunity and access in programme and module review on page 202 for further guidance)

This should include reference to:

 the College criteria for degrees

 the College Education Strategy

 any Faculty (Institute/School) objectives

 the Framework for higher education qualifications

 if applicable,subject benchmark statements and PSRB guidelines (c) assessment of the effectiveness of the learning environment including:  student support mechanisms, to include pastoral support and the

 learning resources including information services, staff and accommodation

 how these facilitate equality of opportunity and access;

 rationale, management and effectiveness of monitoring of student attendance, and any contributions made by service teaching

(d) assessment of the effectiveness of quality assurance and enhancement arrangements including:

 student input into various processes and the use made of student feedback

 external input, including responsiveness to comments from External Examiners, and professional, statutory or regulatory bodies, if applicable, and level of engagement with employers and graduates

 if applicable, the monitoring of any collaborative teaching activity and arrangements for student placements

 ways in which enhancement of the provision is achieved and good practice disseminated;

 the operation of College and Faculty (Institute/School) policies at the local level;

(e) the programme’s involvement with Study Abroad provision;

(f) consideration of the statistical data provided (see paragraphs 7.3 – 7.5 below) to include consideration of progression and completion rates and of the achievements of students in relation to the intended learning outcomes of the programme(s), using the general and equality specific data provided;

(g) discussion of any future developments, including commercial viability of the programme.

7.3 The statistical data should cover the current academic year and previous academic years since the inception of the programme(s) or since the last review to illustrate: (a) applications profile: the number of undergraduate applications through UCAS;

numbers of applications to postgraduate programmes; comparison between applications and actual enrolments (this data should be sought by the admissions team);

(b) entry profile: showing total enrolments; the numbers entering with A-level qualifications, and the numbers entering with other qualifications (ie BTEC, NCVQ, access courses, other qualifications, overseas qualifications or no qualifications); numbers of high fee and low fee students; age, gender, ethnicity and disability of new entrants;

(c) progression and completion rates: showing the number who completed on time, numbers who took extra time, withdrawal and failures, categorised by age, gender, ethnicity and disability;

(d) student attainment: covering the results obtained, including degree classifications categorised by age, gender, ethnicity and disability; (e) destination of leavers from higher education

7.4 PAS should be contacted about the production of the data in (b) to (d). The data will be made available from January 2016, via an electronic dashboard. Data on

admissions should be sought from the admissions team, while data on destination of leavers from higher education can be obtained from the Careers and Employability Service, which is also sent to departments on an annual basis.

7.5 Guidance on the statistical analysis of equalities data is provided in Guidance on

Procedures for programme and module monitoring and review

47

8.

Report of the review

8.1 The FEC or review panel should produce a report on the review. The report should be produced according to the Faculty (Institute/School) report on programme review

template (see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/monitorreview.aspx) and should include the following (where applicable), although Faculties (Institutes/School) are free to comment on additional aspects of the provision that may have been addressed during the review:

(a) an assessment of the academic standards of the programme(s) and the currency and validity of the content. This will include:

 ways in which academic standards are set and ways in which they are then measured and achieved by students (with reference to progression, completion and achievement data)

 fit between module learning outcomes and overall programme learning outcomes

 ways in which TEL is embedded programme delivery

 ways in which research skills are embedded into the curriculum

 ways in which a global dimension is embedded into the curriculum

 opportunities for interdisciplinary learning

 ways in which equality of opportunity and access are supported;

 the extent to which attention has been paid to the external reference points such as the Framework for higher education qualifications and, if applicable, subject benchmark statements and PSRB guidelines

 the extent to which attention has been paid to internal documents such as College criteria for degrees, College Education Strategy and Faculty (Institute/School) objectives;

(b) an assessment of the learning environment to include support mechanisms available for students, the adequacy of the learning resources available and how both of these facilitate equality of opportunity and access, the rationale, management and effectiveness of the monitoring of student attendance, and any contributions to the programme made by service teaching;

(c) a commentary on the effectiveness of the quality assurance arrangements to include responsiveness to comments from External Examiners, PSRBs if applicable, engagement with employers and graduates, the operation of College and Faculty (Institute/School) policies at the local level, monitoring of any collaborative teaching activity and student placements;

(d) a commentary on the programme’s involvement with Study Abroad provision; (e) the use made of student feedback;

(f) a commentary on the statistical data to include progression, completion and achievement rates, any particular trends in evidence and ways in which the provision under review makes use of student related data, both general and equalities specific. Equalities data may require further research and actions identified to help mitigate any adverse impacts in which case advice may be sought from the Organisational Development Unit and (see Guidance on equality of opportunity and access in programme and module review on page 202 for more information);

(g) a commentary on the commercial viability of the programme (any concerns identified in this respect will be noted by FECs and CASC but will require referral to the relevant Executive Dean of Faculty (Institute/School) for further action);

(h) the usefulness of the programme specification(s);

(i) a commentary on the extent to which the SED demonstrates an evaluative approach;

(j) a check that modules that contain components that require ethical approval or re-approval have been identified;

(k) a commentary on the commendable aspects of the provision under review highlighting examples of good practice;

(l) recommendations for further action.

8.2 The commendable aspects of the provision and examples of good practice should be summarised on the first part of the Programme review recommendations form

(PRF(b)) (see

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/aboutkings/quality/academic/prog/monitorreview.aspx). Recommendations for action identified as a result of the review should be summarised on the second part of form PRF(b), graded as follows:

1 = fundamental 2 = significant 3 = merits attention

The three grades of recommendations should be used as follows:

(a) fundamental should be reserved for those instances where serious problems have been identified which would put academic standards and institutional reputation at risk. In most cases this would indicate that the programme should be suspended until the matter has been resolved;

(b) significant should be used in instances where there is the potential for academic standards and the quality of learning opportunities to be put at risk if preventive or corrective action is not taken;

(c) merits attention should be used for recommendations that have the potential to improve the quality of programmes and the overall learning opportunities. 8.3 The form should then be completed by the programme/department being reviewed

indicating how these recommendations are to be carried forward and setting target dates for completion.

8.4 For recommendations requiring a Faculty (Institute/School) response, the programme/department should refer the form to the FEC for consideration and response. The FEC should then provide the programme/department updates during the year, to enable the programme/department to report back to CASC on progress made a year later.

8.5 For recommendations requiring a College response, the programme/department being reviewed should recommend a course of action to the College. The QAS office, on behalf of CASC, will then consider which Directorate would be most appropriate to carry forward the request. The appropriate Directorate will then keep in contact with the programme/department during the year, to enable the

programme/department to report back to CASC on progress made a year later.