Internal Periodic Review

The University of Edinburgh

Guidance Notes for Review Team Members

2020/21

The guidance contains information for members of Internal Review teams.

In addition to this guidance, a series of briefing meetings is provided by Internal Review support (Academic Services):

• Annual introductory briefing (currently March) for Subject Areas and Schools being reviewed in the coming academic year, and for internal members of review teams • A training session for student members of review teams with Academic Services and Edinburgh University Students’ Association • A series of briefings for review team administrators in advance of key points in the review preparations

Information and advice for internal and external members of review teams is available at any time from Internal Review support (Academic Services).

There will be an annual review of the process at the end of each review cycle.

Main Internal Review contacts : [email protected]

Gillian Mackintosh: Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services Susan Hunter: Academic Policy Officer, Academic Services Linda Hannah: Administrative Assistant, Academic Services

Contents

1 Introduction 4

2 Summary of the stages of the review process 5

3 The Review team 7

4 Student Engagement 8 4.1 Information on student involvement 8 4.2 Student engagement with subject specific remit & Reflective 8 report 4.3 Student engagement during the review 8 4.4 Student engagement after the review 8

5 Preparatory meetings 9 5.1 Annual briefing meeting 9 5.2 Review information meeting 9

6 The Remit 10 6.1 The University remit 10 6.2 The remit meeting 10

7 Documentation for the review 12 7.1 Reflective Report 12 7.2 Supporting documentation 12 7.3 Procedure for reviewing documentation 12

8 The Final Preparation meeting 14

9 The Review visit 15 9.1 General information 15 9.2 Preparing for meetings with staff and students 15 9.3 Identification of commendations and recommendations 15

10 Review report and follow-on 17 10.1 Review report 17 10.2 Review report timeline 17 10.3 Approval of review reports 18 10.4 14 week response report 18 10.5 Year-on report 18 10.6 Student engagement following the review 18 10.7 External access to review reports 19 10.8 Review feedback 19

Appendix 1 20 Appendix 2 23

1. Introduction

The University’s Internal Periodic Review process covers all undergraduate and postgraduate provision.

The reviews form part of the Scottish Quality Enhancement Framework. This was devised collectively by QAA Scotland working closely with the Scottish Funding Council, Universities Scotland and NUS Scotland. The emphasis of the Quality Enhancement Framework is on universities’ ability to maintain standards and to assure and enhance the student learning experience. Internal review forms one of the five elements of the Framework.

The University’s Internal Review framework

This guidance sets out the University framework for reviews of undergraduate, taught postgraduate and research provision. The precise format of the reviews varies according to the level of provision, but all share the following common features:

Common Features University remit

Subject Area/School specific remit items

Student engagement with all stages of the review

Remit meeting convened by the Assistant Principal, Academic Standards and Quality Assurance (APASQA)

Reflective Report written by the School/Subject Area

Core supporting documentation

A final preparation meeting for the review team

A report containing commendations of good practice and recommendations for action

A 14 week follow- up report and 1 year on response report by the School/Subject Area

An annual report on progress with addressing recommendations via the School annual programme monitoring report

2. Summary of the stages of the review process

Early Preparations Semester 1 of Agreement of Semester for review visit – initiated by Internal Review support (Academic Services) the session with School ; early discussion about preparation for review, including agreeing scope of review, preceding the School to identify Academic Lead review semester 2 of Internal review team membership confirmed by Internal Review support (Academic Services) the session preceding the review semester 2 of Head of School nominates 2 possible external reviewers and submits the names of nominees to the session Assistant Principal Academic Standards & Quality Assurance (APASQA) via Internal Review support preceding the (Academic Services) for approval review semester 2 of Once approved external reviewers are formally invited by Internal Review support (Academic the session Services) to participate in review preceding the review semester 2 of Internal Review support (Academic Services) liaises with School and Review team members to the session agree date for review visit preceding the review

Once date of School/Subject Area should publicise the review to staff, and to students via SSLC meetings, review agreed subject-based student societies, School intranet, online learning mechanisms as appropriate.

Once date of Review information meeting takes place from this point onwards and should take place before the review agreed remit meeting The Remit Meeting once date of Internal Review support (Academic Services) arranges the Remit Meeting date in conjunction with review agreed Subject Area/School once date of School/ Subject Area to consider items for the subject specific remit including items from students review agreed

4 months prior Remit Meeting convened by APASQA to review Review Visit Preparations following remit Head of School/Subject Area to nominate person to start to prepare Reflective Report and Academic mtg Lead & School/Subject Area Admin Support person collates documentation for review following remit Draft schedule prepared for review visit. Review team administrator leads in conjunction with mtg Convener, Academic Lead and School/Subject Area Admin Support person

6 wks prior to Internal Review support (Academic Services) uploads Reflective Report and supporting review visit documentation to the Internal Review wiki

3 wks prior to Review team members submit questions to review team administrator for inclusion in review visit review visit briefing notes

Approx 2 wks Final Preparation Meeting – to confirm the main themes for the review visit and to agree the chair for prior to review each meeting. visit

Approx 1 wk Following Final Preparation meeting, review team administrator finalises the schedule, briefing notes prior to review and circulates to review team. visit Finalised schedule circulated to Head of School/Subject Area/Graduate School and Academic Lead.

Review Visit – normally 2 days

Review Report on Follow-on 2 wks after Review team administrator sends draft report to Convener and APO (Academic Services) for initial review visit comment and amendment

3 wks after Review team administrator sends report to review team members for comment and amendment review visit

6 wks after Review team administrator sends draft report to Head of School/Subject Area and Academic Lead review visit for correction of factual errors

8 wks after The School/Subject Area highlight any factual errors in the draft report and return the draft report to review visit the review team administrator. The Academic Lead is responsible for ensuring that a complete sign off is agreed before returning the draft report to the review team administrator.

Review team administrator makes any necessary amendments to the draft report to correct any factual errors and circulates the final version to the review team for sign-off.

10 weeks after Final report submitted to Internal Review support (Academic Services) by the review team review visit administrator for submission to Senatus Quality Assurance Committee for approval. Following approval by the committee the report will be published on the Academic Services website

Final report circulated as appropriate

Following Head of School/Subject Area starts to prepare response to the recommendations receipt of final report

14 weeks after School/Subject Area provides 14 week response to Internal Review support (Academic Services) for School/Subject submission to Senatus Quality Assurance Committee. Following submission to the committee the Area receives response will be published on Academic Services website final report

1 year after School/Subject Area makes year-on response to Internal Review support (Academic Services) for receipt of final submission to Senate Quality Assurance Committee. Following submission to the committee the report response will be published on Academic Services website. Thereafter annual reporting on progress towards meeting recommendations will be made through the School annual programme monitoring report

3. The Review team

The review team comprises of:

A convener (internal to the University) An internal member (internal to the University) Two external members (from outwith the University) A student member A review team administrator

Internal Review support (Academic Services) allocates the convener, internal and student members and the review team administrator. The Head of School is responsible for the nomination of external team members for approval by the APASQA.

Convener/internal member: The APASQA writes to Heads of School in Semester 1 of the academic year preceding that of the review to propose members of academic staff to be added to a pool of Internal Review team members. Heads of School will be asked for nominations from Subject Areas that are due to be reviewed in the following two academic years. This will provide a valuable insight into how the review process operates and will help the School/Subject Area’s subsequent preparations for their own review.

The APASQA issues invitations to fill a particular role on a specific review. All internal members of the review team are drawn from outwith the School. The aim is to have teams representing a spread across the Colleges.

External members: The Head of the School/Subject Area proposes two possible external team members to the APASQA for approval. External team members are appointed in the same context as External Examiners in accordance with the University Of Edinburgh External Examiners for Taught Programmes Policy.

Student member: The Student member is selected after formal application and interview by The Students’ Association and Academic Services. Training for the role and on the review process is provided by The Students’ Association and Academic Services. The student member comes from a different School to that of the School being reviewed.

Review team administrator: The review team administrator is appointed from within either Academic Services, a College or School Office or from one of the Professional Support Services.

The University will pay external review team members and student review team members a fee for the review, on receipt of comments on the final report. Details of current fee levels are available from Academic Services.

Further information about roles and responsibilities can be found in Appendix 1 at the end of this document.

4. Student Engagement

It is essential that students are made aware of the review, involved in discussion of items for the subject-specific remit and consulted on the development of the Reflective Report.

4.1 Information on student involvement

Material is available to help Schools/Subject Areas explain the purpose of the review to students and to engage them in the process. These should be used to publicise to students what the review does, how they can contribute, and how they can continue to be engaged as recommendations are taken forward and progress reported on through annual quality assurance processes.

4.2 Student engagement with subject-specific remit and Reflective Report

Before the remit meeting, students should be invited to suggest items for the subject-specific remit. Schools should consider how best to obtain input to the subject-specific remit and the Reflective Report.

The Scottish Funding Council requires internal subject reviews to gather specific evidence from students on their views of provision and their learning experience as part of the evidence base for reviews. Schools/Subject Areas should gather feedback from students in whatever way is most appropriate; for example, this may be generated from the student staff liaison committee meeting or open forum which gathers input to the subject-specific remit and Reflective Report. Existing channels should be used as much as possible to minimise additional workload.

Schools should reflect the views of the wider student body where these are likely to be significant, e.g. part-time, full-time, entrants from school and entrants from further education, online learners (OL). Where possible, the views of graduates on the relevance of provision for their careers should be included

During the review visit, the School/Subject Area will be asked to comment on how they have engaged students in the preparation of the Reflective Report. For this purpose, all meetings/communications with students seeking to gather evidence and feedback should be documented.

4.3 Student engagement during the review:

During the visit the review team meets with a sample of students, staff from the School are not present during the student meetings, and no comments will be attributed to any individual students.

For on-campus students these meetings are normally held over a sandwich lunch.

For reviews that include OL programmes, students on these programmes should have the same opportunities to contribute and participate as students on-campus.

OL students can contribute by various means. This could involve circulating an anonymous questionnaire to students to gather feedback on their experience as an online distance learning student. Virtual meetings with students could be arranged to enable the review team to meet with a representative sample of OL students. Consideration should be given at the earliest opportunity when drafting the review schedule to ensure that these meetings can be arranged well in advance.

4.4 Student engagement after the review:

The final report should be used to inform students about the outcome of the review via student staff liaison committees or other mechanisms as appropriate. The review reports are published on the University’s website and are thus available to current and prospective students.

5. Preparatory meetings - University review team members and staff only

5.1 Annual briefing meeting

The Assistant Principal Academic Standards and Quality Assurance holds an annual briefing meeting for Subject Areas and Schools being reviewed in the coming academic year and for internal team members. This is normally held in the March of semester 2 prior to the academic year of review. The purpose of the meeting is to give an overview of the review process

5.2 Review information meeting

The purpose of the meeting is for the internal members of the review team to gain an early understanding of the Subject Area/School as a basis for the remit meeting.

These completely informal discussions may also help the Subject area/School clarify for its own purpose some of the items to be proposed for the subject-specific remit, and to raise any features of provision which will influence the meeting themes for the review visit itself.

Meeting details The meeting should take place prior to the remit meeting – ideally approx. 5 months prior to the review

It can take place as soon as the internal review team membership is confirmed. The timing of the meeting should be discussed with the Academic Lead as to when is most appropriate for the School/Subject Area

Head of Subject Area/Graduate School, Academic Lead, School/Subject Area Admin support person, review team administrator, review team members internal to the University normally attend

A student representative could be invited to attend and provide a brief overview of being a student within the School. The student could also be involved with the tour of any relevant student facilities

The Academic Lead is responsible for taking the lead in the meeting

Internal Review support emails review team members internal to the University confirming date, time and location of meeting

6. The Remit

6.1 The University remit

The University remit provides consistent coverage of key elements across all of the University’s internal reviews while allowing for flexibility in the specific focus within each of the overarching themes.

The University remit can be found on the Academic Services website

6.2 The remit meeting – University review team members and staff only

The remit meeting formally confirms the programmes and courses to be reviewed, including any collaborative provision within the scope of the review, and the items which will form the remit for the review.

In addition to the University remit each review will include specific issues proposed primarily by the Subject Area including student-generated items. Schools and Students are asked to propose a maximum of 2 items each for discussion and agreement of the most appropriate item. It is most practical to suggest a short, focused list to which the review can do justice within the constraints of the review visit.

The meeting will also identify areas beyond the immediate scope of the Subject Area whose views on its provision should be sought as part of the review. These might include: • Subject Areas which have joint programmes with the provision under review, • other institutions with teaching links to the programmes, including partnership arrangements, • Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Bodies (accrediting bodies) or substantial employers of graduates.

If any of these are identified as relevant at the remit meeting the review team administrator will contact these bodies to invite them to comment.

When Meeting takes place approx. 4 months prior to review

Semester 1 reviews: remit meetings are normally held in May/June of the preceding academic year so that the remit can be agreed well in advance of the review and thus inform the writing of the Reflective Report

Semester 2 reviews: remit meetings are normally held in October/November within the same academic year

If the student member of the review team is unable to attend at that time, arrangements can be made for their input to the meeting, for example through Skype

Who arranges date Internal Review support (Academic Services) arranges the date, invites the attendees and confirms the meeting details

Where is it held The remit meeting is normally held within the School/Subject Area.

Who attends The APASQA, Head of School, Head of Subject Area, Head of Graduate School, Academic Lead , School/Subject Area Admin Support person ,School Director of Quality, and any other representatives from the Subject Area/ School/student body, the

College Dean/Associate Dean/Director of Quality Assurance, the College Dean for Undergraduate Studies, the College Dean for Postgraduate Research/Taught (depending on scope of review), College Quality Officer/Administrator or equivalent, the internal members of the review team and the Academic Policy Officer (APO) from Academic Services

Meeting Convener The APASQA convenes the meeting

Student Support Services If a remit item is likely to have an impact on a Student Support Service it should be highlighted to the service at this point by the review team administrator. There can then be some discussion prior to the review, including a representative of the support service contributing to a meeting during the review. It would be useful to speak to Internal Review support (Academic Services) in the first instance

Institute for Academic There may be opportunities for the IAD to work with Development (IAD) role Schools/Subject Areas as they prepare for their review where it in Internal Review looks as though there may be an IAD role in supporting the implementation of recommendations. This should be noted during the remit meeting and the review team administrator should liaise with the IAD and the Academic Lead

Documentation for the Approx one week prior to the meeting, the review team remit meeting administrator will circulate the agenda and papers: • List of degree programmes and courses • University remit • Proposals for the subject specific remit items • Previous review report and response • Summary report on completion of recommendations to date

Following the remit The review team administrator circulates the finalised remit and the meeting meeting note (highlighting any actions from the meeting) to the meeting attendees

The review team administrator sends the finalised remit including the degree programmes and courses within the scope of the review to the external team members for information at this stage.

The Academic Lead is responsible for disseminating the remit in the Subject Area/School as appropriate, including to students/Student Staff Liaison Committees or equivalent.

The review team administrator, convener and the Academic Lead will start to work together to draft the review visit schedule

7. Documentation for the review – Reflective Report and Supporting Documentation

Following the remit meeting, the Academic Lead and School/Subject Area Admin Support person will start to coordinate the preparation of documentation for review. This is forwarded to Academic Services for uploading onto the wiki page.

6 weeks prior to the review date, the Reflective Report and supporting documentation will be made available to the review team.

Each team member will be sent the link to the wiki page with full instructions for accessing the page. A hard copy of the reflective report will be sent to review team members, all other supporting documentation will be available electronically however documents can be made available in an alternative format.

During the review process, review team members will be given access to a number of confidential documents and may be involved in discussions of a sensitive/confidential nature, therefore review team members will be asked to sign a confidentiality agreement.

7.1 Reflective Report

The Reflective Report is the key document in the review and provides a reflective and self-critical evaluation of the programmes being reviewed. It is a confidential, internal document produced specifically for the purpose of the review and it is not circulated further as part of committee reporting processes or published on the University website.

Student engagement in development and drafting of the report Subject areas /Schools are encouraged to consult with students on the Reflective Report, for example at Student Staff Liaison Committee meetings or an open forum meeting. This should be formally recorded in the SSLC minutes or as appropriate. During the review, Subject Areas/ Schools will be asked how they have engaged with students in the preparation of the Reflective Report.

Good Practice It is important that reviews identify good practice so that it can be disseminated more widely. School/Subject Areas are encouraged to highlight areas of good practice and enhancement activity in their Reflective Report.

A ‘Learning from Internal Review’ event is run annually and draws on good practice identified in previous reviews. Good practice from reviews also feeds into the Institute for Academic Development Teaching Matters website.

7.2 Supporting documentation

The review must be based on sufficient evidence for the review team to form a conclusion on the effectiveness of the management of the student learning experience, of quality and standards, and of enhancement and good practice. The documentation specified has been reviewed to ensure that apart from the Reflective Report, no material should have to be created specially for the review.

Each review team member will be asked to read the Reflective Report and a specific section of the supporting documentation.

7.3 Procedure for reviewing documentation

Allocation of documentation Review team members should read the Reflective Report along with the specific section of the documentation that has been allocated to them.

This ensures that the documentation to be divided up equally amongst the review team members and examined in more depth

Identification of questions With reference to the remit items and after reviewing the documentation, review team members will be asked to suggest two questions for each meeting. Consideration should also be given to highlighting examples of good practice

The review team administrator collates the questions for discussion at the Final Preparation meeting and for inclusion in the briefing notes

It is useful for the Convener to make contact with the external members prior to the Final Preparation meeting for an informal conversation about the review and to identify any issues which the external members have identified as being of particular importance

8. The Final Preparation meeting – University review team members only

When The meeting is held approximately 2 weeks prior to the review visit

Attendees The meeting is attended by the University review team members and the Academic Policy Officer (Internal Review support, Academic Services)

Aim of meeting The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the key questions for the meeting of the review and to agree the chair for each meeting

The meeting also provides an opportunity to discuss any final arrangements for the review

It is useful for the Convener to make contact with the external members prior to the final prep meeting, for an informal conversation about the review. In addition, to identify any issues which the external members have identified as being of particular importance

Who arranges the meeting Internal Review support (Academic Services), will arrange the meeting date and inform the attendees of the date, time and location of the meeting

Documentation for the meeting Prior to meeting, the review team administrator will circulate the draft schedule, the briefing notes, and the review team biography document to the review team The biography document is prepared by internal review support and will be forwarded to the review team administrator

Following the Final Preparation meeting

Review schedule and briefing The review team administrator will finalise the schedule, the notes briefing notes and these will be circulated to the review team at least 1 week before the visit

9. The Review visit

9.1 General information

Duration of review visit Reviews are normally held in October to December, and January to March. Most are held over two days and typically start at approx. 9am on the first day and finishing at approx. 5pm on the second day.

Overnight accommodation arrangements can be made for external team members by Internal Review support (Academic Services). This will normally be for the night before the review and the night of the first day.

Eligibility to work checks Internal review support are responsible for collecting fee payment (External & student review forms and carrying out passport checks for the external and team members) student review team members. This will be carried out prior to the start of the review

Note taking The review team administrator takes the full notes of all the meetings during the review as a basis for the subsequent report.

Meeting with Students Meetings with on campus students are normally held over a sandwich lunch on both days. In order to create more time for other meetings, the review team may split in two and meet with students simultaneously over one lunchtime.

Dinner hosted by APASQA The APASQA hosts an informal dinner on the evening of the first day for the review team members only.

Although this is an informal occasion, the purpose of the dinner is for the APASQA to thank the review team for their participation in the review. As part of the dinner, informal discussions may take place surrounding the review therefore for this reason it is not deemed appropriate for the School staff or partners of the external team members to attend.

9.2 Preparing for meetings with staff and students

Approaches to be taken when preparing for meetings with staff and students can be found in Appendix 2 at the end of this document.

9.3 Identification of At the end of each meeting the review team administrator will commendations and encourage the review team to summarise or note the key points recommendations for consideration as part of the overall commendations/ recommendations

At the end of day 1 the review team administrator should pull together the emerging themes, with draft commendations and recommendations, into a brief document for the review team to use in the planning meeting at the start of day 2.

This also highlights any areas that may require further discussion or clarification with the Academic Lead

The review team administrator assists the convener and the review team to ensure that agreement is reached as to whether

15 an issue is identified as either a recommendation or a suggestion whilst the review team are all in attendance

The review team administrator will advise the review team to ensure that recommendations are remitted as appropriate e.g. a recommendation should be directed to a committee or a role which has appropriate responsibility for taking it forward

While initial commendations and recommendations are presented at this point, the review team is entitled to add or remove items during the subsequent drafting of the report as a result of further consideration

A PowerPoint presentation template is available for the convener to present the initial themes, commendations and recommendations emerging from the review. The use of the PowerPoint is not compulsory.

16 10. Review report and follow-on

10.1 Review report

The review report is structured according to the headings of the standard remit. The report identifies key strengths of the provision reviewed, together with commendations of good practice and recommendations for enhancement of the provision.

If an issue is minor but the review team nevertheless wants to flag it as a potentially useful action, it will be couched as a suggestion rather than as a formal recommendation. Suggestions are not tracked in onward reporting.

The full report is published on the University website once finalised.

10.2 Review report timeline

2 weeks after the review The review team administrator sends the draft review report in the first instance to the Convener and to the Academic Policy Officer (Internal Review Support) for initial comment and amendment

3 weeks after the review Following receipt of the draft report from the Convener, the review team administrator will make any necessary amendments and then send the draft review report to all review team members for comment and amendment

A deadline date of 3 weeks for receipt of comments will be confirmed with the review team

Once comments are received from the external team members and the student member, the review team administrator will inform Internal Review Support in order for the payment of fees to be processed

6 weeks after the review On receipt of any comments on the draft report, the necessary amendments will be made and then the agreed draft report is sent to the Academic Lead for correction of factual errors. The Academic Lead consults within the School as appropriate and should ensure a complete sign off from the relevant members of staff.

A deadline date of 2 weeks for receipt of comments will be confirmed with the Academic Lead

8 weeks after the review The Academic Lead responds to the review team administrator with correction of any factual errors.

Review team administrator makes any necessary amendments to the draft report and circulates the final version to the review team for sign-off.

10 weeks after the review The final report will be sent to Internal Review support for circulation

It is essential that deadlines for production of the report are adhered to to ensure that the School receives the report at an appropriate point following the review. The review team administrator will state the expected deadline date by which to respond in the email to the review team. The email will state that if review team members do not respond by the stated deadline, it is assumed that the report is approved.

17 10.3 Approval of review reports

The final report is submitted to Senate Quality Assurance Committee (QAC) for formal approval. Academic Services will review the report prior to submission to the committee. It should be noted that there may be a situation where the committee may wish to reprioritise or reshape a recommendation to align it better with emerging University priorities.

Internal Review support (Academic Services) will circulate the final report as appropriate.

The report will be published on the Academic Services website once formally approved by Senate Quality Assurance Committee

Following receipt of the final report, the School/Subject Area takes forward action on the recommendations made by the review.

Academic Services will review the responses prior to submission to ensure that all recommendations have been adequately addressed. Academic Services may ask Schools for further information on a recommendation before submission to Senate Quality Assurance Committee if insufficient information is provided or clarification is required on the progress of a recommendation. Academic Services staff can meet with Schools to discuss the progress of recommendations in the first instance.

10.4 The 14 week response report

14 weeks after receipt of the report, the School/Subject Area makes a response to the Senate Quality Assurance Committee providing an explanation of how each recommendation will be taken forward and the expected date for follow-up or completion should be recorded. The response should report on all recommendations, including those remitted to other areas of the University for action.

The report will be published on the Academic Services website under the relevant subject and year at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/quality/monitoringandreview/internal-review/reports

10.5 The 1 year –on report

The School/Subject Area makes a further report to Senate Quality Assurance Committee one year after receipt of the final report on the progress towards the completion of all recommendations. The expected date for follow-up or completion should be recorded.

The year-on report will then be published on the Academic Services website under the relevant subject and year at: https://www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/quality/monitoringandreview/internal- review/reports

Thereafter updates to progress towards meeting recommendations are made through the School’s annual programme monitoring report. Reporting on recommendations continues annually until all have been addressed. An overview of progress towards meeting recommendations at College and University level will allow any barriers to progressing recommendations to be identified, particularly those which lie outside the Schools/Subject Areas and where further intervention on behalf of the School/Subject Area may be required.

10.6 Student engagement following the review

Schools/Subject Areas should involve their students in considering the response to the review report. Review reports should be used in Student Staff Liaison Committees and/or other appropriate fora to inform students of the review outcome and to engage them in follow-on actions. Schools should include the annual report on progress towards meeting recommendations in Student Staff Liaison Committee or equivalent agendas.

18 10.7 External access to review reports

Review reports are published on the University website and are publicly available at https://www.ed.ac.uk/academic-services/quality/monitoringandreview/internal-review/reports

Review reports, responses and onward reporting on progress towards meeting recommendations are made available to the Quality Assurance Agency for Enhancement-led Institutional Review.

10.8 Review feed back

Feed back on the process is gathered from Schools and review teams through an on-line questionnaire, and contributes to the annual review of the process by the APASQA and Academic Services.

19 Appendix 1

Roles and responsibilities The Convener, Internal member, Student member and the review team administrator are expected to attend the preparatory meetings of the review and prepare by reading any papers and documents prepared for these meetings.

Role Responsibility Meetings General Review Report Convener There is no need for the convener to have any Pre-review: The convener takes the lead The review team specific existing knowledge of the area under review, The convener will not be asked in helping the team to draw administrator drafts the but a good knowledge is essential of how the to convene any meetings prior together the main themes report. The convener is University operates and of current major issues. to the review visit. These are arising from the review visit responsible for The convener should be available to engage with and normally convened by the in order to present approving the first draft advise on issues raised by the review team APASQA. preliminary outcomes to the of the review report for administrator as s/he takes forward the detailed The convener will be involved Subject Area/School. The circulation to the review preparations for the review. in the drafting of the schedule convener ensures with the team, the draft for The convener should be a capable manager of for the review with the review support of the review team factual correction by meetings. S/he will be supported in this by the review team administrator and the administrator that the School and the final team administrator. Academic Lead. recommendations and lines version for publication. of enquiry align with the During preparations for the review, all review team During the review: University strategic and members direct any queries about the content of the The convener should maintain operational context. review via the review team administrator. Review an overview of the aims of the team members do not make individual contact with review, ensuring that all There is no need for any staff or students of the provision being reviewed. aspects of the subject-specific review team member to take and standard remits are formal notes during the covered and that all team review other than as a members have an opportunity personal aide-memoire. to contribute to the discussion.

The convener is not expected to chair every meeting during the visit, but based on the major themes of the review will identify in advance of the review those meetings which other members of the team can most usefully chair. This allows the expertise of the external members to be used most effectively 20

Role Responsibility Meetings General Review Report Internal There is no need for the Internal member to have any If the internal member has The internal member The internal member of member specific existing knowledge of the area under review, particular expertise in or contributes to the drawing the team will be asked but a good knowledge is essential of how the knowledge of a generic issue, together of the main themes for their comments and University operates and of current major issues The for example student support, arising from the review visit amendments to the internal member will also bring to the review their s/he should bring this to the in order to present draft report. knowledge of University structures, policies and attention of the convener and preliminary outcomes to the procedures. may be asked to pay particular Subject Area/School. attention to this issue in the During preparations for the review, all review team review documentation and There is no need for any members direct any queries about the content of the during the review visit. review team member to take review via the review team administrator. Review formal notes during the team members do not make individual contact with The internal member will be review other than as a staff or students of the provision being reviewed. asked to chair at least one personal aide-memoire. meeting during the review visit, potentially in the area of specialism they have declared

Role Responsibility Meetings General Review Report External At least one external member should be an academic The external members will be The external member The external member member from within the discipline being reviewed. Where asked to chair at least one contributes to the drawing along with the other relevant, the other external member may be drawn meeting during the review visit, together of the main themes members of the team from a PSRB or industry. potentially in their area of arising from the review visit will be asked for their expertise. in order to present comments and During preparations for the review, all review team preliminary outcomes to the amendments to the members direct any queries about the content of the Subject Area/School. draft report. review via the review team administrator. Review team members do not make individual contact with There is no need for any staff or students of the provision being reviewed. review team member to take formal notes during the review other than as a personal aide-memoire Role Responsibility Meetings General Review Report Student The student member is not expected to comment The student member will be The student member The student member member solely from the student viewpoint, although their invited to chair a meeting or contributes to the drawing along with the other knowledge of current student issues is vital to the meetings during the review, together of the main themes members of the team review. according to their interest and arising from the review visit will be asked for their knowledge of the topic. in order to present comments and During preparations for the review, all review team preliminary outcomes to the amendments to the members direct any queries about the content of the Subject Area/School. draft report.

21 review via the review team administrator. Review team members do not make individual contact with There is no need for any staff or students of the provision being reviewed. review team member to take formal notes during the review other than as a personal aide-memoire.

Role Responsibility Meetings General Review Report Review team The review team administrator is a full member of the The review team The review team administrator review team. administrator coordinates administrator is preparations for the review responsible for drafting The review team administrator liaises with the through close liaison with the review report and Academic Lead in planning for the review visit. the Academic Lead and making the necessary Internal Review support amends following the The review team administrator is responsible for (Academic Services) correction of factual collating and circulating the material for the remit errors. meeting, for creating in conjunction with the Convener The review team and the Academic Lead the programme for the review administrator takes the visit and for producing the briefing notes for the review formal notes during the team. review meetings. They also assist the convener and review team to identify emerging recommendations and commendations.

Appendix 2

Internal Periodic Review Preparing for meetings with staff and students

Preparing for meetings with staff and students

The first meeting of the day should be used to confirm:  key themes for discussion throughout the day  approaches to be taken during discussions – see below  any changes to chairing arrangements  promotion of good practice

Meetings with staff and students

 Start meetings with: • Brief introductions • A short explanation of the purpose and themes to be explored during the meeting • Confirmation that all discussions are confidential and that individuals will not be quoted  Structure and tone of questioning should be positive, non-confrontational to create an open and honest dialogue  Maintain confidentiality – be careful to maintain anonymity  Focus on key issues and remit items  Do not prolong discussions unnecessarily – time is short  Do not ask questions when the answers can be found in the reflective report or supporting documentation, unless further clarification is required  Allow at least five minutes at the end of each meeting for the staff/students to raise anything relevant  Finish on time  Keep a note of areas of good practice, key themes, possible commendations and recommendations – use the template for collating these points  Allow time during meeting breaks to summarise the points above

Final meeting with Head of School and Senior Management

 Opportunity to thank Head of School and Senior management  Feedback on broad themes from the review  Outline key commendations and recommendations  Review team administrator should confirm report timeline : aiming for final report within 10 weeks of review

Feedback meeting for staff and students

 Opportunity to thank all staff and students involved in the review preparations and the visit  Feedback on broad themes from the review  Outline key commendations and recommendations

DOCUMENT CONTROL Impact assessment July 2015 Date of commencement May 2013 Amendment dates July 2020 (version 11) Date for next review April 2021 Section responsible for Academic Services policy maintenance & review Related Policies, Procedures Policies and procedures at Guidelines & Regulations http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools- departments/academic-services/policies- regulations