• The Module Enhancement Project was part of a larger, university-wide set of initiatives, focused on educational quality enhancement in 2008-09.
• Academic peer review of educational design and delivery is vital in developing and maintaining quality educational teaching standards and high levels of students learning. 
• The Module Enhancement Project was designed as a proactive means of establishing and maintaining quality standards internally, working from a baseline of key educational performance indicators.

• To enhance the educational quality of modules in 17 participating schools, involving over 5,000 students
• To design an effective standardised quality enhancement process

- for use at module level
- capable of covering a large number of modules, (874 modules)
- using an academic peer-review approach

• To fully evaluate the effectiveness of the quality enhancement process for further implementation throughout the university.

Module Enhancement Process

1. All 17 schools were provided with a portfolio of statistical data and descriptors for their modules.

2. Each school held a meeting and reviewed the information portfolio augmented by feedback from students and external examiner’s reports to identify modules that were working well and those which could benefit from modification.

3. Schools were asked to recommend action where appropriate:
a.Reviewing module descriptors in light of the specially prepared guides
b.Using the data to spot atypical patterns for further investigation

4. Revised modules were reviewed at school level and each head of school completed a report and submitted it to the Module Enhancement Team.

5. A separate meeting was then held with each Head of School and the Module Enhancement Team.

6. Three guides were specially prepared to support schools:
a.Module Enhancement Guide
b.Guide to Taxonomies of Learning Outcomes
c.Assessment Types

• 874 modules were reviewed: see the summary of Heads of Schools’ Reports for details.
• Most schools agreed that the school meetings were successful in generating discussion.
• There was significant variation in numbers of students registered to individual modules across both colleges.
• Most first year modules in schools or subject areas tended to be around the same size and use similar teaching approaches, predominantly large group lectures.
• There was some correlation between high failure rates and large-group-only lecture approaches that is currently under review.
• Bloom’s Taxonomy was used more frequently than other taxonomies in learning outcomes.
• On the whole there was a tendency towards over-assessment.
• There was evidence of very many high-quality module descriptors where module coordinators clearly assessed and revised their descriptors on a regular basis.

For a more detailed report on the project, read the Module Enhancement Report

• The quality enhancement process will be rolled out to other schools in the university.
• A form of module enhancement review will be built in on an annual basis.
• Further development of IT Systems to more easily facilitate the efficient gathering of feedback and production of module enhancement reports on performance indicators will be carried out.