Who's Included in ITLR 2023
Jump to:
Professional Services Clusters
Review Panel Composition and Responsibilities
Departmental and Cluster Leads and Responsibilities
Academic Departments in Scope
In total, there will be 33 academic department reviews, with all levels of higher education provision covered - including undergraduate, apprentices, and postgraduate taught, postgraduate research. Joint degree programmes and relevant research centres may also be in scope and will be confirmed as part of the Terms of Reference meetings. A full list of currently identified research centres can be found in the Blueprint. Additionally, collaborative provisions - provisions delivered by Warwick staff with a partner institution/partner - will be in scope. The following departments are in scope for ITLR, which was agreed by Education Committee, the Registrar and the Student Success Programme Board.
* Indicates department with research centres that will be in scope. Confirmation and finalisation of full list of research centres in scope will be produced with the Terms of Reference.
Faculty of Arts
| Department | UG | PGT | PGR | DAs | Collabs |
| Centre for the study of the Renaissance* | N | Y | Y | N | N |
| Classics and Ancient History | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| SCAPVC | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| School for Cross-faculty Studies* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| English and Comparative Literary Studies* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| History* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| School of Modern Languages and Cultures* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
Faculty of SEM
| Department |
UG |
PGT |
PGR |
DAs |
Collabs |
| Chemistry* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Computer Science* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Engineering* | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| School of Life Sciences* | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Mathematics Institute* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Physics* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Psychology | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Statistics* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Warwick Medical School* | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Warwick Manufacturing Group | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
Faculty of Social Sciences
| Department | UG | PGT | PGR | DAs | Collabs |
| Applied Linguistics | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Economics | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Education Studies* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Institute for Employment Research | N | N | Y | N | N |
| Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies* | N | Y | Y | N | N |
| School of Law | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Centre for Lifelong Learning | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y |
| Philosophy* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Politics and International Studies* | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Sociology* | Y | Y | Y | N | N |
| Centre for Teacher Education | N | Y | N | N | Y |
| Warwick Business School | Y | Y | Y | N | Y |
| Warwick Foundation Studies | N | N | N | N | N |
Cross-Institutional
| Department | UG | PGT | PGR | DAs | Collabs |
| Academic Development Centre | N | Y | N | N | N |
| Institute for Advanced Teaching and Learning | Y | Y | N | N | N |
| Warwick International Higher Education Academy | N | N | N | N | N |
Though the Academic Development Centre (ADC), the Institute of Advanced Teaching & Learning (IATL) and the Warwick International Higher Education Academy (WIHEA) will be reviewed as academic departments, we anticipate delivering a custom review method that recognises their institutional service role in support of teaching, learning and student success. We will work with these departments to devise a method that is proportional.
Professional Services Clusters
We're taking a different approach to professional services reviews this year by defining reviews around aspects of student and staff experience, rather than our organisational structures. As such, we have clustered our professional services teams together into six reviews that combine focus on individual teams with a larger focus on a collaborative, holistic evaluation of how they collectively enable high-quality education, experiences, and support.
Cluster |
Focus |
Teams in Scope |
Student Transitions, Community and Wellbeing |
Fostering belonging and confidence for our diverse communities of students before and throughout their time at Warwick. |
|
Learning Beyond Boundaries |
Maximising the engagement with and impact of diverse opportunities for applying learning and developing rounded, successful students. |
|
Seamless Physical and Digital Learning Environments |
The seamless blend of physical and digital learning environments, resources, and infrastructure. |
|
A Culture of Education Leadership and Innovation |
Enabling staff and students to drive change and embed excellence in education across disciplinary boundaries. |
Working with:
|
A Strong Administrative Foundation for Student Success |
Building consistency, efficiency, and effectiveness in administering the student lifecycle. |
|
Enabling Postgraduate Researchers to Thrive |
Supporting an inclusive and interdisciplinary culture for our postgraduate researchers. |
|
Review Panels
EPQ will appoint your review panel, which will be tailored to the context of the department/cluster and the bespoke theme/cluster theme agreed in the Terms of Reference. The review panel composition is listed below, but you'll also have a secretary and assistant secretary to facilitate meetings and agenda planning, along with a review sponsor, which will be a senior university leader with experience of quality review activities and sign off on the practicalities of your review.
Role descriptions are available here.
Role Responsibilities - Academic Departments and Professional Services
Academic Department:
A senior academic from outside the department under review with experience of sitting on a university or faculty level committee with a quality assurance or student experience function or experience of a quality leadership role or quality methodology from within or outside of the University.
The Academic Panel Chair will be responsible for:
1. reviewing and developing a strong working knowledge of the ITLR guidance, the departmental SED, evidence and data relating to the department(s) under review for which they are responsible;
2. being clear on the overall aims and objectives of the ITLR and ensuring that the review panel delivers on these aims and objectives to enable the University to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student academic experience;
3. attending mandatory training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
4. working proactively with the panel secretariat, reviewers and EPQ/Review Sponsor to plan the approach to be taken by the panel to the review of the relevant department(s);
5. attending meetings with the relevant department(s) under review such as the pre-review visit meeting to understand the departmental context;
6. giving clear direction on the review findings, draft report and approving review outcomes including required actions and best practice;
7. ensuring all meetings with staff, students or other relevant stakeholders, and meetings held between panel members, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
8. ensuring that all panel members and secretariat are reminded of the confidential nature of the data and information made available to them during the review process and of the need to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided;
9. providing proactive support or guidance in exceptional circumstances where other responsibilities may be necessary. Such requests will be with your agreement with EPQ, the Review Sponsor or the Education Executive.
Professional Services:
A senior professional service member from outside of the teams in scope of the cluster under review, with recent* experience of sitting on a university or faculty or senior professional service level committee and with experience of a quality assurance or high quality customer service function or experience of a quality leadership role or methodology from within or outside of the University. [*Within the last 5 years.]
The Professional Cluster Panel Chair will be responsible for:
1. reviewing and developing a strong working knowledge of the ITLR guidance, the cluster SED, evidence and data (where available) relating to the PSS teams under review for which they are responsible; 2. being clear on the overall aims and objectives of the ITLR and ensuring that the review panel delivers on these aims and objectives to enable the University to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student experience;
3. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
4. working proactively with the panel secretariat, reviewers and EPQ/Review Sponsor to plan the approach to be taken by the panel to the review of the relevant department(s);
5. attending meetings with the relevant cluster under review such as the pre-review visit meeting to understand the cluster’s context;
6. giving clear direction on the review findings, draft report and approving review outcomes including required actions and best practice;
7. ensuring all meetings with staff, students or other relevant stakeholders, and meetings held between panel members, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
8. ensuring that all panel members and secretariat are reminded of the confidential nature of the data and information made available to them during the review process and of the need to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided;
9. providing proactive support or guidance in exceptional circumstances where other responsibilities may be necessary. Such requests will be with your agreement with EPQ, the Review Sponsor or the Education Executive.
Academic Department:
An academic UoW peer from outside the department under review with experience of sitting on a university or faculty or departmental level committee with a quality assurance or student experience function or experience of a quality review role or methodology within or without the University.
The Peer Review Member will be responsible for:
1. acting as a representative of a wider University on the review panel working proactively with the review panel and secretariat in their roles to deliver ITLR;
2. contributing your university, faculty or departmental-based insight to the work of the review panel to facilitate a constructive and supportive experience,
3. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance, its aims and objectives, and requirements to enable the University to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student academic experience;
4. reviewing the department SED, its evidence and data in preparation for review meetings and visits so as to effectively support the review process;
5. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
6. ensuring all meetings with staff and students and meetings held between the panel, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
7. identifying good practice within the department under review;
8. identify practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made, including where required agreement with the Panel on any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
9. contributing to the production of the review panel report, taking responsibility for the drafting of assigned areas, responding promptly to requests for feedback, and agreeing on a final draft ahead of departmental review and comments on factual accuracy;
10. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
Professional Services:
A UoW professional service peer from outside of the teams in scope of the cluster under review, with experience of sitting on a university or faculty or departmental or senior service area committee and preferably with senior level experience of a quality assurance or review methodology or providing a high quality customer service from within or outside of the University.
The Peer Review Member will be responsible for:
1. acting as a representative of a wider University on the review panel and to contribute their professional service-based insight to the work of the review panel to facilitate a constructive and supportive experience, working proactively with the review panel and secretariat in their roles to deliver ITLR;
2. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance, its aims and objectives, and requirements to enable the university to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student experience;
3. reviewing the cluster SED, its evidence and data (where available) in preparation for review meetings and visits so as to effectively support the review process;
4. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
5. ensuring all meetings with staff, students or other relevant stakeholders, and meetings held between peer reviewers, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
6. identifying good practice within the cluster under review;
7. identify practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made, including where required agreement with the Panel on any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
8. contributing to the production of the review panel report, taking responsibility for the drafting of assigned areas, responding promptly to requests for feedback, and agreeing on a final draft ahead of the cluster review and comments on factual accuracy;
9. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
Academic Department:
A registered student member not studying within the department.
The student member will be responsible for:
1. acting as a representative of a wider student body on the review panel;
2. contributing student perspective and insight of the University to the work of the review panel;
3. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance;
4. reviewing the department SED, its evidence and data in preparation for review meetings, with a particular focus on student-driven data (e.g. survey results, if applicable);
5. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
6. ensuring all meetings are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
7. identifying good practice within the department under review;
8. identifying practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made,
9. identifying, where required and with the Panel, any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
10. contributing to the production of the review panel report;
11. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
Professional Services:
A registered student member not employed by any Professional Services team within the cluster.
The student member will be responsible for:
1. acting as a representative of a wider student body on the review panel;
2. contributing student perspective and insight of the University to the work of the review panel;
3. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance;
4. reviewing the cluster SED, its evidence and data in preparation for review meetings, with a particular focus on student-driven data (e.g. survey results, if applicable);
5. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
6. ensuring all meetings are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
7. identifying good practice within the department under review;
8. identifying practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made,
9. identifying, where required and with the Panel, any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
10. contributing to the production of the review panel report;
11. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
Academic Department:
A senior academic from outside the University, who has expert knowledge in the subject area of the department. The external panel review member should not have a conflict of interest with the department under review.
The External Panel Review Member will have the same responsibilities as a peer reviewer where relevant and as follows:
1. working proactively with the review panel and secretariat in their roles to deliver ITLR;
2. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance, its aims and objectives, and requirements to enable the University to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student academic experience;
3. reviewing the department SED, its evidence and data in preparation for review meetings and visits so as to effectively support the review process;
4. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
5. ensuring all meetings with staff and students and meetings held between the panel, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
6. identifying good practice within the department under review;
7. identify practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made, including where required agreement with the Panel on any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
8. contributing to the production of the review panel report, taking responsibility for the drafting of assigned areas, responding promptly to requests for feedback, and agreeing on a final draft ahead of departmental review and comments on factual accuracy;
9. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
In addition they will also be responsible for:
10. contributing subject expertise to the review panel, noting that internal peer review members will not be drawn from the discipline under review;
11. offering insights, where appropriate, into the modus operandi of relevant Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies to assure continued quality and academic standards;
12. contributing an external perspective to the conduct of the review, facilitating the benchmarking of policy, practice and expectations against that of a comparator HEI where relevant so that the University may continually enhance its academic quality framework;
13. submitting a claim for fees and expenses in line with advice provided by the University in a timely fashion and to work with EPQ to facilitate a smooth scheduling of review arrangements through the timely response to requests for information, dates and dietary and access requirements.
The second external expert would be by agreement with EPQ and the Review Sponsor.
They will be external expert from outside of the University who has expertise in pedagogy, quality enhancement or the bespoke theme identified by the Department. The external panel review member should not have a conflict of interest with the department under review. The second External Panel Review Member will have the same responsibilities as the first External Panel Review Member, with the exception that for responsibility number 10, they will contribute particular focus on the area of expertise for which they have been appointed.
An external expert from outside of the University, who has expert knowledge in the thematic focus of the cluster. The external panel review member should not have a conflict of interest with the cluster under review.
The External Panel Review Member will have the same responsibilities as a peer reviewer where relevant and as follows:
1. working proactively with the review panel and secretariat in their roles to deliver ITLR;
2. reviewing and understanding the ITLR guidance, its aims and objectives, and requirements to enable the University to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student experience;
3. reviewing the cluster SED, its evidence and data (where available) in preparation for review meetings and visits so as to effectively support the review process;
4. attending training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
5. ensuring all meetings with staff, students or other relevant stakeholders, and meetings held between peer reviewers, are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
6. identifying good practice within the cluster under review;
7. identify practice that could be improved and provide constructive suggestions on how changes can be made, including where required agreement with the Panel on any required actions that pose serious risk to academic standards or quality;
8. contributing to the production of the review panel report, taking responsibility for the drafting of assigned areas, responding promptly to requests for feedback, and agreeing on a final draft ahead of the cluster review and comments on factual accuracy;
9. observing the confidential nature of the data and information made available during the review and to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided.
In addition they will be responsible for:
10. contributing expertise to the review panel, noting that internal peer review members will not be drawn from the discipline under review;
11. contributing an external perspective to the conduct of the review, facilitating the benchmarking of policy, practice and expectations against that of a comparator HEI where relevant so that the University may continually enhance its academic quality framework and student experience;
12. submitting a claim for fees and expenses in line with advice provided by the University in a timely fashion and to work with EPQ to facilitate a smooth scheduling of review arrangements through the timely response to requests for information, dates and dietary and access requirements.
Academic Department:
NOTE: The Secretariat for each ITLR Review will comprise an experienced Secretary and a supporting Assistant Secretary. The precise division of work will be for the Secretariat to determine; the Secretary will be the lead secretariat responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the review.
Secretary
Responsible for ensuring the smooth running of their allocated review, working closely with the Assistant Secretary, key departmental or cluster contacts, the Review Panel (especially the Chair) and the ITLR Project Team. They will predominantly manage the overall review ensuring clarity on arrangements and expectations of the Secretariat, drafting of the review report, and responding to complex or escalated concerns with the review panel chair and the ITLR Project Team.
Assistant Secretary
Responsible for working with the Secretary, the Review Chair and Panel, and the ITLR Project Board, to ensure the smooth operational running of their allocated review, finalising schedules and meeting arrangements and preparing agendas, notes of meetings and any Review Panel requests. The Assistant Secretary will predominantly manage the administrative tasks, scheduling and minuting.
The Secretariat will be responsible for:
1. being clear on the overall aims and objectives of the ITLR and working with the review panel chair to ensure that the review panel is able to deliver on these aims and objectives to enable the university to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student academic experience;
2. being a focal point for liaison with panel members and the department(s)/clusters(s) under review from the time of their appointment, ensuring all parties are aware of the ITLR requirements.
3. ensuring the smooth administrative oversight of the review process and panel meetings, working with the ITLR Project Team to ensure manage review right to work checks, scheduling and expenses, and the departmental or cluster contacts to facilitate the review meeting schedule, any requests for clarification or evidence and to answer or facilitate responses to departmental or cluster questions/enquiries;
4. working with the ITLR Project Team, the departmental or cluster contacts and review panel chair to ensure all documentation and evidence is available to the Review Panel in accordance with the schedule;
5. attending mandatory training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
6. attending meetings with the relevant department(s) under review such as the pre-review visit meeting to understand the departmental context;
7. ensuring meetings are minuted and that action points are collated to inform any documentary requests or meeting discussions and the final review report;
8. drafting a short interim findings report from the first review visit within one week or the review visit with the review panel chair and circulating this to the review panel and department or cluster after the visit;
9. working with the review panel to oversee the production of the draft review report within four weeks of the last review visit and ensuring responses on factual accuracy of the final draft report are returned and addressed, in liaison with the review panel chair, review sponsor and the ITLR Project Team;
10. securing the Review Sponsor's sign off of the final draft report ready for AQSC moderation and working with the ITLR Project Team to support its preparation for submission;
11. where required working with the review panel chair managing the process for Review Sponsor escalation of queries or requests for clarification during the course of the review;
12. ensuring all meetings with panel members, staff and students are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
13. maintaining the confidential nature of the data and information made available to the Secretariat during the review process and of the need to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided;
14. providing proactive support or guidance in exceptional circumstances, and particularly where QA processes and procedures go beyond your own expertise working with the review panel chair and the ITLR Project Team and where needed the Review Sponsor.
In addition to the above responsibilities of the Secretariat, the ITLR Review Secretary will also:
15. ensure that adequate notes of review meetings are taken to determine points of required actions or commendation or best practise;
16. provide brief, oral feedback to the ITLR Project Team on issues arising during the review, notably matters which could usefully be referred to panels reviewing professional service departments to enhance the effectiveness of the review process.
Professional Services:
NOTE: The Secretariat for each ITLR Review will comprise an experienced Secretary and a supporting Assistant Secretary. The precise division of work will be for the Secretariat to determine; the Secretary will be the lead secretariat responsible for ensuring the smooth running of the review.
Secretary
Responsible for ensuring the smooth running of their allocated review, working closely with the Assistant Secretary, key departmental or cluster contacts, the Review Panel (especially the Chair) and the ITLR Project Team. They will predominantly manage the overall review ensuring clarity on arrangements and expectations of the Secretariat, drafting of the review report, and responding to complex or escalated concerns with the review panel chair and the ITLR Project Team.
Assistant Secretary
Responsible for working with the Secretary, the Review Chair and Panel, and the ITLR Project Board, to ensure the smooth operational running of their allocated review, finalising schedules and meeting arrangements and preparing agendas, notes of meetings and any Review Panel requests. The Assistant Secretary will predominantly manage the administrative tasks, scheduling and minuting.
The Secretariat will be responsible for:
1. being clear on the overall aims and objectives of the ITLR and working with the review panel chair to ensure that the review panel is able to deliver on these aims and objectives to enable the university to assure itself of the quality and standards of its educational provision and the delivery of a high quality student academic experience;
2. being a focal point for liaison with panel members and the department(s)/clusters(s) under review from the time of their appointment, ensuring all parties are aware of the ITLR requirements.
3. ensuring the smooth administrative oversight of the review process and panel meetings, working with the ITLR Project Team to ensure manage review right to work checks, scheduling and expenses, and the departmental or cluster contacts to facilitate the review meeting schedule, any requests for clarification or evidence and to answer or facilitate responses to departmental or cluster questions/enquiries;
4. working with the ITLR Project Team, the departmental or cluster contacts and review panel chair to ensure all documentation and evidence is available to the Review Panel in accordance with the schedule;
5. attending mandatory training and/or briefing sessions required to undertake the role (notice of dates will be given to allow for scheduling);
6. attending meetings with the relevant department(s) under review such as the pre-review visit meeting to understand the departmental context;
7. ensuring meetings are minuted and that action points are collated to inform any documentary requests or meeting discussions and the final review report;
8. drafting a short interim findings report from the first review visit within one week or the review visit with the review panel chair and circulating this to the review panel and department or cluster after the visit;
9. working with the review panel to oversee the production of the draft review report within four weeks of the last review visit and ensuring responses on factual accuracy of the final draft report are returned and addressed, in liaison with the review panel chair, review sponsor and the ITLR Project Team;
10. securing the Review Sponsor's sign off of the final draft report ready for AQSC moderation and working with the ITLR Project Team to support its preparation for submission;
11. where required working with the review panel chair managing the process for Review Sponsor escalation of queries or requests for clarification during the course of the review;
12. ensuring all meetings with panel members, staff and students are conducted in a supportive environment and characterised by mutual respect and professionalism;
13. maintaining the confidential nature of the data and information made available to the Secretariat during the review process and of the need to ensure that no breach of confidentiality occurs as a consequence of access provided;
14. providing proactive support or guidance in exceptional circumstances, and particularly where QA processes and procedures go beyond your own expertise working with the review panel chair and the ITLR Project Team and where needed the Review Sponsor.
In addition to the above responsibilities of the Secretariat, the ITLR Review Secretary will also:
15. ensure that adequate notes of review meetings are taken to determine points of required actions or commendation or best practise;
16. provide brief, oral feedback to the ITLR Project Team on issues arising during the review, notably matters which could usefully be referred to panels reviewing professional service departments to enhance the effectiveness of the review process.
Role Responsibilities
Departmental:
This is the key academic contact for the department and the primary contact for the ITLR Project Team and the ITLR Review Panel and Secretariat.
Nominated by the HoD, we would anticipate this is likely to be the Deputy HoD or Director of Education or the HoD themselves.
The Departmental Senior Lead will be responsible for:
1. working with the ITLR Project Team on the confirmation of the Terms of Reference including the nominations of leads or external reviewer contacts;
2. advising EPQ any COI for the department based on the proposed ITLR Review Panel composition;
3. attending an initial short introductory meeting with the Review Panel Chair and Secretary to assist with the context of the department and discuss areas of value to the department;
4. coordinate the department's response to the ITLR and provision of information;
5. work with the EPQ ITLR Project Team, the Review Panel Chair and Secretariat to support the smooth running of the review visits (e.g. staff attending review meetings and additional evidence or questions arising from the review);
6. the review and return of the department's comments on the factual accuracy of the draft review report;
7. the coordination of updates to action plans on the progress towards completion of conditions (where applicable).
This is the key student departmental contact and the primary contact for the ITLR Project Team and Student Co-Creation Officers.
Nominated by the Senior Lead, we anticipate in consultation with student representatives. We would anticipate the nominated lead could be the chair of the SSLC or Student Representative Member on the Departmental Education Committee.
The Departmental Student Lead will be responsible for:
1. attending an initial short introductory meeting with the Senior Lead, Admin Lead, the Review Panel Chair and Secretary to assist with the context of the department and discuss areas of value to the department;
2. consulting on the SED, where applicable and appropriate;
3. working with the EPQ ITLR Project Team, the Review Panel Chair and Secretariat to support the smooth running of the review visits with the scheduling of the review panel's student meeting;
4. liasing with the Senior Lead and Admin Lead on the review and return of comments on factual accuracy of the draft review report.
This is the key professional services departmental contact and the primary contact for the ITLR Project Team and the ITLR Review Panel and Secretariat alongside the Senior Lead.
Nominated by the HoD, we would anticipate this is likely to be the Departmental Administrator.
The Departmental Admin Lead will be responsible for:
1. with the Senior Lead advise on any COI for the department based on the proposed ITLR Review Panel composition;
2. attend an initial short introductory meeting with the Senior Lead, Student Lead, Review Panel Chair and Secretary to assist with the context of the department and discuss areas of value to the department;
3. with the Senior Lead coordinate the department's response to the ITLR and provision of information;
4. work with the EPQ ITLR Project Team, the Review Panel Chair and Secretariat to support the smooth running of the review visits (e.g. scheduling of review meetings and logistics for the review and the provision of additional evidence arising from the review);
5. with the Senior Lead and Student Lead review the department's comments on the factual accuracy of the draft review report;
6. In liaison with the Senior Lead, coordinate of updates to action plans on the progress towards completion of conditions (where applicable).
Professional Services Clusters:
This is the key professional services cluster contact and primary contact for the ITLR Project Team and the Review Panel and Secretariat
We envisage that the Cluster Lead will be a senior manager in professional services with knowledge of the University’s education portfolio or quality expectations or experience of review activities (or similar methodologies).
The Professional Services Cluster Lead will be responsible for:
1. working with the ITLR Project Team on the confirmation of the Terms of Reference including the nominations of other leads in the cluster e.g. Deputy Cluster Lead, Admin Lead and external reviewer (where applicable);
2. advising EPQ of any COI for the Cluster based on the proposed ITLR Review Panel composition;
3. attend an initial short introductory meeting with the Review Panel Chair and Secretary to assist with the context of the cluster and discuss areas of value to the Cluster;
4. coordinate the Cluster's response to the ITLR and provision of information;
5. work with the EPQ ITLR Project Team, the Review Panel Chair and Secretariat to support the smooth running of the review (e.g. the visits, staff attending review meetings and additional evidence or questions arising from the review);
6. the review and return of the Cluster's comments on the factual accuracy of the draft review report;
7. the coordination of updates to action plans on the progress towards completion of conditions (where applicable).
This is the key professional services cluster contact and secondary contact for the ITLR Project Team and the Review Panel and Secretariat.
Determined by the Cluster Lead, the Deputy Professional Services Cluster Lead will deputise for the Professional Services Cluster Lead and undertake responsibilities as agreed with the Cluster Lead.
This is the key professional services cluster admin contact and primary contact for the ITLR Project Team and the Review Panel and Secretariat.
Determined by the Cluster Lead, the Professional Services Cluster Admin Lead will be responsible for:
1. supporting both the professional services Cluster Lead and the Deputy Cluster Lead in the preparation and coordination of the review;
2. attend an initial short introductory meeting with the Cluster Lead, Review Panel Chair and Secretary to assist with the context of the cluster and discuss areas of value to the Cluster;
3. ensure relevant evidence and information is available to the leads to support the review;
4. work with EPQ ITLR Project Team, the Review Panel Chair and Secretariat to support the smooth running of the review visits (e.g. scheduling of review meetings and logistics for the review and the provision of additional evidence arising from the review).
Governance Groups
Project Board
Oversees the design, delivery and operation of the ITLR.
Advisory Group
Provides input and feeds into the Project Board.
Theme Convenors
Each of the three common themes have two convenors: a subject expert and an institutional senior policy leader, who together oversee the execution of the theme as part of the review process, advise review panels, and prepare a thematic analysis with strengths, weaknesses and opportunities supporting enhancement activities in the years to come.
Project Team
Comprised of EPQ colleagues who will deliver the ITLR.
Review Sponsors
The Review Sponsors are senior University leaders with experience of quality review activities (or similar methodologies) and knowledge of the University's education policy and quality expectations.
You can find more information on the governance groups and who holds these positions on our Governance and Oversight page.