Staff Handbook: 3.2.1 Programme Quality Assurance Procedures

Original Approved: School Committee, 9 May 2007
Original Author: P Coxhead
Link to Previous Version: Version 1.0
Relevant University documentation: Academic Quality Unit Home Page (links to all relevant documentation); particularly Birmingham Integrated Quality Assurance and Enhancement System

Version Number Notes on Changes Author(s) Date (Approved)
2.0 New Programme Approval Process L Ewers 3 June 2009

Contents

1. Programme Approval

Creating a new programme is a relatively uncommon event. University procedures have been aligned with QAA guidelines and will undoubtedly be changed as necessary in future to maintain this alignment. The definitive guide can be found via the Academic Services Programme Development and Approval web site.

Briefly, typical stages involved in creating a new programme are:

  1. The first stage is the preparation of a Plan to Develop a New Programme within the School. The idea is discussed informally within the School and then put to Teaching Committee for discussion. Depending on the timing of committee meetings, this approval should be endorsed by School Committee. The academic case for a new programme is paramount, but other important issues will be staffing, timetabling and resource implications and preparing evidence to show that there is a market for the programme. It will also be necessary to consider accreditation issues.
  2. The plan is considered by the College Learning and Teaching Committee and submitted to the Programme Approval Review Committee (PARC) for consideration.
  3. Once the Plan has been approved, the School prepares a formal New Programme Proposal Form as well as New Module Proposal Forms for any new modules involved. The Head of Academic Programmes will assist in this process and will normally be the formal contact with Academic Services. Again depending on the timing of committee meetings, the proposal will be put to Teaching Committee and then to School Committee.
  4. The proposal is passed on to the College Learning and Teaching Committee for approval.
  5. Academic Services will then process the proposal which will eventually be put to PARC for approval. Advertising, admissions, etc. cannot proceed until this approval is granted. Given that the proposal has been endorsed by the School and College, the issues at this stage are more likely to be related to the quality of the documentation, e.g. the Learning Outcomes of the programme, the Module Descriptions of any new modules, etc.
  6. If the programme is to be accredited, then documentation will have to be prepared and sent to the BCS and/or IET at the appropriate time.

2. Programme Documentation

Programmes require a Programme Specification. The major components of a Programme Specification are probably the Programme Outcomes (=Programme Learning Outcomes) and the detailed content in terms of modules. Rules for progression from one stage (normally programme-year) to another are also important.

Within the School, Programme Specifications are made available to staff and students via appropriate web pages, linked from the index page for degree programmes. Generally there will be one or more pages giving a description of the programme, including its aims and the Programme Outcomes, plus a page for each programme-year.

Academic Services also maintain a web site with descriptions of degree programmes. Although every effort is made to ensure that these are consistent, within the School of Computer Science the School's web site should be the primary source of reference.

3. Programme Review

3.1 Introduction

Programme Review is part of the Birmingham Integrated Quality Assurance and Enhancement System (BIQAES). At the institutional level, the purpose of Programme Review (introduced in 2002/03) is to ensure that all Schools have in place a formal system to audit and review programmes and the modules of which they are composed. At the School level, the function of Programme Review is:

  • To review Programme Specifications to ensure that programmes remain relevant to the changing nature of the discipline, to the needs and abilities of students, and to employers and society. Review may result in changes to Programme Specifications or to the proposal of new ones.
  • To review programmes against Programme Specifications, ensuring that their Aims and Outcomes are being achieved. Review may result in changes to programmes, particularly to their module composition. To this end, Programme Review will make use of Module Review procedures.
  • To ensure that adequate resources, including staff, staff training and facilities, are available for the delivery of programmes and their modules, and to suggest improvements where necessary.
  • To ensure that the School's procedures for quality assurance and enhancement (QAE) are operating satisfactorily, and to suggest improvements where necessary.

Programme Review draws on a range of other QAE processes operating within the School.

1 Modules are reviewed using the procedures described in 3.2.2 Module Quality Assurance Procedures. This includes the collation of responses to student questionnaires, administered twice a semester, and biennial Teaching Observation reports.

2 The twice yearly Curriculum Review Meetings (see 2.2 Management Structures, §9.3) carry out a rolling review of programmes and years.

3 The Assessment Standards Monitoring Group (ASMG) monitors and reviews assessment processes and their outcomes for all modules.

4 Teaching Committee, and in particular ASMG as its subcommittee, considers External Examiners' reports and any immediate changes needed as a consequence.

5 The Industrial Liaison Panel seeks industrial input into the design and operation of the School's programmes.

Other information required for Programme Review includes:

  • Statistics for recruitment, retention, progression, degree classifications, employment, etc.
  • Evaluations of programmes by graduates, employers, accreditation bodies, etc.

3.2 Operation of Programme Review

The overall responsibility for Programme Review rests with Teaching Committee, reporting to School Committee. Teaching Committee is also responsible for discussing and acting on review recommendations.

As of 23 October 2005, detailed arrangements for the full five-yearly comprehensive review required by BIQAES are under discussion.

3.3 Timetable of Activities related to Programme Review

The timetable for specific internal reviews for the next two cycles will be as follows.


 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08
Curriculum Review Meeting Dec 02 Dec 03 Dec 04 Dec 05 Dec 06 Dec 07
Years Reviewed Final Yrs MSc Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr 1
Curriculum Review Meeting Jun 03 Jun 04 Jun 05 Jun 06 Jun 07 Jun 08
UG Programmes Reviewed - AICS JH CSBM CS+SE Accred.


08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13
Curriculum Review Meeting Dec 08 Dec 09 Dec 10 Dec 11 Dec 12
Years Reviewed MSc Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr 1
Curriculum Review Meeting Jun 09 Jun 10 Jun 11 Jun 12 Jun 13
UG Programmes Reviewed AICS JH CSBM CS+SE Accred.

3.4 Checklist for General Programme Review

General School Issues (considered every year)

  • Facilities provided adequate?
  • Adequate procedures for plagiarism and other disciplinary considerations?
  • Student questionnaires still appropriate?
  • New opportunities identified rapidly?
  • Good liaison with University?
  • Compatibility with School/University strategy?

To be considered when reviewing UG Programmes

  • Entry Qualifications correct?
  • Widening access? Mature students?
  • Conversion rates? Feedback from applicants?
  • Competition? Attractiveness of programmes?
  • Admissions Targets met? (Home/EU and Overseas)
  • Programme balanced and cohesive?
  • Meets BCS/IET requirements?
  • Employability of graduates?
  • Employer satisfaction with students/graduates?
  • Input from Industrial Liaison Panel?

To be considered when reviewing Taught Masters Programmes

As for UG programmes, but also:

  • Suitability for students of diverse prior backgrounds?
  • Range of projects suitable?
  • Balance between project and other work appropriate?
  • Outcomes in terms of students' achievement?
  • External examiners' reports?
  • Careers advice available?

To be considered when reviewing any UG Year

  • Modules attractive to applicants?
  • Modules sufficiently interesting to motivate students?
  • Year balanced & cohesive?
  • Learning outcomes achieved?
  • Previous changes to modules effective?
  • High standards of student performance encouraged?
  • Transferable skills?
  • Student problems identified (including welfare, attendance, failure to submit work)?
  • Academic Advisor system operating properly?
  • Student diligence monitored?
  • Rapid and adequate feedback to students?
  • Active participation in SSCC?

To be considered when reviewing UG Year 1

In addition to UG all years:

  • Module range appropriate to intake?
  • Skill deficiencies identified early? Corrective action?
  • Sound basis for subsequent years?
  • Student adjustment from school to university checked?
  • Ability to transfer to more suitable programme?

To be considered when reviewing UG Year 2

In addition to UG all years:

  • Sound basis for final stage (specialist modules, MEng/MSci programmes)?
  • Failures in Year 1 modules addressed?
  • Motivation sustained?
  • Career planning in progress?

To be considered when reviewing UG Years 3 and 4

In addition to UG all years:

  • Range of projects suitable?
  • Balance between project and other work appropriate?
  • Suitability of options for students from different backgrounds/programmes?
  • Students' achievement in finals?
  • External examiners' reports?
  • Career advice available?

goTop of Page

goStaff Handbook