Implementing a standardised annual programme review process in a third-level institution
| Published date | 03 July 2017 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2015-0021 |
| Date | 03 July 2017 |
| Pages | 362-374 |
| Author | Sheelagh Wickham,Malcolm Brady,Sarah Ingle,Caroline McMullan,Mairéad Nic Giolla Mhichíl,Ray Walshe |
| Subject Matter | Education,Curriculum, instruction & assessment,Educational evaluation/assessment |
Implementing a
standardised annual programme
review process in a
third-level institution
Sheelagh Wickham
Faculty of Science and Health, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Malcolm Brady
DCUBS, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Sarah Ingle
Quality Promotion Ofce, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Caroline McMullan
DCUBS, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland
Mairéad Nic Giolla Mhichíl
Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Dublin City University,
Dublin, Ireland, and
Ray Walshe
Faculty of Engineering and Computing, Dublin City University,
Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose –Ideally, quality should be, and is, an integral element of education, yet capturing and articulating
quality is not simple. Programme quality reviews in third-level education can demonstrate quality and
identify areas for improvement, offering many potential benets. However, details on the process of quality
programme review are limited in the literature. This study aims to report on the introduction of a standardised
programme review process in one university.
Design/methodology/approach –Using a standardised template, the annual programme review (APR)
process captured student voice, external examiner reports, statistical data and action/s since the previous
review. Following completion of programme reviews across the university, the APR process was itself
evaluated using questionnaires and focus groups.
Findings –Findings showed that the programme chairs understood the rationale for the review, welcomed
the standardised format and felt the information could inform future programme planning. However, in the
focus group, issues arose about the timing, ownership and possible alternate use of the data collected in the
course of the review.
Research limitations/implications –This case study demonstrates the experience of APR in a single
third-level institution, therefore, limiting generalisability.
Practical implications –APR offers a comprehensive record of the programme that can be carried out
with efcacy and efciency. The study illustrates one institution’s experience, and this may assist others in
using similar quality evaluation tools. Using APR allows quality to be measured, articulated and improved.
Social implications –Using APR allows quality, or its lack to be to be measured, articulated and
improved in the delivery of education at a third-level institution.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
QAE
25,3
362
Received 7 May 2015
Revised 2 July 2015
19 October 2016
Accepted 10 May 2017
QualityAssurance in Education
Vol.25 No. 3, 2017
pp.362-374
©Emerald Publishing Limited
0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/QAE-05-2015-0021
To continue reading
Request your trial