contents - city.ac.uk€¦ · web viewguidance for annual programme evaluation (undergraduate and...

Guidance for Annual Programme Evaluation(Undergraduate and Postgraduate Taught Programmes)

Equality and Diversity statement

City, University of London is committed to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion in all its activities, processes, and culture, under its Public Sector Equality Duties and the Equality Act 2010. This includes promoting equality and diversity for all, irrespective of any protected characteristic, working pattern, family circumstance, socio-economic background, political belief or other irrelevant distinction.

Where relevant to the policy, decision-making panels will ensure a reasonable gender balance (with at least one man and one woman) and will actively consider representation of other protected groups.

Last updated June 2019

ContentsContents_________________________________________________________________2

Guidance on Annual Programme Evaluation____________________________________3

Overview_________________________________________________________________3

Can more than one programme be included in an APE?________________________________3

Planning for the next Periodic Review______________________________________________4

Timetable_____________________________________________________________________4

Undergraduate Timetable________________________________________________________5

Postgraduate Taught Timetable___________________________________________________7

Completing the form_______________________________________________________9

Section 1 – Programme Details & Tracking___________________________________________9

Section 2 - Executive Summary____________________________________________________9

2a – Teaching Quality: including teaching, feedback and personalised support (City KPI: Student Experience)_____________________________________________________________9

2b – Learning Environment: including Progression & Continuation (City KPIs: Student Progression / Experience)_______________________________________________________11

2c – Student Outcomes: including Employability & Employment (City KPIs: Student Employability)________________________________________________________________13

Section 3 – Areas for Improvement Action Plan______________________________________15

Section 3a - Student Feedback on Action Plan_______________________________________15

Section 4 – Management Information_____________________________________________16

Section 5 – Student Survey Scores & Actions________________________________________18

2


Guidance on Annual Programme EvaluationScope

For all taught students studying for an award at City including those on partnership programmes. Separate guidance exists for students on validated programmes.

To be read in conjunction with: Periodic Review Policy and Guidance

The Policy on Annual Programme Evaluation (APE) sets out the purpose of APEs and the principles that guide their development and use.

This guidance should be used in conjunction with the policy and provides additional information to support the development and use of the APEs. This guidance is specifically for internal and partnership provision.

Overview

APEs are designed to support reflection on the past year’s activity, with an opportunity to comment on trends and to capture and monitor actions being taken to enhance programmes across the course of the present academic year.

They are the primary way in which programme teams plan and report on performance against key metrics for student satisfaction, progression and employability/employment.

Undergraduate APEs are also used as a tool for gathering vital information and data which is used to inform and support the narratives for the Subject-Level TEF submissions.

The action plans within the APEs are ‘living documents’ updated throughout the year to reflect on-going feedback, developments and new data. Programme Committees monitor progress at every meeting and Boards of Studies consider APEs twice each year. APE action planning should be undertaken in consultation with Staff Student Liaison Committees (SSLCs).

Educational Quality Committee, together with Education & Student Committee and its substructure consider APE reports to inform strategic decision-making. Senate receives an annual report on quality and standards as part of the APE cycle.

APEs should be based on evidence from a variety of sources including (but not limited to):

data on admissions, progression, satisfaction, employability, degree class distribution

NSS/PTES/PRES/ Your Voice surveys module evaluation SSLC minutes

External Examiner feedback professional body reviews or audits periodic reviews Careers registration data

APEs are also designed to capture actions being taken by Professional Services and by management colleagues within Schools.

Can more than one programme be included in an APE? Some Schools/departments choose to cluster a number of programmes into a single APE. This is very helpful where a number of modules are shared or the broad provision is comparable.

Advice should be sought from the Associate Dean (Education) and School Professional Services lead for Quality Standards and Enhancement on how best to group programmes. It is vital that differences across provision are adequately reflected where feedback and action plans may relate specifically to a particular route or cohort.

3

Reflection

Action Planning

Target setting

PurposeEvidence based

On-going updates throughout the year

Process

https://www.city.ac.uk/about/education/quality-manual/8-programme-evaluation-and-review


The Executive Summary is also an excellent place to draw out any key differences between the groups covered.

Consideration should also be given to whether some or all of the Management Information tables and survey results should be separated out so that differences in admissions, progression, destinations and the student experience can be identified and addressed.

A balance must be struck between covering a very small programme or clustering too many programmes together – both approaches present risks for undertaking meaningful evaluation and action planning. It is therefore vital that where a cluster of programmes are covered by a single APE, each programme has a separate and targeted action plan.

Periodic Review

Periodic Reviews take place every five years. If you do not already know the year of your programme’s next Periodic Review please check with your Associate Dean (Education), School Quality and Standards lead or Student & Academic Services.

Please note that any programmes who completed a Periodic Review in the year under review do not need to complete the ‘Executive Summary’ section of the APE (Section 2) as these key summary details should be covered instead within the Periodic Review Reflective Report. All other sections of the APE should be completed.The APE action plan should also be used to identify where actions could be taken forward through the Periodic Review process (occurring every five years). Actions here could be quite broad-ranging and should support the development of action plans for Periodic Review.

Timetable

Throughout the lifecycle of the APE on-going monitoring and development takes place via a standing item on Programme Committee. The Programme Committee should receive a full copy of the APE as early as possible in the APE lifecycle. Following this the Programme Committee along with the SSLC will focus on the progress of the action plan and development required resulting from feedback and new data including matters arising during the year.

4


Undergraduate TimetableMonitoring and development of previous year’s APE via Programme Committee and SSLC. Overseen by ADE, PD and HoD.

Timing Activity Input Responsibility

Committee(s)

June Review and planning Identify broad issues to be covered in new APE

Previous year’s APE School and University strategic developments

ADE, PD, HoD

Programme Committee

June - Oct Draft APE Incorporate inputs as they become availableIdentify and incorporate any development support needs for each action (insert under ‘Support needs for implementation’)Where possible early consultation with students is also helpful (e.g. on internal survey results

Your Voice survey data and NSS results Reflection on operation of programme/ modules, student

feedback and direction of enhancement activity Admissions & progression data Destinations data (DLHE) and Careers Registration data Assessment Board data External Examiner comments & External Examiner

report(s) Resit Assessment Board data Partnership co-ordinators statement

PD in liaison with HoD and ADE as appropriate

Programme Committee

According to School

planning cycle

APE and School PlanMeeting to discuss APE’s interaction with School plan

School plan/ impact of any strategic developments Resource implications

ADE, Dean, HoD, PD

School Exec

Oct - Nov Programme Committee sign-offProgramme committee takes place and discuss good practice and areas for improvement which feed into final version of APE and form the basis for PARC submissions SSLC takes place and draft APE is discussed

Targeted focus groups and other forms of feedback might usefully be used here in addition to SSLC

PD, ADE Programme Committee, SSLC

Nov Critical ReaderSchool APE deadline. Sent to critical reader for comment & workshop where critical readers make comments and discuss. Programme Directors make necessary amendments

PD, ADE Programme Committee

Nov Board of Studies approvalAPE Review Meetings take placeBoards of Studies approves reviewed APEs

Dean Board of Studies

5


Timing Activity Input Responsibility

Committee(s)

29 th Nov 2019

Final Submission Approved APE’s are submitted to Student & Academic Services


Oct - Dec Good Practice Report ADE to complete good practice template (Appendix 3) and share at their School L&T Committee for discussion before submitting it to the APE Coordinator for City L&T Committee and EQC

ADE School L&T Committee, City L&T Committee, EQC

Each PC & SSLC

On-going updatesMonitoring and updates

Matters arising Additional feedback Additional data

PD Programme Committee, SSLC

March Reporting Student and Academic Services report on quality, completion and good practice/themes Report written on thematic element of APEs (LEaD)

S&AS EQC/E&S Com/ Senate

As needed Issues for institutional considerationDiscuss University-level issues

DP&P Senate, UET/ExCo

By last BoS Board of Studies receives APE updateActions updated/ monitored

PD, Dean Board of Studies

Use APE to commence development cycle for new APE.

6


Postgraduate Taught Timetable

Monitoring and development of previous year’s APE via Programme Committee and SSLC. Overseen by ADE, PD and HoD.

Timing Activity Input Responsibility Committee(s)

Sept – Nov Review and planning Identify broad issues to be covered in new APE

Previous year’s APE School and University strategic developments

ADE, PD, HoD Programme Committee

Dec – Jan Draft APE Incorporate inputs as they become availableIdentify and incorporate any development support needs for each action (insert under ‘Support needs for implementation’)Where possible early consultation with students is also helpful (e.g. on internal survey results)

PTES survey data Reflection on operation of programme/ modules, student

feedback and direction of enhancement activity Admissions data Destinations data (DLHE) and Careers Registration data Assessment Board data External Examiner report(s) & External Examiner

comments Resit Assessment Board data Partnership Co-ordinators statement

PD in liaison with HoD and ADE as appropriate

Programme Committee

According to School

planning cycle

APE and School PlanMeeting to discuss APE’s interaction with School plan

School plan/ impact of any strategic developments Resource implications

ADE, Dean, HoD, PD

School Exec

Jan - Feb Programme Committee sign-offAssessment boards held, APEs are completed and approved by Programme CommitteesSSLC takes place and draft APE is discussed

Targeted focus groups and other forms of feedback might usefully be used here in addition to SSLC

PD, ADE Programme Committee, SSLC

Feb Critical ReaderProgramme Directors submit APEs to School Quality Team for circulation to critical readers. Programme Directors make necessary amendments

PD, ADE Programme Committee

March - April Board of Studies approvalAPE Review Meetings take placeBoards of Studies approves reviewed APEs


10 th April Final Submission Approved APEs are submitted to


7


2020 Student & Academic Services

Jan - May Good Practice Report ADE to complete good practice template (Appendix 3) and share at their School L&T Committee for discussion before submitting it to the APE Coordinator for City L&T Committee and EQC

ADE School L&T Committee, City L&T Committee, EQC

Each PC & SSLC

On-going updatesMonitoring and updates

Matters arising Additional feedback Additional data

PD Programme Committee, SSLC

May ReportingStudent and Academic Services report on quality/completion of submitted APEs, on good practice/themes and thematic element of APEs

S&AS, DP&P EQC/E&S Com/ Senate

As needed Issues for institutional considerationDiscuss University-level issues

DP&P Senate, UET/ExCo

By last BoS Board of Studies receives APE updateActions updated/ monitored

PD, Dean Board of Studies

Use APE to commence development cycle for new APE.

8

Completing the form

Section 1 – Programme Details & Tracking

Purpose: To provide the School Board of Studies with an overview of responsibilities and progress

Completion: 1. Complete the ‘Progress Tracking’ section as the APE progresses through the year.

2. For all partnership provision complete the Partnership section and ensure the Academic Partnership Co-ordinator Annual report is appended to the APE. More information is available at Appendix 1.

Section 2 - Executive Summary

Programmes are asked to provide an executive summary of their current position against targets and staging points of the Vision & Strategy 2026 for the three Academic Output Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

Student progression or completion Student experience Student employability

Contextual information that explains key areas of strength and key areas for improvement should be highlighted within this section against each KPI.

For all Undergraduate programmes additional reflection is being requested around the Subject-Level Teaching Excellence Framework criteria in order to provide critical information which will inform and support the narratives for the Subject-Level TEF submissions. Areas of strength should be evidenced through specific sources where links and/or paperwork can be provided if required, areas for improvement should be addressed through appropriate corresponding developments within the action planning tables.

Programmes may also wish to provide commentary on performance in relation to equivalent programmes/cohorts and sector competitors, significant trends and comparisons to sector competitors.

Postgraduate Taught programmes may wish to include other targets, staging points and statistics available to them related to the specific discipline, demographic information or other areas which will help with evaluation and planning.

2a – Teaching Quality: including teaching, feedback and personalised support (City KPI: Student Experience)

Key Strengths / Good Practice / Current Initiatives - Please use this space to provide examples of good practice and current / upcoming initiatives which highlight the key strengths within your programme within the Student Experience KPI.

Potential ‘Student Experience’ Initiatives & Activities: Student Voice – NSS, actions arising from student feedback and evidence of active

involvement in curriculum plus strategic initiatives Student Support – Provision clearly signposted and integrated at central and programme

level, including personalised, targeted support for WP students and evaluations of personal tutoring processes

Community – Initiatives to build community at programme, school, university and local levels, wellbeing activities, societies and competitions

City Buddies

9

Vision & Strategy 2026City targets and staging points can be viewed in the Vision & Strategy 2026, and School/programme targets can be viewed within individual School plans: www.city.ac.uk/staff-hub/strategy-and-planning/vision-and-strategy-2026

http://www.city.ac.uk/staff-hub/strategy-and-planning/vision-and-strategy-2026

http://www.city.ac.uk/staff-hub/strategy-and-planning/vision-and-strategy-2026

http://www.city.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/343267/City-University-of-London-Vision-and-Strategy-2026.pdf


(For UG Only) - TEF Criteria - Please also provide a reflection on the following Teaching Quality (TQ) TEF criteria and ensure that you include related initiatives over the three academic years, with evidence of impact (e.g. analysis of data, quotations from students, module evaluations, Externals or professional visitors, placement hosts or project sponsors)

Student engagement with learning (TQ1): Students are engaged with learning and

encouraged to commit to their studies, including through appropriate contact time and

independent learning.

Valuing teaching (TQ2): Excellent teaching in the subject is promoted and recognised, and

innovation is supported.

Rigour and stretch (TQ3): Curriculum, pedagogy and assessment stretch students to

develop independence, knowledge and skills that reflect their potential.

Assessment and feedback (TQ4): Assessment and feedback practices effectively support

students’ development, progression and attainment.

Student partnership (TQ5): Students studying the subject are understood and engaged as

partners in the delivery, development and enhancement of provision

Possible Examples of Evidence:

Impact and effectiveness of involving students in teaching evaluation e.g. collecting and

acting on their feedback

Impact and effectiveness of schemes focused on monitoring and maximising students’

engagement with their studies such as the UK

Engagement Survey (UKES) and others

Recognition of courses by professional, statutory and regulatory bodies (PSRBs)

How the provider is achieving positive outcomes for students, whilst also successfully

identifying, addressing and preventing grade inflation

Quantitative information on teaching intensity, such as weighted contact hours

Impact and effectiveness of external examining

Impact and effectiveness of teaching observation schemes

Impact and effectiveness of innovative approaches, new technology or educational

research

Recognition and reward schemes, and their impact and effectiveness, including

progression and promotion opportunities for staff based on teaching commitment and

performance

Quantitative information relating to the qualification, experience and contractual basis of

staff who teach

Impact and effectiveness of feedback initiatives aimed at supporting students’

development, progression and achievement

10


Related NSS Questions - This is the full list of the 2018-19 NSS ‘Subject TEF’ questions relevant to Teaching Quality:

Teaching on my course Q1 – Staff are good at explaining things. Q2 – Staff have made the subject interesting. Q3 – The course is intellectually stimulating. Q4 – My course has challenged me to achieve my best work.

Student voice Q23 – I have had the right opportunities to provide feedback on my course. Q24 – Staff value students’ views and opinions about the course. Q25 – It is clear how students’ feedback on the course has been acted on.

Assessment and feedback Q8 – The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance. Q9 – Marking and assessment has been fair. Q10 – Feedback on my work has been timely. Q11 – I have received helpful comments on my work

Action Planning – Please use the action planning section within table 2a to record any actions arising from the KPI and TEF evaluation process.

For each action a number of pieces of information are requested:

Area for Improvement – Indicate the broad area e.g. arising from data, feedback (student/ external examiner/ professional body etc.) and enhancement activity related to quality and standards, strategic hubs, thematic element. Identify the specific issue and how/where it was identified (for example SSLC)

Action taken or to be taken - provide a broad indication of the proposed action Action Owner - identify the individual(s)/team responsible for bringing the development

forward and reporting back via the APE (also note the individual / body responsible for monitoring progress where different)

Intended impact or actual impact of action - what will change as a result of the development

Deadline - proposed completion date of action (or actual completion date if action has been taken)

Status of action - status should be updated regularly to reflect progress, challenges arising, and evidence of success. This should be overseen by Board of Studies.

2b – Learning Environment: including Progression & Continuation (City KPIs: Student Progression / Experience)

Key Strengths / Good Practice / Current Initiatives - Please use this space to provide examples of good practice and current / upcoming initiatives which highlight the key strengths within your programme within the Student Progression KPI.

Potential ‘Student Progression’ Initiatives & Activities: Early identification and personalised support for students who may be at risk

Assessment reviews, balance of assessment types, and good practice around

feedback/feedforward

Induction / Transition to HE - Critical thinking and academic writing

Development of positive Personal tutoring practices

Monitoring of attendance/engagement

Initiatives relating to assessments (balance, building blocks, diversification) and feedback

for students.

11


Initiatives relating to teaching strategy and methodology

Additional support

(For UG Only) - TEF Criteria - Please also provide a reflection on the following Teaching Quality (TQ) TEF criteria and ensure that you include related initiatives over the three academic years, with evidence of impact (e.g. analysis of data, quotations from students, module evaluations, Externals or professional visitors, placement hosts or project sponsors)

Resources (LE1): Physical and digital resources are used effectively to aid teaching,

learning and the development of independent study and research skills.

Scholarship, research and professional practice (LE2): Teaching and learning is enriched

by student exposure to and involvement in scholarship, research and professional practice.

Personalised learning (LE3): Students are supported as individuals to succeed in their

learning, progression and attainment.


Impact and effectiveness of initiatives aimed at supporting the transition into and through a higher education course

Quantitative information demonstrating proportional investment in teaching and learning infrastructure

Use and effectiveness of learner analytics in tracking and monitoring progress and development

Extent, nature and impact of employer engagement in course design and/or delivery, including degree apprenticeships

Extent and impact of student involvement in or exposure to the latest developments in research, scholarship or professional practice (one or more)

Impact and effectiveness of initiatives aimed at understanding, assessing and improving retention and completion

Related NSS Questions - This is the full list of the 2018-19 NSS ‘Subject TEF’ questions relevant to Learning Environment:

Academic support Q12 – I have been able to contact staff when I needed to. Q13 – I have received sufficient advice and guidance in relation to my course. Q14 – Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices.

Learning resources Q18 – The IT resources and facilities provided have supported my learning well. Q19 – The library resources (e.g. books, online services and learning spaces) have supported my learning well. Q20 – I have been able to access course-specific resources (e.g. equipment, facilities, software, collections etc.) when I needed to.

12


Action Planning – Please use the action planning section within table 2b to record any actions arising from the KPI and TEF evaluation process.








2c – Student Outcomes: including Employability & Employment (City KPIs: Student Employability)

(For UG Only) TEF Criteria ‘Student Continuation’ Definition: This metric is the proportion of entrants who continue their studies. Full-time students are counted between their first and second year of study. Students who continue studying at Higher Education level at the same or at another provider, or who completed their qualification in the period considered, are deemed to have continued. All other students are deemed non-continuers. Please note that continuation rates do not take progression into account, i.e. moving from year 1 to year 2 or year 2 to year 3. They also ignore course changes within the provider and any changes to mode of study. They simply look at whether or not a student is still in Higher Education after a year.

Key Strengths / Good Practice / Current Initiatives - Please use this space to provide examples of good practice and current / upcoming initiatives which highlight the key strengths within your programme within the Student Employability KPI.

Potential ‘Student Employability & Employment’ Initiatives & Activities:

Career Enhancement – Placements and ‘sandwich’ year opportunities within programmes,

micro-placement provision, pro-bono modules and volunteering opportunities

Within Curriculum – Specific modules to develop career aspirations and skills; Skill

development and assessment within other modules.

Extra-curricular activities – including alumni events, career talks, career evenings

Use of visiting and guest lecturers from industry

Programme engagement with employers

Employability focus electives

Elective Personal Development Plan (PDP) modules to help students to acquire skills that

are valuable in their career post-graduation

Preparation for employability woven into the curriculum

Interview/CV preparation & mock interviews given by tutors

Employers invited to attend and give talks and or hold interviews

(For UG Only) - TEF Criteria - Please also provide a reflection on the following Teaching Quality (TQ) TEF criteria and ensure that you include related initiatives over the three academic years, with

13


evidence of impact (e.g. analysis of data, quotations from students, module evaluations, Externals or professional visitors, placement hosts or project sponsors)

Employability and transferable skills (SO1): Students gain knowledge, skills, work-

readiness and personal development, which are embedded within the curriculum and wider

student experience.

Employment and further study (SO2): Students progress educationally and professionally,

into graduate level employment or higher study.

Positive outcomes for all (SO3): Students from all backgrounds achieve positive outcomes.

Potential differential outcomes of disadvantaged students are identified and addressed.


Learning gain and distance-travelled by all students including those entering higher education part-way through their professional lives

Career enhancement and progression for mature students

Evidence of longer-term employment outcomes and progression of graduates including into highly-skilled employment

Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at preparing students for further study and research

Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at graduate employability

Extent of student involvement in enterprise and entrepreneurship

Number, impact and success of graduate start-ups

Use and effectiveness of initiatives used to help measure and record student progress, such as Grade Point Average (GPA)

Impact of initiatives aimed at closing gaps in development, attainment and progression for students from different backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes.

Initiatives or activities that take place to support and advise students who have failed August resist.

Action Planning – Please use the action planning section within table 2c to record any actions arising from the KPI and TEF evaluation process.







14



Section 3 – Areas for Improvement Action Plan

The action plan should provide an update of any incomplete actions from the preceding year’s action plan and outline new actions arising from the evaluation process not already captured in Section 2 action planning.

Student Feedback Actions - Programmes should include specific c hanges/actions taken or made within the programme as a direct result of student feedback received via student surveys (NSS, PTES, Your Voice 1 & Your Voice 2) or other channels (e.g. SSLC). This section should be shared via SSLC and in any fora where it will have a positive impact on the student body. This will ensure the feedback loop is closed prior to the point at which student surveys are released in the academic year.

Actions arising from Periodic Review -In accordance with Policy the Periodic Review Report and Action Plan will be considered by the PARC on behalf of the Board of Studies prior to consideration by the Educational Quality Committee. Progress against the agreed actions should be embedded in the APE action list for ongoing monitoring and review by the School PARC.

An annual report on the process, covering the outcomes and key themes, will be produced by Student and Academic Services to be considered by the Educational Quality Committee and Senate.

Discussions on progress with all actions within APEs form a standing item at each Programme Committee. Discussions on progress with actions addressing student feedback will form a standing item at each SSLC. It will not always be necessary for a full copy of the APE to be re-circulated (e.g. where updates are only to the Action Plan).

The APE is designed to support ongoing reflection on and development of a programme throughout the year. While it is beneficial to seek student input during the drafting stage, formal student participation in the APE process does not take place until the first SSLC of the year. Therefore:

actions planned in response to student feedback should be adjusted if feedback from students or others suggests that an alternative action would be more effective in resolving issues;

the APE should be updated to document progress on actions and/or new actions on a regular basis. These will tend to arise from discussions with students at SSLCs, SECs and Programme Committees and consideration of the outcomes of module evaluation and student surveys.

Section 3a - Student Feedback on Action Plan

Student feedback and student views on content are core to the APE process. The APE can also be revised throughout the year to include additional student feedback and ensuing actions.

Whenever practical involve students in the APE action planning process as early as possible, ideally at the drafting stage.

Outline how student views have been sought and incorporated, not only as a means of assuring quality but to demonstrate to our students how much we value their input and that it is taken seriously.

SSLCs provide an important mechanism for discussion on actions designed to address student feedback and/or enhance student satisfaction. The first SSLC of an academic year provides an opportunity for programme staff to gain students’ views on the contents of the first iteration of the APE Action Plan designed to enhance the student experience and address student satisfaction issues.

15


It is recognised that not all SSLCs will have met by the point of the Board of Studies meeting where APEs are initially considered – where this is the case state how student views will be sought and updated once students have contributed.

Updates should be provided to students via the SSLC and other appropriate mechanisms that help ensure students are aware of further actions being taken and on-going programme developments. It is good practice to ensure students are able to access relevant sections of the APE Action Plan via Moodle and to provide copies of previous APE Action Plans that will also help ensure students are aware of issues that have previously been raised and addressed.

Section 4 – Reflection on Programme Management Information

This section of the APE provides an opportunity to comment on programme level data including data on admissions, progression, degree class distribution, and student survey scores which will support programmes in reflecting on any changes and trends highlighted by the data.

Some programmes will not achieve publication thresholds for student survey data due to small student groups or low response rates. Where this is the case aggregate data can be requested from Student & Academic Services; the aggregate data will group a programme with other equivalent programmes to provide the most meaningful data possible to support the programme in setting and working towards targets.

If a programme is required to provide statistical data on an annual basis to an accrediting or professional body, and if this data covers the above areas, the programme team may be able to append that data rather than duplicating the information using the tables in the APE. Programme teams should discuss these options with Student & Academic Services.

The data tables below have been provided as templates for the information required, tables can be inserted in Section 3 from SITS reports, Student Data SharePoint reports:(https://cityuni.sharepoint.com/sites/wo_studentdata?e=1%3A89948a4727b241c4a4bac67c97e9b766) SITS reports and / or SAP-BW reports.

Following each table a reflection of the last 3 years is required, including any reasons for changes and any trends, a comment on performance against School/ Programme targets as well as the programmes performance against wider University targets.

Data Table Templates:

4a. Admissions Data

ApplicationsApplications for entry in: Fee Status TOTAL

UK & EU Overseas Not assigned

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

IntakeIntake - Student Cohort Fee Status TOTAL

EU Home Overseas

2016-17 year of entry



16

https://cityuni.sharepoint.com/sites/wo_studentdata?e=1%3A89948a4727b241c4a4bac67c97e9b766



Qualifications on entryFor

entry in:Qualification Type TOTAL

1st UK Degree

Foundation Course

Mix A'/GNVQ 3

Other Not Known

Not Assigned

2016-17

2017-18

2018-19

4b. Progression between Programme Stages (For PGT If Applicable) Progression from Programme Stage I to Programme Stage II

Student Cohort Progression from Stage I to Stage II following resits

Number % of resit cohort




(For UG Only) Progression from Programme Stage II to Programme Stage IIIStudent Cohort Progression from Stage II to Stage III following resits

Number % of resit cohort




4c. Reasons for student withdrawals/transfers

Reason for withdrawal/transfer Within academic year/year of study TOTAL

2016-17 2017-18 2018-19

PS I

PS II

PS II

I

PS I

PS II

PS II

I

PS I

PS II

PS II

I

Academic Fail [2]*

Transferred [3] / Internal Transfer [11f]

Personal [7] / Health Reasons [4]

Financial [6]

Other [11]

TOTAL*numbers in [ ] correspond with withdrawal reason numbers in SITS

4d. Degree Class Distributions First Upper

SecondLower Second

Third Lower qual* (Ord, DipHE, CertHE)

Not assigned

TOTAL

Graduating 2016-17

Graduating 2017-18

Graduating 2018-19

17


(For UG Only) Section 5 – Student Survey Scores & Actions

The NSS and Your Voice 1 & 2 Survey outcomes tables can be inserted in Section 5 from the Student Data SharePoint page: https://cityuni.sharepoint.com/sites/wo_studentdata?e=1%3A89948a4727b241c4a4bac67c97e9b766.

Please ensure all questions are represented and responses are provided for both the current year under review as well as the previous year’s outcomes* as detailed in the templates below.

*Please note that if programme level NSS data is unavailable due to response rate being too low for publication or if data has been gathered via other methods please leave the Section 4 blank and include as a separate sheet. Please specify how your programme will address areas of concern and/or where the programme is below target and include the relevant action number within your APE actions table.

Following each table a reflection of the over the last 3 years is required, including any key areas of strength & key areas for development, reasons for changes in the results between the current year and the previous year as well as performance against School/ Programme targets and wider University targets.

NSS Template:

18




Your Voice 1 & 2 Template:

19


20

Appendix 1: Partnership provision

City’s current partnerships listed by partnership type are set out in the Collaborative Provision Register, which is available in section 10 of the Quality Manual under ‘Guidance’ http://www.city.ac.uk/about/education/quality-manual/10-partnership-provision.

The same forms and guidance are used for partnership provision. However, the way in which partnership provision is reflected within the APE is dependent on the type of partnership programme being evaluated.

Academic Partnership Coordinator Annual ReportSeparately to the APE, each Academic Partnership Coordinator is required to complete an annual report covering the operation of the partnership. This is intended to support the Academic Partnership Coordinator in fulfilling their responsibilities and to enable the School and University to take oversight of the operation of the partnership. This report will be considered alongside the relevant APE by the Board of Studies and must be attached to it.

A distinction is made in the guidance below between those types of partnerships for which City holds direct responsibility for the quality and standards of the partnership programme, and those where this is the responsibility of the partner.

ResponsibilitiesGenerally, responsibilities will be split as follows:

ProductionProgramme Director

Curriculum development, student experience and day-to-day management. Ensures oversight of the APE process through Programme Committee (to ensure completeness/shared ownership and to undertake oversight and monitoring), consultation through SSLC (to ensure on-going student involvement and engagement) and presents APE to Board of Studies.

Senior Tutor for Research

Undertakes Programme Director role for research degree programmes.

Academic Partnership Co-ordinator

For partnership provision, separately to the APE, each Academic Partnership Coordinator is required to complete an annual report covering the operation of the partnership.

Professional Services

Programme/department/School professional services staff (as appropriate to arrangements in the School) provide support with the provision of data available through the SAP system and via Careers as for the production and development of the APE.

Direction and oversightHead of Department (or equivalent)1

Direction of the discipline, implementation of academic policy and regulations, staff performance and management, resource management. Plays a key role in supporting the development of APEs including the wider strategic and management context.

Associate Dean (Education)

Directing and supporting teaching and learning enhancement. Plays a key role in directing the development of APEs in line with the University and School strategy.

Associate Dean (Research students)

Contributing to and supporting Graduate School activity. In collaboration with Associate Dean (Education) supports the development of research degree APEs in line with University and School strategy.

Dean Overall educational direction and resource management of programmes within the School in accordance with University Strategy, Policy & Regulations. Leads on oversight including through the Board of Studies (to ensure School endorsement and subsequent oversight and monitoring) and the School Exec (to consider any School or programme resource matters).

Institutional Monitoring

1 The Dean may also take the role of the Head of Department where the latter function does not exist. 21

http://www.city.ac.uk/about/education/quality-manual/10-partnership-provision


City Senior Management

Direction of all educational activity, including support needs. Relevant committees include Education & Student Committee, Graduate School Committee and Collaborative Provision Committee which receive overview reports on APE activity.

Joint Programmes with non-DAP, Joint Programmes with DAP, Dual Awards, Franchised Provision, Franchised Access/Feeder Provision, Off-site Partnership Delivery

An APE should normally be completed separately for each partnership programme for the above partnership types. This is to ensure that each partnership programme is explicitly evaluated, to facilitate the partner institution’s involvement in the production of the APE to enable the partnership programme to be given an appropriate level of scrutiny and oversight by the School and University.

However, it is recognised that in some instances it may be appropriate for the APE for a partnership programme to be combined with the APE for one or more other programmes, e.g. where the same programme is delivered in more than one location either through a franchised or off-site delivery arrangement. This should be discussed with the Associate Dean (Education) and Student & Academic Services. Where it is agreed that a combined APE will be completed, the APE should clearly and explicitly identify in each section matters relating to the partnership programme. It is also important that management data is provided for the partnership provision and any differences related to admissions, progression and graduate destinations are noted and addressed.

Responsibilities of City and the partner institution for completion of the APE and arrangements for its consideration and approval will be set out in the Memorandum of Agreement for the partnership. Unless specified otherwise in the Memorandum of Agreement, the standard City APE process will be followed for partnership provision.

The Academic Partnership Coordinator for the partnership programme is responsible for liaising with the partner institution in writing the APE and in ensuring it is presented to the relevant Board of Studies. The role of the partner institution in writing the APE will be dependent on the partnership type.

The table below sets out normal expectations in relation to the different types of partnership programmes:

Joint Programmes (DAP and non-DAP), dual awards

The APE should be completed in the context of the partnership and should cover the entire programme, include those elements delivered at or by the partner institution

There is joint responsibility for the production of the APE and joint oversight throughout the year at programme level via the Joint Programme Committee

APE is received annually by the Board of Studies.

Franchised provision

The APE should be completed in the context of the partnership.

The programme team at the partner institution will play a significant role in the drafting of the APE alongside the Academic Partnership Coordinator. The relevant Programme Committee, which will have representation from City and the partner, will have oversight of the APE throughout the year

APE is received annually by the Board of Studies.

Where the franchised programme is offered in more than one location (including at City), the APE should reflect on any differences between the locations and provide a reflection on the comparability of the quality and standards of the two programmes.

Franchised access/feeder provision

Arrangements will be as for franchised provision. In addition, the APE should reflect on any developments to either the franchised access/feeder programme, or the City programme to which students’ progress, and continuing alignment of provision.

Off-site partnership delivery

The APE should reflect on any differences between the off-site partnership delivery and internally-delivered provision and provide a reflection on the comparability of quality and standards in the two locations, e.g. on mode of delivery, learning support, student satisfaction.

22


Access/feeder and Articulation Arrangements

Access/feeder programmes do not lead to the award of credit or a degree award from City but enable students successfully completing the programme at the partner to progress to a City degree programme (normally with guaranteed admission). Articulation arrangements are similar to access/feeder arrangements but lead to admission to the City degree programme with advanced standing through Accreditation of Prior Learning. As such, City is responsible for ensuring that the content and level of the partnership programme in an articulation arrangement, is comparable with the part of the City programme that students are exempted from. However, for both types of arrangement, responsibility for the maintenance of quality and standards of the partnership programme rests with the partner.

Due to the nature of these arrangements, a separate APE is not required. However, appropriate reference should be made within the APE for the programme which receives students from such an arrangement, on the comparability of the performance of students who have entered via the partnership programme with those who have been admitted directly. The APE should also comment on any additional support needs identified for students who have entered via the partnership programme and the impact of those students on the wider cohort. Where issues or concerns are identified, this should be reflected through intended actions for the forthcoming year.

Appropriate reference should also be made to curriculum changes, either to the City programme accepting students or to the partnership programme, and resulting action that has or will be taken to ensure continuing alignment of provision. This is particularly important for articulation arrangements to ensure comparability of quality and standards between the partnership programme and the part of the City programme that students are exempted from is maintained.

23

contents - city.ac.uk€¦ · web viewguidance for annual programme evaluation (undergraduate and...

Documents