UQP members provide a vital contribution to periodic review. UQP members are drawn from university academic and professional staff, external academic colleagues and the student body. University academic and professional membership is usually confirmed by the Head of Quality and Collaboration Unit. The Faculty is expected to nominate the external adviser (s) (for approval by the Head of QMD), with student membership determined by the Quality4Students database and the Student Union.
The responsibilities of the external adviser(s) are:
The responsibilities for internal academic and professional panel members are:
The responsibilities for student representatives are:
The QCU Officer will be available to support all panel members throughout the process.
Your Chair may allocate themes to individual panel members and ask UQP members to review documentation in line with the themes. Below is a selection of possible questions that UQP members may wish to consider when reviewing the SED and supporting evidence base:
Data (recruitment, retention, completion and achievement, NSS)
Are there any patterns in recruitment over the past few years?
What are the current levels of student satisfaction? What is being done by the Faculty to maintain this or in the event of any concerns what actions have been implemented?
Are there any trends in retention, completion and achievement data? Do they provide any indication of the health of the courses? Are the data sets satisfactory? If not, is there a rationale and what is being done to address the issues?
How are the graduate employment rates?
Any data related issues that require follow up?
Is there a sound rationale behind the curriculum changes propose? Is this in line with the national picture?
How do the changes proposed complement the Faculty strategic plan?
Are resources, staffing etc in place to support the proposed amendments?
Any other feedback to curriculum changes proposed?
Any feedback received from students, partners, stakeholder, employers on the changes proposed?
Is it clear how student feedback is obtained and responded to?
What student support is available in the Faculty? How effective is it?
Is it apparent how collaborative students are supported?
Have collaborative students provided feedback?
Any other feedback in relation to student support?
What message does the DHLE data convey?
How does the Faculty build employability into the curriculum?
Is there any dedicated employability support in the faculty?
Do the panel feel assured on the academic standards and quality of the provision covered by the periodic review?
Feedback on the specialisms studied with in the courses? Relevance, future proof?
Any items of good practice or issues to note?
Is it clear how the School’s research fit with the Faculty strategy?
Are course journals in place and is there evidence of course committee meetings being held?
What are the key items to note arising from course journal entries?
Is it clear to see the outcomes from course committee meetings and how they have been closed?
In the reviewers opinion, do the course journals and course committee meeting provide a clear overview on the health of the course?
Are the entries in the journal supported by evidence in the topic?
Are there entries relating to all / most of the documents in the evidence base in the topic?