Quality assurance procedures: Section M

Section M: Annual evaluation

 

M1. Role and timing

Annual Evaluation is the internal process by which the University critically appraises the operation of courses, ensuring that appropriate standards are maintained.

Annual Evaluation takes place at course and module level to reflect on the key successes/issues from the last academic session and to identify actions required.

Annual evaluation for taught courses is undertaken at the end of each academic year and considered by the appropriate Course Committee. Completed reports should be submitted to School Boards for consideration at their first meeting of the following session. A School may establish a sub-committee of the School Board for this purpose, including appropriate student representation.

For Post Graduate Research provision, Annual evaluation takes place as part of the PGR Annual Lifecycle Meeting with completed report templates being submitted to the meeting for consideration.

 

M2. Contents of annual evaluation reports

Annual Evaluation reports focus on agreed indicators, e.g. external examiners’ comments, course statistics, student evaluation and feedback, responses to reviews and identification of best practice. PGR reports will include reflection on statistical data and indicators agreed by Graduate Board. All Annual Evaluation Reports should contain a brief summary by the course leader/DoGE including commentary on any issues raised in the previous year’s exercise and actions in the coming year.

Annual Evaluation reports for taught provision should be submitted via the University’s web-based system.

 

M3. Lines of report from school board (Taught Provision)

School Boards may refer unresolved problems to the University’s Teaching and Learning Committee and, if necessary, to Senate. It is the Deans’ responsibility to monitor any requirements identified during the evaluation process.

 

M4. Lines of report from PGR Annual Lifecycle Meeting (PGR Provision)

The Annual Lifecycle meeting may refer unresolved problems to the University’s Research Committee and, if necessary, to Senate. It is the Deans’ responsibility to monitor any requirements identified during the evaluation process.