PR 1
OPERATIONAL GUIDE TO PERIODIC REVIEW
This document provides a step-by-step guide to the process for all those involved in
Periodic Review. In addition to this Guide, as part of the preparation for a School’s
Periodic Review, briefing sessions will be held with School representatives and Review
Team members prior to their initial meeting. Support on the operation of the Review will
also be available throughout via the Secretary of the Review Team.
1.
INTRODUCTION
Periodic Review is the process by which Schools undertake a broad review of all their
programmes, evaluate their strategic direction and reflect upon the experiences of their
students. It takes place every five years and is an opportunity for broad thinking about the
student experience as well as a point at which Schools, in the context of College plans,
review the continuing standards, validity and relevance of their programmes. Supported by
a Review Team and with input from students, staff and external peers, Periodic Review
captures a moment-in-time image of a School and is also an enabling process which will
help Schools develop their provision and set their direction for the future.
The key characteristics of Periodic Review are that it is:





Genuinely strategic in its focus and action planning for the future, and linked to the
implementation of The Way Forward 2012-17 – Education and Students;
Evidence-based and founded on an analysis of a portfolio of information;
Proportionate and tailored to individual Schools according to themes emerging from
the portfolio of evidence, the particular areas of focus and ambitions of the School,
and the context of other related review activities such as accreditation exercises
with Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies. Particular areas of focus for
Periodic Review are negotiated in the light of these factors;
Streamlined in its alignment with Annual Review and Enhancement (ARE) and its
incorporation of previously separate processes such as the review of postgraduate
research programmes and the Quality Progress Review;
Undertaken in full partnership with students, with an emphasis on the student
experience, and with the full participation of students as members of the Review
Team, providers of data and feedback, and contributors to the review activities in
the School.
These principles inform the Review as it proceeds through three main phases. These
phases are based around meetings with members of the Review Team and culminate in
the submission of a report to Academic Standards and Quality Committee (ASQC). Briefly,
these phases are:
1. Review Team meets with staff and students in the School to agree the agenda for
the Review (December/January);
2. Interim Review Team visit to the School to discuss progress (April/May);
3. School submits a Self-Evaluation Report, draft Action Plan, and Critical Friend
Report (June – July) prior to a final Review Team visit (July – August).
Page 1 of 8
2.
THE REVIEW TEAM
Role & Composition
The Review Team plays a key role in the operation of Periodic Review. The Review Team
will lead Schools through the process, meet with staff and students in the School, discuss
areas of focus, support the School’s review and enhancement activities and, finally, make
recommendations on the basis of its evaluation of the outcomes of the Review. In this, the
Review Team can be seen to have both a facilitative and judgmental role in Periodic
Review.
The Review Team comprises:
-
The College Dean for Education and Students (Chair);
Two Directors of Teaching or Directors of Postgraduate Research Students from
other Schools within the College (may include past Directors where necessary);
An ASQC member from another College (may include past members where
necessary);
Student members drawn from other Schools within the College;
A member external to the University;
A Secretary from Registry.
Nomination of the External Member
The external member of the Review Team is nominated by the College Dean for Education
and Students in consultation with the School, and approved by ASQC. The External
member is expected to be of senior lecturer level or a professional of equivalent level of
expertise and seniority. It is expected that they will be experienced in quality assurance
processes.
Nomination of the Student Member(s)
There may be up to three student members according to the balance of undergraduate,
postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision within the School. Student
members will be identified in consultation with the Vice President (Education) from the
Students’ Union, drawing on the network of Student Representatives in the first instance.
3.
PREPARATION
Completion of Annual Review and Enhancement
The completion of ARE is an important preliminary stage of Periodic Review. It allows for
the most recent feedback and evidence to be analysed, and this analysis will directly
inform the agenda-setting discussions with the Review Team. In this way, the completion
of ARE by January begins the narrative which leads to the broader, longitudinal analysis
subsequently undertaken by the School.
Page 2 of 8
Production of the Quality Information Portfolio
A portfolio of readily available information will be assembled by Registry, in partnership
with Planning, before the commencement of the Periodic Review, and provided to both the
Review Team and the School. The primary purpose of the portfolio is to give the Review
Team a portrait of the School and a basis for the discussion of areas of focus. It will also
help ensure that appropriate links are made between Periodic Review and other
monitoring and feedback processes. The portfolio will consist of:
1. The dashboard of data collated for ARE (including student demographic data,
student survey results, graduate destinations);
2. A list of programmes from SIMS (including collaborative provision);
3. Summaries of issues and noteworthy practice from: recent ARE submissions,
external examiner reports and PSRB accreditations;
4. Minutes of recent Student-Staff panels;
5. Relevant additional data relating to the key performance indicators of The Way
Forward.
Depending on the source, as a starting point, information will be at School-level.
Information at a greater degree of granularity (for example, at discipline or programme
level) may be requested if necessary.
Briefing on the Process of Periodic Review
Registry will brief key contacts in Schools and members of the Review Team prior to the
commencement of Periodic Review to help ensure that the process is understood.
4.
PART ONE: AGREEING THE AGENDA
Initial Review Team Visit to School
Members of the Review Team will visit the School after the completion of ARE to meet with
staff and students. The purpose of the visit is to:
-
Agree the particular areas of focus or themes that the School will address in the
Review;
Consider the Quality Information Portfolio in the light of the University’s headline
KPIs and strategy;
Identify any additional evidence required;
Explore how any duplication of effort can be avoided if the School has recently
completed, or is about to undertake, an extensive review process such as an
accreditation exercise for a professional body;
Hold peer-to-peer discussions on the student experience with students from the
School, led by the student members of the Review Team;
Signpost relevant sources of support and expertise across the University;
Establish a draft project plan on how the areas of focus will be managed in
accordance with the timetable for Periodic Review.
It is expected that current strategic priorities will be identified as areas of focus.
Page 3 of 8
The Review Team will produce a brief summary of the discussions and identified areas of
focus within two weeks of the meeting, and the School will be asked to produce a draft
project plan within two weeks of receipt of the summary of discussions. These documents
will be circulated and agreed by correspondence.
Nomination of Critical Friend
Schools are asked to work with an external consultant for developmental advice and a
comparative perspective. Critical Friends may be academics from other higher education
institutions or relevant professions, and may have a broad or specific remit (for example,
providing an insight into graduate employability).
Critical Friends are funded and appointed by the University to provide external input on
Periodic Review or specific aspects of the Review. They are nominated by the School,
approved by the College Dean for Education and Students, and report to the School.
Funding will normally be available for four days of Critical Friend involvement. The precise
involvement of the Critical Friend in Periodic Review is determined by the School in
consultation with the Review Team, but will normally include a visit to the School, and
might take the form of:
-
Consideration of relevant documentation in conjunction with the School;
Attendance at meetings with staff and provision of advice;
Discussions with students;
Meeting with the College Dean for Education and Students.
The Critical Friend is required to provide the School with a brief report summarising their
main recommendations and comments on the process. (There is no template for this
report, as the areas covered by Critical Friends will vary.)
Involvement of Students in Schools’ Review Activities
It is the expectation that Schools will undertake Periodic Review in full partnership with
students. The nature of the student involvement will be determined by the School, but may
include the following activities:
-
5.
Discussion of Periodic Review issues at Student-Staff Panels;
Membership of Periodic Review working groups;
Meeting with the Critical Friend;
Focus groups on Periodic Review issues;
Consideration of module evaluation outcomes.
PART TWO: THE REVIEW
School Undertakes Review
The School has ownership of the operation of the Review and the responsibility for fulfilling
the agenda and implementing the project plan agreed in Part One. It is usually possible for
Page 4 of 8
the oversight and implementation of the process to be managed by existing School
structures, but there is considerable flexibility in terms of the convening of working groups
or reviews of specific thematic areas.
Review of Programmes: Range and Extent
Periodic Review covers all award and credit-bearing provision across undergraduate,
postgraduate taught and postgraduate research programmes. The range and extent of
provision to be included in the review will be discussed at the briefing meeting with the
School, but the following points should be noted:
Joint Honours Programmes
Joint Honours programmes should be looked at as a whole, with an examination of overall
leadership and the totality of the student experience. The School should reflect with
partner Schools on the rationale and value of its Joint Honours programmes, and review
the interface between joint honours partners, including in relation to individual student
cases, and the consistency of student experience and provision of materials. Schools
should specifically address this area in the Self-Evaluation Report.
Collaborative Provision/Provision Delivered with External Partners
Collaborative provision will be included in Periodic Review, with the external partner(s)
involved as an integral part of the process. The nature of the involvement will be agreed
between the School and the Review Team. The Review Team will also discuss with the
School whether it would be appropriate to allocate a separate Critical Friend to each
collaborative programme. The School should specifically address this area in the SelfEvaluation Report, and offer assurances regarding the collaborative arrangements.
Approval of Changes
Schools may use Periodic Review as an opportunity to undertake the School-level
approval stage for any proposals for changes to programmes or new programmes.
Changes or new programme proposals requiring University-level approval will need to be
progressed further through the Programme Approval Process. It should be noted that
Schools will need to adhere to existing operational timescales and notification methods for
progressing any changes or new programmes arising from Periodic Review.
Project Plan Update Meeting
The College Dean for Education and Students will meet informally with the Periodic
Review lead in the School within approximately one month of the production of the project
plan. The purpose of this meeting is to:
-
Explore how the Periodic Review is being developed in the School;
Discuss the structures and mechanisms being used to facilitate the Review;
Discuss how meaningful School-wide engagement in the Review is being achieved;
Discuss how students, relevant stakeholders and the Critical Friend are being
involved appropriately in the Review.
Page 5 of 8
Interim Review Team Visit to School
The Review Team will meet with School representatives at a mid-point in the Periodic
Review process. The Chair of the Review Team will decide on the format of the visit and
whether it is necessary for all members of the Review Team to be present, but it may not
be necessary for the external member to attend at this stage. The aim of the meeting is to:
-
Discuss progress against the areas of focus agreed in Part One of the Review;
Provide assurances that the School is engaging fully in the review process;
Ensure that the appropriate evidence is being gathered;
Establish requirements for any further support at a School, College or University
level which will aid the successful completion of the Review.
The Review Team will produce a brief summary of the discussions within two weeks of the
meeting.
Review of Published Information
In the course of the review year, Registry will provide a review of the information in the
School that is published to students and other stakeholders. This is an important exercise
given that Institutional Review involves a judgement of the quality of public information
(QAA UK Quality Code for Higher Education Part C: Information about higher education
provision), and in the light of the Competitions & Marketing Authority (CMA) requirements.
This strand of review activity essentially asks the question: is the information that Schools
provide about their provision fit for purpose, accessible and trustworthy? A short report will
provide feedback, according to QAA criteria, on School websites, student handbooks, and
programme information held on SIMS and published on Course Finder, and this will feed
into the Review Team’s Interim Visit to the School.
6.
PART THREE: OUTCOMES AND JUDGMENTS
Outcomes
At the end of the review period the School will submit the following documentation for the
Review Team to consider:
-
A Self-Evaluation Report which provides an evidenced account of the review activity
(produced by the School). Staff from Registry will be available to support the
production of the SER;
A draft Action Plan (produced by the School);
Critical Friend Report(s) (completed by the Critical Friend).
Final Review Team Visit to School
The Review Team will meet with School representatives to consider the outcomes, how
the issues and themes identified in the initial meeting have been addressed, and what
actions should be taken forward.
Judgements
The Review Team is asked to confirm that:
Page 6 of 8
-
A satisfactory review has taken place;
The School has addressed, or has plans in place to address, the areas of focus
identified at the initial Periodic Review visit, consistent with ‘The Way Forward 201217 – Education and Students’;
The University can be confident about the outcomes of Periodic Review in relation
to the continuing currency and validity of the School’s awards;
The University can be confident about the outcomes of Periodic Review in relation
to the protection of the standards of the School’s awards and the quality of the
provision.
Review Team Report
A report will be produced by the Review Team within 4 weeks of the final School visit. The
Review Team will make judgements on the confidence that can be placed in the School’s
provision, highlight any concerns, and make recommendations for amendments and/or
additions to the School’s draft Action Plan. The report will be sent to the School for a
factual check, and the School may be asked to agree and produce a revised Action Plan,
in consultation with the College Dean for Education and Students.
Following Completion of Periodic Review
The confirmed Report will then be submitted to ASQC, and ASQC will send a copy to the
Pro Vice-Chancellor for the College and the College Registrar for information. An
oversight of the findings and Action Plan will be maintained via subsequent ARE exercises
and, if necessary, by means of a brief meeting with the College Dean for Education and
Students.
The subsequent Annual Review and Enhancement Process
As Periodic Review comes to an end, Schools will be approaching another ARE
submission deadline, and the College Dean for Education and Students will work with
Schools to ensure that an appropriate approach is taken to this ARE submission.
Typically, this will involve Schools completing the ARE2 template as normal, but drawing
upon and cross referencing (but not duplicating) work already carried out as part of
Periodic Review, where relevant.
7.
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
A range of supplementary guidance notes and templates is available offering greater detail
on specific aspects of Periodic Review, e.g. on the appointment of the External Review
Team Member and Critical Friend (these are available at:
http://learning.cf.ac.uk/quality/review/periodic-review/). The Review Team Secretary will
guide all those involved through these resources in the course of the Review.
Page 7 of 8
School briefings
Assembling Review Team
Production of portfolios
Completion of annual review
Agreeing the Agenda visit
Review period
Project Plan meeting
Review of published information
Interim Review Team meeting
School submission date
Final Review Team visit
Confirmation of action plan (ARE)
PR Report Submitted to ASQC
As at 14 September 2015
R:\Processes\Periodic Review & Revalidation\Periodic Review 2013-18\Templates & Guides\PR1 Guidance on Operation of PR.docx
Page 8 of 8
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
INDICATIVE TIMESCALE
Jul
8.