Skip to main content Skip to navigation

How Reviews are Delivered

Title - Stages of the Review and Review Delivery

Jump to:

Pre-Review

During the Review

Post-Review

The review process can be summed up in three stages:

An infographic breaking down the steps of the ITLR into three main phases: pre-review, review, and post-review. All of the bullet points highlighted in this infographic are further explained and detailed in the boxes below.

Pre-Review

From July 2022-January 2023

Terms of Reference Agreed

EPQ will commence each review by liaising with the Head of Department or Cluster Lead to agree a Terms of Reference (ToR). This will set out the aims, focus, and dates of the review, including identifying the bespoke theme, external experts, and individuals to participate. You can download the ToR template here.

The schedule for ToR completion will be announced soon.

Self-Evaluation Documents Completed

Departments in scope will complete a Self-Evaluation Document (SED) through an open, collaborative process with its staff and students (and other stakeholders, where applicable). This will be uploaded with any additional supporting evidence by the date agreed upon in the ToR. Further guidance on supporting evidence and how EPQ can support your SED submission will be available soon.

Review Panels Discuss Self-Evaluation Documents

In December, review panels will conduct desk-based assessments of your SED submission and meet to discuss their initial findings and prepare for the first meeting with the department/cluster online. These meetings will help the review panel to arrive at shared understandings of the SED and set up initial lines of enquiry. The panel composition will be published in September so you will know who will comprise your review panel.

Jump to top

During the Review

From February 2023-April 2023

Scheduling the Visits

The review panel secretary will confirm a timetable for your review visits. They will work with the Admin Lead, or nominated contact, to organise these. The timetable will indicate meetings with students and stakeholders to help departments/clusters to facilitate the schedule. Additionally, the secretary will aim to circulate an agenda ahead of the visits so that all attendees will be informed of the broad areas intended for discussion. This list may not be exhaustive and the panel may explore other areas in the visit.

First Visit Online

By late February 2023, your first visit will take place online via Microsoft Teams. This will be across one or two days, with time for the review panel to meet groups of staff, students, and stakeholders. The first visit will include context-setting and focus on baseline assurance and possibly strategic improvement. Following this visit, the review panel will resolve as many aspects related to quality assurance as possible, so that the second visit can focus on the other evaluation areas. Further consideration to aspects brought up in this first visit may occur in cases where possible risks to academic standards or quality are identified.

Second Visit In-Person

Between the first and second visit, the review panel may ask for additional information or evidence packs. This is optional and review panels may decline to request additional information.

Academic departments' second visit will occur in March 2023 and Professional Services clusters will meet in late March-early April. This second visit will be similar to the first, taking place over one to two days. This visit will focus on strategic improvement and the common/bespoke themes.

Jump to top

Post-Review

From April 2023-November 2023

Review Panel Report Drafted

Within one week of the first visit, the review panel secretary will produce a short summary of the headline conclusions for the review panel to agree. This will then be shared with the Senior Lead/Cluster Lead and EPQ. Within four weeks of the second visit, the review panel and secretary will draft the full review report for sign off. A draft will be shared with the department contact leads to check for factual accuracy before a finalised version is considered by the review sponsor for approval and issued. The final version will be submitted to EPQ at the same time to inform analysis.

Opportunity to Respond

Once departments/clusters receive their report, they will be invited to provide a short response to the review report within four weeks of receipt. This should pay particular attention to any required actions specified. Thereafter, the department/cluster should focus on using the review report and its own learnings from the review process to inform future planning and enhancement. Progress and support will be overseen through the TEG meetings or through the Student Success Programme Board for professional services.

Review Sponsor Signs Off

The review report and departmental/cluster response will be read by the Review Sponsor. They will have the option of signing off the report or to request further clarification. The Review Sponsor will prepare a summary for their Close Scrutiny Group, and this will form the basis of the formal ITLR report to Academic Quality and Standards Committee (AQSC) in the autumn of 2023.

Close Scrutiny Groups

Once all review sponsor reports are finalised and department responses received, the Close Scrutiny Group will be convened to provide AQSC moderation. The Close Scrutiny Groups will read the 3 or 4 panel reports and department responses in their group. They will reflect on the outcome ratings that have been assigned to the department/cluster quality assurance and strategic improvement evaluation areas and the associated risk. Moderation will involved ensuring consistency and proportionality in the assigned outcome/risk within the Close Scrutiny Group.

The panel will have identified any actions that are required to meet expectations in terms of quality assurance and/or strategic improvement. The Close Scrutiny Group will assess the required actions across the portfolio of reports they are reviewing and reflect on the number of actions being articulated and the magnitude of risk presented.

Reports and department responses will be published once the Close Scrutiny Groups have met, and it is intended that AQSC will liaise with academic departments to agree action plans for specific issues only where they are flagged with required actions.

Jump to top