Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

Effective programme reviews that enable teams to identify issues for improvement are now seen as the main element of quality assurance. An effective quality assurance system has at its heart a thorough cycle of annual evaluation operating at programme team level.

Each programme should be reviewed twice a year: at the end of the first semester and at the end of the academic year. The first review should take the form of a fully minuted programme team meeting (see agenda items below) with action plan and should inform the end of year PREP.

The following people may assist in the completion of programme evaluation: the programme tutor (who should complete the form), programme team members and support staff. It is essential that students are included in the process and that the specific needs and views of part time students are taken into account.

First Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (February) - agenda should include: 1. Review of new information from the previous year:  Current, updated information on final year students’ destinations after achievement in last academic year  Actions (where appropriate) on recommendations from external examiners’ reports  Curriculum changes from student feedback or other factors.  Review of previous year’s action plan; actions successfully implemented and those not completed to remain on action plan

2. Evaluation of the current year so far (compare where appropriate to previous year):  Recruitment process for current cohort  Recruitment from college level 3 programmes to current programme (internal progression)  Induction  Students who have withdrawn including those lost before the date of the HEFCE return. Identification of reasons with remedial actions  Outcomes of initial assessments  Numbers of students receiving learning support, when & how (the action plan should include monitoring of attendance at any learning support sessions and the progress of these students)  Any other information about the current cohort that might affect the action plan  Review of student progress and performance to date.  Outcomes of student feedback (surveys or meetings)  Verification arrangements - Internal moderation, standardisation meetings and schedules

Second Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (July-September)  End of year programme evaluation must begin with a review of the previous year’s Action Plan.  You should evaluate relevant aspects of your programme against the prescribed college standards for teaching and learning, student support and programme management and in the light of your programme aims, programme specification relevant HE subject benchmark statements, the QAA Code of Practice and the HE Qualifications Framework.  Your evaluation must comment on issues raised by enrolment, retention, achievement and progression data, external examiner reports and student views. It should also be informed by staff views, employer, professional body and former student feedback and minutes of programme team meetings. These will provide key sources of evidence to support your judgements.  Your evaluation of each aspect of your programme should identify any particular strengths and areas for improvement where performance is above or below expected standards.  The review should lead to a comprehensive action plan which addresses any identified areas for improvement and will be monitored at programme team meetings and at Boards of Studies.  Your completed PREP must be signed and given to your divisional leader who should read and countersign the evaluation. Your divisional leader should monitor and support implementation of your action plan and ensure that your report contributes to the annual directorate HE self evaluation and departmental and college self assessment. Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

Programme Title(s): FD Design Media Makeup Y1 FT (W453) Programme M4317-001 FD Design Media Makeup Yr2 FT (W453) Course M4317-002 Code(s): Divisional Leader: Division: Hair & Beauty Programme Tutor: Duration: Names of person(s) Student Reps: completing this Year 1 form: Year 2

2. Data – Student data from 1 November (date of HEFCE return) Applications 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Target Set No of applicants No offers made No offers accepted Year 1 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Target set No. % No. % No. % Enrolment (at 1 November) 25 46 45 27 Internal Progression (previously enrolled at TMC) 0 0 4 9 9 20 Transfer in (after 1 November) Transfer out (after 1 November) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Withdrawn (after 1 November) 0 0 9 20 2 4 Referred Deferred Achieved/progressed to Year 2 22 88 37 80 0 0 Retention 25 100 37 80 43 96 36 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Year 2 No. % No. % No. % Enrolment (1 November) 27 37 40 Transfer in (after 1 November) Transfer out (after 1 November) 0 0 0 0 Withdrawn (after 1 November) 0 0 0 0 Referred Deferred Achieved/progressed to Year 3 26 96 0 0 Retention 27 100 37 100 Year 3 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 No. % No. % No. % Enrolment (1 November) 0 0 Transfer in (after 1 November) Transfer out (after 1 November) 0 0 Withdrawn (after 1 November) 0 0 Referred Deferred Achieved Qualification 0 0 0 Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Destinations - only students achieving qualification No. % No. % No. % Further study 5 19 Employment subject related Employment other 21 81 Other 0 0 Not Known 0 0

Gender (previous year in brackets) Age (previous year in brackets) M F Under 21 21 and over 2 (1) 43 (45) 31 (36) 14 (10)

3. Student Profile - only of students enrolled on Year 1 in 2010-11 as of 1 November (previous year in brackets) Qualifications No. % Widening Participation No. % GNVQ/BTEC 0 (39) 0 (85) Greater Manchester 19 (15) 42 (33) A Level(s) 0 (2) 0 (4) Widening Postcodes 20 (11) 44 (24) Access/Other qualifications 0 (2) 0 (4) Original Domicile No. % EU 0 (0) 0 (0) UK 45 (46) 100 (100) Overseas 0 (0) 0 (0) EU 0 (0) 0 (0) Overseas 0 (0) 0 (0)

Initial Assessment (previous year in brackets) Stanine bksb Mathematics bksb English 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 E1 E2 E3 L1 L2 L3 E1 E2 E3 L1 L2 L3 2 0 27 9 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 10 25 8 0 1 0 0 10 23 9 (0) (1) (20) (7) (8) (8) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (7) (12) (5) (0) (0) (0) (0) (9) (11) (3)

4. Ethnic Monitoring & Success (%) - only of students enrolled on final year in 2010-11 (previous year in brackets) % % % % Bangladeshi 0 (0) African 0 (0) Mixed Asian 0 (0) British 0 (78) Indian 0 (4) Caribbean 0 (0) Mixed African 0 (0) Irish 0 (4) Pakistan 0 (0) Black other 0 (0) Mixed Caribbean 0 (0) Other white 0 (4) Other Asian 0 (7) Chinese 0 (0) Mixed – other 0 (0) Other 0 (0)

5. Disability Monitoring & Success (%) - only of students enrolled on final year in 2010-11 (previous year in brackets) Type of main disability Type of main learning difficulty % % % No disability 0 (93) Mental Ill health 0 (0) No learning difficulty 0 (89) Visual Impairment 0 (0) Temporary after illness 0 (0) Moderate difficulty 0 (0) Hearing Impairment 0 (0) Profound/complex disability 0 (0) Dyslexia (words) 0 (7) Mobile disability 0 (0) Multiple disabilities 0 (0) Dyscalculia (numbers) 0 (0) Other physical disability 0 (4) Other 0 (0) Multiple difficulties 0 (0) Condition (e.g. asthma, diabetes) 0 (0) Other 0 (0)

6. HEFCE Income – 2009/10 M4317-001 FD Design Media Makeup Y1 FT (W453) £171,742.83 M4317-002 FD Design Media Makeup Yr2 FT (W453) £125,325.85 £0.00

Students enrolled on Year 1 Students enrolled on Year 2 Students enrolled on Year 3 2010-11 2010-11 2010-11 Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

Alifia Abdulhusein * Aisha Amina * Amy Corrine Armstrong * Jessica Barnett * Baldwin * Danielle Ball * Samantha Beck * Melanie Brown * Rachel Brown * Abigail Jennifer Byrne * Krystle Clayton * Molly Byrne * Jennifer Cadwallader * Lauren Connors * Samantha Farrell * Lucy Campbell * Kerrianne Clarke * Suzanne Gilmour * Megan Goodall * Lucy Gregory Clarke * Lauren Devine * Elizabeth * Nicole Hadley * Amy Haida * Sophie Duggan * Sam Golding * Chelsea Graziano Hardacre * Leanne Healy* Emily Heaton * * Omani Hanmer * Kiera Harrison * Amira Herez * Gemma Hewitt * Annabelle Bobbie Jarvis * Emma Kettlewell * Sarah Houston * Antonia Jex * Paige Johnson * Leaff * Rachel Lindop * Sofie Manners * Rebecca Jones * Louise Kennedy * Dean Toni Mansell * Katie Meston * Toni Lewis * Kerry Lomas * Adele Maguire * Murphy * Charlotte Obank * Stephanie Helen Mitchell * Karon Morrison * Kaitlyn Pearson * Natalie Posteraro * Jenna Pugh Newmarch * Lia Nissan-Lowit * * Jolene Rafferty * Molly Robbins * Ruth CharlotteNorrey * Marie Rose * Jennifer Robinson * Cassie Ruthven * Charlotte See * Hayley Stenson * Joanne Suddes * Savage * Emily Smith * Tracey Villa * Una Lucy Taylor * Michaela Thorpe * Corrylea Ward * Erin White * Pandora Worboyes Walsh * Emily Walsh * Saher Waseem * Carley Wightman * Samantha Wolfendale * Daniel Wood * Lucy Wood

Monitoring of action plan from PREP 2010–2011 and issues outstanding Action By whom Evidence of implementation/progress made Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

5. Comment on programme data and trends: In each case compare to previous two Evidence years if possible and relate comment to aims of programme and targets.  student profile (age, gender, domicile, ethnicity and disability)  applications  recruitment  retention and achievement  progression  destinations

In this section you should comment on the data from the previous page and provide an analysis. This should include comments on: - where the students have come from (including a direct comment on internal progression) - the achievement of students from different backgrounds (e.g. are male students achieving better than female?) - retention for each year, and for graduates compared with their original point of entry (i.e. how many achieve the qualification compared with how many actually started it originally) - where the students are progressing on to (i.e. to top-up, to related work etc)

For each of the above comments/analysis, you should compare with previous years to show if it is a trend and what the reasons for this could be. We should be demonstrating improvement over time.

An example piece of analysis is below: “31 students started year 2 and 29 have completed. These 29 completers are from 35 original enrolments in 2008, making overall achievement 83%, which is outstanding and indicates a significant improvement in retention over last year (58%).”

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “Outstanding retention from year 1 to 2 (90%)”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “Improve internal progression on to the programme by working closely with 14-19 team” 6. Curriculum design and content: Evidence  Demonstrate how learning outcomes reflect up-to-date professional body/employer requirements & subject benchmark statements (and in the case of foundation degrees, qualification benchmark)  How is the curriculum reviewed and approved to enable achievement of learning outcomes

This section contains a general statement as to how the programme is designed and reviewed. This section would usually contain reference to the following points: - programme designed in collaboration with employers - programme design reflects QAA subject benchmark statement - programme design reflected professional standards (e.g. chartered institutes) (not applicable to all areas) Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

- programme is reviewed both annually using the PREP and every 5 years is subject to a review at the validating University - Student feedback informs PREP and design updates - Industry experience and updating of staff

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “excellent relationship with employers that provide feedback on programme content”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “Course design needs to take into account recent changes in the industry, so an advisory committee meeting will be scheduled” 7. Teaching & Learning : Evidence  How effective is teaching and learning in relation to the aims of the curriculum?  How is research and scholarly activity used to support curriculum delivery?  How well is it monitored and supported?  Are learning outcomes clearly communicated to students?

From this section onwards much of the evidence for judgements needs to come from student feedback rather than staff opinion.

This section needs to triangulate evidence from a range of areas to form a judgement on teaching and learning. Evidence that can be considered and discussed includes: - results of LTO observations, e.g. 75% teaching staff graded as Outstanding in their lesson observations - student feedback on T&L on QDP, e.g. 100% of students agree completely with ‘The Teaching on my course is good’ - student feedback during module evaluations, tutorials etc, e.g. 100% of students thought they were given enough tuition to complete their assignments - scholarly activity that staff have undertaken and how this informs currculum, informed by their Scholarly Activity record forms and staff appraisals, e.g. 3 members of the team have been studying for a PhD which is in their specialist teaching area

The number of part time industry specialist staff compared with full time staff can be considered, as well as student attendance as this all impacts on T&L and allows a decision to be made on what is a strength and what is considered something to improve on. Tutorial support should also be discussed, for example if students get regular personal tutorials and how effectively the PDP is used to get students to reflect on their own learning.

Summarise Strength Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “the majority of staff graded as Outstanding in their LTO”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “improve student attendance for first lesson of the day” 8. Assessment: Describe and evaluate Evidence  the range of methods used and whether they are appropriate to learning outcomes/standard for award,  how assessment is designed to be formative as well as summative and reflects the college’s higher education Learning, Teaching and Assessment Strategy  The effectiveness of IV, standardisation and moderation arrangements.

In forming a judgement on the quality of assessment practice, the following should be considered: - range and forms of assessment used, e.g. a wide range of assessment methods are used with scenarios that reflect industry practice Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

- external examiner feedback on the forms of assessment and student ability (comments from their reports) - the average (median) grades students have received and how these have changed over the years, or whether these vary from module to module. This could help identify issues with one module. - student feedback on assessment from QDP, e.g. 100% of students completely agree that Assessment tasks are made clear to them - student feedback on assessment from module evaluations, assignment evaluations etc - internal moderation of assignment briefs (college policy) - moderation of marked work - the quality of feedback on marked work (from the external examiner and students), e.g. 100% of students agree that the feedback they receive is helpful

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “Assessment tasks are designed with employers to present real world scenarios”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “median grades have been declining over the last 3 years” 9. Student progression and academic support: Evaluate the effectiveness of Evidence  Initial contact  the admissions process  Induction  initial assessment  tutorial support and academic guidance

Comment on the learner journey in this section, including the following: - how the applications process is managed - how students are screened and interviewed and the effect this has on the appropriateness of learners. For example, if there are issues with learners coming on the course and then leaving as the course isn’t what they thought it was this points to an issue with the interview process. - how contact is maintained with the student between application, interview and enrolment. For example, if you write to your applicants with more course related information once you’ve made them an offer this is good practice that can be commented on. - the induction process for the course and college and how effectively this prepares students for study. For example, do you carry out any special induction training for certain groups of students, like small bridging courses for specific skills? - initial assessment – what screening was carried out and how these results compare with both student work and previous learners - student feedback on enrolment and induction, gathered from both QDP and tutorial records - tutorial support on the programme should be discussed here – how often do students get tutorials, how well do they use them, how effective are they in keeping students on programme and on track - academic support on assignment work – is work in progress considered and feedback provided? What do students think about this?

This section is where the first set of QDP results are more useful as there is a specific section on enrolment and contact made by the College.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “effective interview and selection process as 100% of students retained”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “students feel they need more information on college policies” 10. Learning resources: Evidence Comment on the appropriateness of  staff qualifications and experience (include technical staff),  teaching resources and accommodation, library and IT resources.  staff development undertaken and how staff development is planned?

This section should include analysis of: - staff experience, particularly how this is used in curriculum - technical and support staff and what value/help they add - teaching rooms - social spaces & provision of catering etc - IT equipment - Specialist resources and how they relate to industry Discuss all of the above in the light of how they were the year before, and what the students opinion of the above is. This section should not be a shopping list. If there is a need for equipment merely make a comment that provides a brief rationale for updating of resources.

This section should also address: - library facilities - online resources (moodle etc) - staff development plans (training courses etc) and how they are informed by staff appraisal, department needs, developing industry etc

Evidence from this can again draw on QDP comments but notably on ongoing student input across the year. Often resources are improved mid year so the fact that you’ve responded to a need and put an improvement in place can go down as a strength. This is especially important when the requests for this can be evidenced, for example from student comments at programme team meetings.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “new specialist technical lab commissioned in January in response to student feedback in October”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “Online resources are in need of continued updating” 11. External Examiners comments: Overall comments, strengths identified and areas to Evidence be addressed.

This section needs to quote directly from the strengths and areas for improvement from the EE reports and comment on them. It is important to note what has been done about areas for improvement identified on the previous year’s EE report. If the report has not come in this section can initially be based on comments made by the EE during their visit, and can then be re-visited once the report has been received.

Summarise Strengths Identify the main strengths noted on the EE report

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Identify the main areas for improvement noted on the EE report

12. Student views and feedback: Describe how student views are collected and acted Evidence upon (with specific examples) - for instance - module evaluations, student surveys, student feedback from reps at programme meetings. This could include the enrolment Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11 process, induction, work placement, educational visits, quality of learning materials and assessment feedback. The specific needs of part time students must be included

In some ways this is the most important section. The student’s voice should be used as evidence and commentary throughout the PREP but this section is used to explain firstly how the feedback/voice is collected and acted on, but also to specifically address feedback from students on a module by module basis.

Discuss: - how students views are collected – it is not sufficient to just rely on QDP results. Best practice includes: module evaluations, student reps commented (and minuted) at programme team meetings, group tutorials, focus groups, individual tutorials, QDP results, guest lecturer evaluations, educational visit evaluations - how you respond to issues raised by students – for example if they raise an issue at a programme team meeting how you report back to the students that the issue has been addressed - issues that have been dealt with already in this academic year as a result of student feedback

It can be seen that if QDP surveys are the only form of feedback available to the students then they may use these to express concern about things that could be minor and easily dealt with. It is advisable to carry out module evaluations and / or focus groups before asking students to compete the QDP surveys so that the surveys represent a more balanced view of the programme as a whole.

The section should also include a module by module commentary taken from module evaluations, using ideally a combination of data (sliding scale ratings) and quotes from students. These should be compared with the previous year’s results. An example is below:

“Semester 1 & 2 (Year 1) The modules were well received in the main, with a high level of satisfaction for Music & New Media Industry Studies (76% av. grade, compared with 77% last year), Music & Production Analysis 73% (representing a big improvement on the 63% last year), Artist & Product Development 77% (although down from 84% last year) “Very good unit for learning in the music industry, although this is continuous and never feels like enough time!” and Event Management 82% (79% last year). Two modules weren’t as well received: Entrepreneurship in the Arts 60% (75% last year) “I found the spreadsheet very difficult as id never used one before but feel i gained a much better understanding of the workings in how to run a viable business in the music industry” and Technology 60% (74% last year).

The module evaluation feedback as used above should be combined with more generic course feedback from other sources.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “high level of student satisfaction for most modules”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “develop SOW to allow more time to be spent on spreadsheets” 13. Quality assurance and enhancement: Describe processes to improve standards, e.g. Evidence programme team meetings, how is quantitative and qualitative data, including student feedback, analysed and used in quality improvement. Is this effective?

Describe the processes used to improve standards, e.g. programme team meetings, the PREP, student feedback etc. Discuss how data and student feedback is analysed and used in quality improvement and how effective these processes are. Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

For example:

“Qualitative and quantitative student feedback is gathered from a range of sources, as follows, and is fed into the PREP process, programme team and Board of Studies meetings. Data is gathered from module surveys and MIS and this is commented on in the PREP report. Sources of feedback includes: - personal tutorials - group tutorials - module evaluations - QDP surveys - NSS surveys - Student rep attendance at programme team and board of studies meetings”

State how regularly each meeting / form of review happens (e.g. monthly programme team meetings, bi-annual Board of Study meetings).

You should discuss how quickly you have reacted to student feedback over the course of the year, ideally citing examples of where an issue has been raised and dealt with.

Similarly you should comment on how student feedback has changed over the course of the year, e.g. comparing mid year QDP results to end year.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “quick response to student feedback and issues”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “more regular group tutorials needed” 14. Public information: Is all material, clear, informative and up to date? Describe the Evidence process for ensuring its accuracy?

You should discuss what forms of public material there are, how they are reviewed and updated and who has responsibility for this. You should comment on how the validating HEI (if there is one) informs or checks this process.

Forms of public information material include: - college HE prospectus - college HE course list - college website information - college website news stories - presentations and leaflets given to interested students (both internal and external) - course handbooks - videos and recordings

Usually the process is that the marketing materials originate from either marketing dept or the team, and are checked by the other party before issue. Where there is good news (e.g. a trip or student getting a high profile job/work) then the team should make marketing dept. aware of this. College marketing materials should be checked by the validating HEI, usually via the link tutor or Board of Studies meeting.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “video of students activity used during presentations to interested students”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g. Higher Education Programme Review, Evaluation and Planning (PREP) 2010-11

 “due to programme review module list needs updating on course leaflet” 15. Employer responsiveness: To local and national needs (refer to SSC’s and other Evidence sector bodies where appropriate)

In this section you should describe and evaluate: - employer involvement in course design and review - employer involvement in delivery and assessment (if appropriate) - client briefs - industrial visits/trips - work experiences

Again, student feedback on these is paramount as is employer feedback on the students and the programme.

Summarise Strengths Highlight here the main strengths as bullet points, e.g.  “66% of level 2 students in placement by February 2010 with favourable feedback”

Summarise Areas for improvement (Include in action plan) Highlight here some areas for improvement as bullet points as a result of the analysis above, e.g.  “employer advisory board needed to appraise new modules” 16. Collaborative arrangements, if relevant: Evidence In this section you should discuss how the partnership with the validating HEI works (if there is one): – whether the course is franchised or our own development – who has responsibility for what (e.g. programme handbook, quality control, external examiner appointment, module resources etc) – what meetings are convened and their frequency between the College and HEI (e.g. Boards of Study, Exam Boards) – whether there is a link tutor 17. Changes to the programmes: Changes proposed from student & staff feedback, EEs, Evidence validating HEI or external changes for example Code of Practice

Discuss any changes you are making to the programme this academic year in the light of the issues discussed and evaluated throughout the PREP, e.g. new modules needed following feedback from Employers, changes to timetable following student feedback etc. 18. Summarise how the programme team was involved in producing this report: Evidence

Programme Tutor Signature: Date: Divisional Leader Signature: Date: Action Plan from 2010-2011 PREP

Programme improvement action plan needs to be a regular item on team meetings. How and how often is ESSENTIAL – please map Clearly identify each All targets must be Specific this action monitored? to the section and Area of Measurable Clearly detail Review with manager strength/ Area of Improvement as Achievable specific actions to Please provide and evaluate progress. Improvement Ref No. stated in the text. Realistic achieve the priority level On a meeting agenda? Timed outcome

Ref Areas for improvement Target outcome Actions with milestones where By Priority By Monitoring No. (what you want to achieve) appropriate whom (H/M/L) when