Postgraduate Taught Annual Monitoring
and Review report form - 2014-15
School:
Self-explanatory.
Programme(s) reviewed:
Please list each programme covered by this report, including
the relevant programme code for each programme. The
normal expectation is that a board of studies will submit a
single report covering all the programmes for which it is
responsible (unless it is responsible for undergraduate and
taught postgraduate programmes, in which case it should
submit one for each type of provision). Boards of studies
may, however, choose to submit more than one report if
they believe there are good academic reasons for doing so.
Professional accreditation:
If relevant (for many programmes this may not be), please
state briefly any professional accreditations associated with
the programmes under review.
Report submitted by:
This will normally be the Chair of the Board of Studies,
recognising the Board of Studies responsibility for the
programme(s). This does not necessarily mean that the Chair
must the sole author of the document. It is for schools to
determine how they wish to allocate the task of writing the
AMR report.
Section A: Key issues and features highlighted by the review
1. Please provide a brief summary of your progress implementing the action plan from
last year’s AMR report.
The emphasis here is on brief. You do not need to provide a detailed account in relation to
each and every action point from last year's action plan. An exception reporting approach is
entirely appropriate, identifying those action points you have not been able to
address/complete and when and how you intend to address this.
2. What were the key strengths of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last
academic year?
a. What has the review of your programme(s) identifies as its strengths over the last year?
What has gone particularly well during the year under review?
You do not need to write lengthy descriptions of each strength. The strength should be a
complete sentence rather than a few summary words, but strengths are normally no
more than one or two sentences and very rarely should exceed three sentences.
3. What were the weaknesses of the programme(s), identified in the review of the last
academic year?
a. What aspects of your programme(s) has the review identified as having gone less well
AMR Report Form
over the last year, or are reducing the effectiveness of the programme(s) in meeting its
intended aims and learning outcomes? Are there any areas or issues that have been a
weakness for a more prolonged period of time?
You do not need to write lengthy descriptions of each weakness. The weakness should
be a complete sentence rather than a few summary words, but weaknesses are normally
no more than one or two sentences and very rarely should exceed three sentences.
4. What opportunities for improvement and development of the programme(s) were
identified in the review of the last academic year?
a. What opportunities has your review identified to enhance your programme(s) over the
next year and beyond? What are the opportunities to develop the programme(s) so that
it is more effective in meeting its aims and learning outcomes, and providing a high
quality learning experience for students?
You do not need to write lengthy descriptions of each opportunity. The opportunity
should be a complete sentence rather than a few summary words, but opportunities are
normally no more than one or two sentences and very rarely should exceed three
sentences.
5. What threats to the quality and standards of the programme(s) were identified in the
review of the last academic year?
a. Has your review identified any threats to the quality and standards of your
programme(s), and or to the learning experience of your students?
You do not need to write lengthy descriptions of each threat. The threat should be a
complete sentence rather than a few summary words, but threats are normally no more
than one or two sentences and very rarely should exceed three sentences.
Page 2 of 8
Section B: Reporting on key assessment issues
6. Please summarise below the percentage of feedback on summatively assessed course work returned to students within 20 working days,
AND the percentage of feedback on exams returned within the stated policy deadline (for the University policy on this, please see
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ltds/assets/documents/qsh-assmt-assessedwork-policy.pdf ).
Area(s) of provision
This data should cover all
of the programmes
covered by this report. It
is for you to determine
what is the best format for
this: it may be most
appropriate to report this
by programme, by group
of programmes, by subject
area (where a board of
studies covers more than
one discipline) or by
academic unit. How you
do this will depend on
how you collect the data,
and if in light of this it is
most appropriate for you
to report to do this by
academic unit that is fine,
even if it means that there
is some duplication across
multiple AMRs. The key
thing is to be clear in this
Number returned
on time
Examinations
Total number
% returned
on time
Number returned
on time
Coursework
Total number
% returned
on time
AMR Report Form
cell of the table about the
level of aggregation at
which you are reporting
this data.
Where you are reporting
multiple sets of data (e.g.
by programme, by suite of
programme or by subject
area, please create a new
row for each category you
are reporting. To create
an additional row, move
the cursor to the final cell
in this row and press the
Tab key.
Please do not include in
this table data relating to
any exempted
assessments (see
Question 6 below).
7. Please note any assessments that have an approved exemption from the 20 working day turnaround policy, and state when feedback
was received for these pieces of work.
Cases can be made to the relevant Dean for exemptions from the normal 20 working day turnaround requirement. If no such exemptions have
been granted, please just state 'Not applicable' in this box.
8. Please comment on any assessment(s) that exceeded the turnaround time, and note the reasons for the late return.
It is assumed that feedback will be returned to all students at the same time for a given piece of work; if this is not the case, and feedback to
some students was not returned within the deadline, please make this clear. Do not include any assessments exempted from the turnaround
Page 4 of 8
AMR Report Form
deadline in your calculations.
Comment on any assessment(s) that exceeded the turnaround deadline and note the reason(s) for late return.
9. Please summarise below the use of discretion by boards of examiners in respect of the programmes covered by this report.
Classification
Programme(s)
Each programme covered
by the report should have
a separate row in the
table, although it may be
that in some cases (for
example an integrated
suite of a number of
programmes) it may be
appropriate to group the
data for more than one
programme in a single row.
To create an additional
row, move the cursor to
the final cell in this row
and press the Tab key.
Pass (with Merit) to
Pass to Pass (with
Fail to Pass
Pass (with Distinction)
Merit)
Considered Promoted Considered Promoted Considered Promoted
Progression
Considered
Applied
10. Please comment on the use of discretion for the programme(s) under review (including the use of PECs), and note any issues arising from
this.
Please comment on the way that discretion has been used, in relation to both PECs and the use of discretion for other reasons. This does not
need to be a blow-by-blow account of each case, but should instead be a summary of key issues and features.
Page 5 of 8
Section C: Reporting on educational partnerships (if relevant)
11. If any programme(s) reviewed is delivered through an educational partnership,
please comment on the operation of this partnership during the year under
review.
If this does not apply to your programme(s), simply type 'Not applicable'.
If your programme is delivered through an educational partnership, please consider
and comment on the following key issues:

How the relationship with the partner has gone – highlight any particular areas
which have gone well and could be shared with other similar provision or any areas
where difficulties have been encountered

How has the programme been marketed; have there been any issues in relation to
this?

How do students on an educational partnerships programme or entering through
an EP arrangements, such as APL or articulation arrangement perform academically
in comparison to other groups of students?

How has the Newcastle student experience been delivered? Highlight any areas
where this has been difficult to address?
Your comments should focus on the key elements relating to these issues; there is no
need to provide a detailed narrative in relation to them. Typically responses to this
question might be two to three paragraphs in length; normally the full response would
not exceed one side at most.
Section D: Reporting on the operation of key quality management processes
12. Please state the date(s) on which each of the following was considered by the board of
studies:
a. Review of admissions and recruitment cycle:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
b. Review of modules (including consideration of
module evaluation questionnaire data, and
assessment results):
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
c. Review of student progression data:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
d. Review of degree classification outcomes
(including the use of discretion):
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
e. Review of PEC Committee’s summary of actions
taken throughout the previous year:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
AMR Report Form
f. Where offered within the programme(s), review
of operation of placements and/or study abroad:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
g. Review of Postgraduate Taught Experience
Survey results:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
h. Review of graduate destinations data from the
Destination of Leavers from Higher Education
survey:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
i.
Consideration of external examiner reports, at a
meeting at which students are present:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
j.
Review and where necessary revision of
programme specifications:
Please give the date of the meeting,
and the relevant minute number,
e.g. 15 Nov. 2014, Minute 5.
13. Please confirm that the ‘Responsibilities of the School’ set out in the
University’s Postgraduates who teach policy have been met for postgraduates
who have taught on the programmes covered by this review:
Yes/
No.
14. Please describe briefly the approach you have taken to meeting the University’s Peer
Dialogue for Teaching policy during the academic year under review, and state the
number and percentage of teaching active staff who undertook Peer Dialogue in the
year under review.
This question is not asking for a lengthy answer on either the conduct or outcomes of your
operation of peer dialogue. Rather, you need to give a short (no more than two to three
sentences) description of your overall approach, followed by a brief statement of the
proportion of teaching active staff (i.e. not including staff whose role solely relates to
research) that have undertaken a peer dialogue interactions in the year under review; it
does not need to be a lengthy description of the process.
Page 7 of 8
AMR Report Form
Section E: Action Plan
Action
Source of issue
By whom
By when
a. Action points should link back to the issues identified earlier
in the report: for example how you intend to build on a
strength, address a weakness, take an opportunity or address
a threat. Action points should short and focused: for
example 'To review the balance of assessment at Stage 2 and
make proposals based on the review outcome'.
Please put each action point in a new row in this table. To
create an additional row, move the cursor to the final cell in
this row and press the Tab key.
This just needs to be a short
statement (for example: 'PTES
results; SSC minutes'; 'module
reviews; degree classification
data'), not a detailed or lengthy
exposition.
State clearly which
person or people are
responsible for
carrying out action
point.
State the
date by
which it is
intended
that the
action should
be
completed.
Approved by University Learning, Teaching, and Student Experience Committee, June 2015. Last modified June
2015.
This document is primarily intended for:
Chairs of Boards of Studies
Degree Programme Directors
Course Representatives
Contact:
ltds@ncl.ac.uk , ext. 88491
Page 8 of 8