|
Annual Course Review 2011/12
Timetable
Self Evaluation Report
Institutional Review of HE Courses Proforma
Statistical Data
Terms of Reference and Composition of Sub-Group
ANNUAL COURSE REVIEW PROCESS
As in previous years the 2011/12 Annual Course Review process will be conducted on an institutional basis, with submissions from partner institutions reviewed by a Sub-Group of the University's Academic Development and Enhancement Committee.
Partner institutions are required to complete a Self-Evaluation Report (SER) for each approved programme of study. Completed forms should be forwarded to senior management within your institution, who conduct an internal review of submissions and complete the institutional review report.
Submissions should be forwarded, in a single batch, to the Quality Management and Audit Unit in the University by Friday 28 September 2012 at the latest. The Quality Management and Audit Unit will review the submissions, follow up on any missing documentation and prepare a briefing to the Sub-Group on initial findings. A report from the Sub-Group will be considered by the University's Academic Development and Enhancement Committee.
A summary timetable for the review process is set out below.
Please return completed submissions to Mr Hugh Deighan, Quality Management and Audit Unit, Room J505, University of Ulster, Cromore Road, Coleraine, BT52 1SA.
back to top
TIMETABLE
|
Date |
Activity |
|
April/May 2012 |
Quality Management and Audit Unit (QMAU) to write to partner institutions regarding the 2011/12 review exercise. |
|
April 2012 |
Details of Section A of SER to be forwarded to all HE Co-ordinators. |
|
10 August 2012 |
Subject Partnership Manager Annual Reports to be with partner institutions. |
|
28 September 2012 |
Completed submissions to be lodged in the QMAU office. |
|
October/November 2012 |
Review of submissions by QMAU. |
|
November/December 2012 |
Sub-Group members meet to review partner institution submissions. |
|
December/January 2012/13 |
Sub-Group members meet to agree conclusions and recommendations for consideration by the Academic Development and Enhancement Committee. |
|
January 2013 |
Report considered by the Academic Development and Enhancement Committee. |
|
January/February 2013 |
Faculties, Subject Partnership Managers, central departments and partner institutions to respond to issues identified. |
|
February/March 2013 |
Sub-Group members meet to consider responses to issues raised. |
|
April 2013 |
Report to Academic Development and Enhancement Committee, together with arrangements for the 2012/13 review. |
STATISTICAL DATA
Again, as with last year's exercise data on student enrolments, progression and analysis of awards should be input from internal records systems. Section B1 of the Self-Evaluation Form is a self-calculating spreadsheet.
back to top
TERMS OF REFERENCE AND COMPOSITION OF TEACHING AND LEARNING COMMITTEE SUB-GROUP
Composition of Sub-Group
Professor Carol Curran, Dean, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences
Professor Denise McAlister, Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Teaching and Learning) (Chair)
Dr Denise Gray, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Art, Design and the Built Environment
Professor Jan Jedrzejewski, Head of School, English, History and Politics, Faculty of Arts
Ms Susannah McCall, Subject Partnership Manager, Faculty of Social Sciences
Professor Richard Miller, Dean, Faculty of Computing and Engineering
Ms Agnes Murray, Senior Lecturer, Ulster Business School
Mrs Maeve Paris, Subject Partnership Manager, Faculty lf Computing and Engineering
Terms of Reference of Sub-Group
|
1 |
To receive a summary of findings from the Quality Management and Audit Unit based on a critical review of the detailed self-evaluation submissions from partner institutions with particular reference to:
-
Relevant External Examiner and Subject Partnership Manager reports
-
Student admission, progression and achievement (including first destination/progression) statistics
-
Student views
-
Enhancement, sharing and implementation of good practice
-
Staff development
|
|
2 |
To review the findings, and, if necessary, original documentation provided in order to determine:
-
Whether institutions have taken an appropriate and effective approach to annual monitoring and whether full account has been taken of available qualitative and quantitative indicators.
-
Whether there are issues arising at either course or institutional level which require further attention.
|
|
3 |
To determine appropriate action required to address issues arising. |
|
|
|
|
4 |
To report conclusions and recommendations to the Academic Development and Enhancement Committee. |
back to top
Copyright © University of Ulster |
