Documentation for Internal Review - Full and Interdisciplinary/Individual Programme Reviews

5.1 Documentation for Full Internal Review:

5.1.1   The key document should be the Self-Evaluation Document (SED) which should be well planned and structured and based on the template provided in Appendix 1 of these notes.  This core document should demonstrate that effective mechanisms are operating within Departments, with the emphasis being on fostering a culture of enhancement.  The SED should be clearly focused on self-evaluation and analysis.  It should provide useful information, not only, in terms of how the Department wishes to present itself in order to understand its provision and the difficulties which the panel might be able to assist with, but also, which could be used in an effective manner by review panels and external bodies.

5.1.2   The Department should provide the Panel with six copies of the Self-Evaluation Document together with six copies of the following material, which should have been cumulatively produced through the annual review process for the previous four years. This documentation may be submitted either in hard copy or electronically, for example via a CD or the web, at the discretion of the Chair of each Review Panel.

• for programmes run in collaboration with partner institutions, the Memorandum of Agreement that specifies the contribution to be made to the programme(s) by each party
• documentation illustrating the procedures for inducting and monitoring the progress of research students including annual review and transfer from MPhil to PhD
• web links to the latest version of the undergraduate and postgraduate student handbooks
• programme specifications (updated versions of these documents should be provided, in hard copy or online, which incorporate changes made as a result of the introduction of the Common Awards Scheme)
• minutes of student-staff exchange committee meetings covering the review period
• minutes of key School/Department/programme committee meetings covering the review period and where appropriate to the programmes in question together with a brief flowchart detailing the overall committee structure (e.g. School Teaching and Quality Enhancement Committee, School/Department Research Committee, School/Department Research Students Sub-Committee, Department/Programme Team Meetings).  For programmes run in collaboration with partner institutions, this should include the minutes of the Joint Steering Committee or its equivalent
• statistical data for the programmes under review to inform section 8 of the SED (to be requested from Planning and Business Systems sufficiently in advance to allow for completion of this section of the SED).

5.1.3  The following documentation, held in Registry Services, should be provided by the Panel Secretary to the Panel and Department/programme team under review:

• annual programme reports
• end-of-year surveys for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes plus the response to these from the Department/programme team
• National Student Survey (NSS) results plus the response to these from the Department/programme team
• a summary of the matters raised within external examiners’ reports and the responses to these

Access to these documents should be made available, wherever possible, centrally in Registry through the College’s Quality Enhancement and Validation website and annual monitoring database:  http://www.bbk.ac.uk/qev  which will allow the review panel to search for specific matters of interest to them.  This will place greater reliance on the SED and relieve the burden on Schools with much of the additional documentation required being made routinely available in Registry.

5.1.4  All additional documentation, currently required by Departments to inform the review process, not covered by the above list, should be made available via the Department websites.  Guidelines on the standard set of learning and teaching documentation which should be available on each Department website are attached as Appendix 2.  Part of the remit of each panel should therefore be to examine the Department/programme website(s) under review. 

5.1.5  The review documentation should cover the four-year review period since it is very helpful to track matters raised, for example, through the student-staff exchange committees (ssec) over this period.  The SED should provide the background details to such supporting documents, for example, by outlining the processes by which feedback is elicited from students, whether through the ssecs or through an alternative, approved mechanism, with the minutes themselves providing a greater level of detail concerning specific matters raised.

5.1.6  The documentation from the Department/programme team should be sent to the Panel Secretary for circulation to the Panel at least six weeks before the review meeting takes place.

5.1.7  A draft of the self-evaluation may be considered by the Panel or by the Quality Enhancement and Validation section of Registry Services prior to its formal submission to the Review Panel.  The Department/programme team should contact the Head of Quality Enhancement and Validation if they wish for the draft to be considered in this way.

5.1.8  The Department/programme team may also wish to ensure that a draft of the 'Learning Resources' section of the self-evaluation is sent to the relevant Subject Librarian and relevant ITS staff for their consideration prior to its submission to the Panel.

5.1.9  SEDs must reflect the evaluation of provision not only by the subject teams but other stakeholders, especially students and, where appropriate, employers, professional, statutory or regulatory bodies etc.  Students should participate in the construction and critique of SEDs.  Given the time constraints placed upon mature, part-time students this may be best achieved through the student representatives on the student-staff exchange committees and/or the Students’ Union.

5.1.10  QAA Auditors will need to be satisfied that all staff are actively engaged in the internal review process.  Questions posed at the end of the SED template regarding the process by which the SED was compiled, i.e. in consultation with staff and students, should help to resolve this matter.

5.2  Documentation for Interdisciplinary/Individual Programme Review:

5.2.1  The requirements for documentation for Interdisciplinary/Individual Programme Reviews are as detailed in sections 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 above.  A Self-Evaluation Document is not required for this process however, Programme Teams may wish to provide a short summary giving an overview of the programme and setting the context for the supporting documentation.  As part of the review meetings a brief outline of one example of enhancement should be presented and details of this should be given with the review documentation i.e. an aspect of learning and teaching where changes in pedagogy have produced improvements in student learning (see 6.3.4).

5.2.2 The documentation from the programme team should be sent to the Panel Secretary for circulation to the Panel at least six weeks before the review meeting takes place.