Page 90 - Teaching Innovation for the 21st Century

88
Teaching Innovation for the 21st Century | Showcasing UJ Teaching and Learning 2021
An external panel (detailed below) provides verification and benchmarking of the programme through a triangulation of the self-evaluation report (SER) and other evidence submitted by the department and programme coordinator, and through engagements with academic and senior administration staff and students. The departmental session or site visit and engagement provides a space in which the academic team can engage directly with the panel and is collegial and engaging in nature. The panel provides input, commentary and/or recommendations on areas in need of further development and confirms the department’s successes. Reports on the programme reviews serve at faculty teaching and learning committees, and at faculty boards, as determined by each faculty. The Centre for Academic Planning and Quality Promotion (CAPQP) reports twice yearly to Senate Teaching and Learning Committee (STLC) on progress made.
All programme review panels are composed of both academic staff from other higher education institutions and relevant industry representatives. In programmes where a graduate recruitment programme is available, a representative from that programme should serve as a panel member. The process of identifying suitable panel members is guided by UJ policy, as well as by the issues raised during the workshops conducted. Faculties confirm the appointment and approval of panel members. In addition to the external panel members, a UJ-trained senior member of staff acts as a facilitator and chair of the departmental sessions and site visit.
Feedback on the new review process
In addition to the questionnaire circulated to attendees of the workshops, and in order to obtain detailed feedback from the programme coordinators whose programme reviews have been completed, a questionnaire of three questions about the new review process was circulated. The questions were:
1. 2.
3.
The new internal review process was customised for preparations for upcoming accreditation visits. What was your overall experience of the new quality review process in this regard? Did it provide useful information and assistance in preparing for or responding to professional body requirements?
What aspects of the review process did you find especially useful/ valuable for enhancement of the quality of your programme(s)?
To what extent, if any, has what you have learnt through the workshops impacted your teaching or assessment?
The third question was directed more at those programmes that are normally accredited by professional bodies but where workshops on curriculum- and quality-related aspects were requested. For example, workshops on writing a reflexive SER, attending a site visit, and devising criterion-referenced responses to professional body recommendations were held. Below is a summary of selected quotes of responses received from these three questions: